| |||||||||||||
The return of IceweaselThe return of IceweaselPosted Sep 26, 2006 16:14 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111)In reply to: The return of Iceweasel by cventers Parent article: The return of Iceweasel
The memory footprint of Konqerour is only "tiny" if you are running KDE, and have already payed the price of the KDE libs. As a standalone under GNOME or whatever, it might still be smaller than Firefox; I don't know. But "tiny"?
(Log in to post comments)
The return of Iceweasel Posted Sep 26, 2006 18:20 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] Typically, I find that the footprint of konqueror (and all its daemons)is around half that of firefox. I don't run KDE.
The return of Iceweasel Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:17 UTC (Thu) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] No, it really is tiny. However, re-using libraries is a benefit not a disadvantage. The whole point ofcommon library code is to share it between applications, thereby reducing memory use, increasing integration, and improving testing and refinement.
The return of Iceweasel Posted Sep 28, 2006 16:36 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] Splitting the footprint doesn't change it. If you don't otherwise use those shared libraries, then it doesn't matter how small the konqueror binary is; the total footprint must include those libraries, since they are loaded solely to support konqueror. The fact that they can support other KDE binaries is irrelevent. The other comment claims the total is still around half the total for Firefox, so I guess I'll give it another try. If only KDE weren't so ugly... :-) (NOTE SMILEY! I'M EXPRESSING PERSONAL OPINION ON A MATTER OF TASTE. THAT'S ALL. NO NEED TO FIGHT ABOUT IT.)
|
|||||||||||||