On 08/09/2012 12:15 AM, Thijs van severen wrote:
2012/8/9 Dan MacDonald <allcoms@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:allcoms@xxxxxxxxx>> I certainly prefer XFCE to GNOME 3 but XFCE still has a few rough edges and bugs and Thunar is no longer the lightweight app it once claimed to be. I use rox filer on my Pandaboard as it has a comparable feature to Thunar but loads almost instantly compared to the 20s or so I can be waiting for Thunar to get its act together (this is running off a SSD via USB2). I can load dolphin in the same time it takes to load Thunar under fluxbox. wow GNOME3 takes another hit ... seems like XFCE is getting bigger all the time
Compared to KDE4/GNOME3, LXDE, XFCE are still dwarves. Both of them take more than Fluxbox. On the other hand, they DO more than Fluxbox. And KDE4 (at least) does a lot more than LXDE or XFCE even attempt to do.
If I do one of my panorama projects (programmatically generating control points for 6MP images at full size) on my laptop, I have to boot to a terminal (no X at all) and run from the command line because it takes ~2GB memory to process a single image, and running X takes enough memory that swapping makes the process take hours ...
isn't it also the default for ubuntu studio ?
What does Ubuntu Studio use now? Haven't looked at it for awhile. Regular Ubuntu uses their own Unity desktop. One flavor of it uses 3D. The other is Unity 2D, which is supposed to be less resource intensive than the 3D version. In my experience with Unity (on my wife's netbook), it has compatibility issues with many other programs courtesy of its attempt to force applications to share a single menu bar (vs each application having its own menu bar in its own window).
-- David gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx authenticity, honesty, community http://clanjones.org/david/ http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
