| |||||||||||||
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad IdeaNautilus on Desktop is a Bad IdeaPosted Apr 24, 2008 2:40 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190)In reply to: Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea by cortana Parent article: The Grumpy Editor encounters the Hardy Heron
So much for the whole "bring your ancient hardware back to life with Linux" argument. Oh well... guess it's time to throw out my perfectly function P2/333 then - oh hang on, I can't because I live in Europe; it costs less to keep it running than it would to dispose of it.
(Log in to post comments)
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea Posted Apr 24, 2008 6:00 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] No, so much for "Run new shiny Linux Desktop on old junk". Noone prevents you from installing a light-weight desktop, it's what they are there for. (I have old junk too, but I install things that are suitable for old junk)
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea Posted Apr 24, 2008 14:25 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] What increased functionality am I getting for the shiny? I keep asking that question, and the "bugger all" I keep answering is why I don't regard said P2 as junk yet - it runs fluxbox just fine, and the only reason it isn't my usual desktop is the great big inefficient heap of shit that is firefox (which even on larger, faster machines behaves as though it's the only program I'd ever need in memory - it's a *web browser*, for crying out loud! a desktop accessory!) and the even bigger one that is openoffice. Trust me, if there were usable lightweight alternatives to those I'd be using them; unfortunately, more and more programs that would be (or worse, used to be) quite useful to me if they only depended on gtk or qt cleave ever closer to GNOME or KDE (abiword is a good example). Once upon a time, one of the more compelling arguments for using Linux was that it allowed you to step off the upgrade treadmill and use the kit you had for longer. Increasingly I'm getting the sense that this is no longer feasible. You might not care about that, but those who cannot look after their own minorities have no business pleading for minority recognition themselves.
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea Posted Apr 24, 2008 16:05 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] Fluxbox is definately a fine WM, by all means use it, if you don't think you get anything out of running a heavier WM/desktop. Abiword is probably the most lightweight word processor there is... Heck, it doesn't even require X, if you don't need a UI (Which admittedly, most people do for wordprocessing). I don't know if your distribution chose to build it against GNOME libraries, which is an option, but that is hardly neither Abiword nor GNOME's fault. In Ubuntu (and probably Debian), you can choose a GTK or GNOME-bound version. There is plenty of browser alternatives. If you don't find them usable enough, then maybe that could be what you are getting for the shiny? While I fully respect the need to running programs on older computers, there's no reason to keep everyone on the minimum resources, especially when there IS lightweight alternatives. That those alternatives doesn't suit you, has nothing to do with not looking after minorities.
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea Posted Apr 25, 2008 3:13 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > While I fully respect the need to running programs on older computers, there's no reason to keep everyone on the minimum resources Yes there is. If you optimise for low resource usage, *everyone* benefits. If you optimise for current hardware, you just screwed everyone who can't upgrade yet. > There is plenty of browser alternatives ...which are...? Just the actively-developed FOSS ones, please - let's at least try to maintain a level playing field. But anyway, I just experimented; I went and grabbed an old copy of Mozilla 1.5 (you know, the browser that Firefox replaced because it was "too heavyweight") - and it runs like a dream on my current hardware. I'm using it right now. Moreover, it doesn't unduly compromise my web experience... *yet*; I'm at the mercy of a million script kiddies deciding that "nobody uses sub-GHz computers / single-threaded Javascript engines / machines without Flash" any more, and not bothering to ensure that they don't lock out anyone whose hardware doesn't match their own in specification. (I used to use links -g from the framebuffer, until too many sites decided that Javascript is non-negotiable, and "a sea of DIVs" could be used as a description of both the content and its authors, and I got a couple of computers with no good framebuffer support.) Once FF3 is my only choice, I'm screwed. And complacency like yours is responsible for that, unless you're going to buy me a brand new computer every 3 years. (Nah, didn't think so.) > Abiword is probably the most lightweight word processor there is... Actually, the combination of vi, troff and gv probably fulfils that description. Notable is the absence of bloat with each new release of that software - vim isn't putting on the pounds in anywhere near the same way that firefox, soffice, KDE or GNOME are. Hell, the whole set is probably fast enough that you can preview your changes in more or less realtime now - which is as it should be; more capacitous hardware should let you do more, not get soaked up by an infrastructure that expands even more rapidly, and feature addition should not cause supra-exponential resource usage growth. As for Abiword, well... it's lightweight compared with OpenOffice, but overall? Er, no - and last time I tried to compile it without GNOME support, it insisted in having a goodly chunk of GNOME architecture around anyway (and my patience got exhausted before I retrieved all of it). It's also sufficiently unpredictable that I can't trust it not to mangle my work (I'm glad I'm not at university any more). Rather than turning on the condescension, perhaps you might consider that I've been at this long enough to look for solutions, and not find them where I might have done a few years ago, and *that*'s why I'm disgusted? That from my perspective, the new world order with which you seem to be so infatuated is actually a *regression*?
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea Posted Apr 25, 2008 8:10 UTC (Fri) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] You keep mentioning alternatives that are more lightweight yourself, but you seem to refuse to use them. ...which are...? Just the actively-developed FOSS ones, please - let's at least try to maintain a level playing field. If it's so important for you to use the latest and greatest with the oldest and puniest, you are going to have to help making the monsters more light. You could also i.e. help add CSS and JavaScript support to Dillo. But don't expect people like me to stop using the extra power of recent hardware to add features we like, we are not here to help your agendas, but to help ourselves and our agendas.
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea Posted Apr 25, 2008 15:31 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > You keep mentioning alternatives that are more lightweight yourself, but you seem to refuse to use them. ...except that I *do* use them, day in day out, and find myself screwed as a result. Since you weren't even able to grasp that point, I don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation. You just go right along coding for the top 1% of computers and hope that Moore will solve all your problems. But he won't - you *are* the problem.
Nautilus on Desktop is a Bad Idea Posted Apr 26, 2008 0:51 UTC (Sat) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > If it's so important for you to use the latest and greatest with the oldest and puniest, you are going to have to help making the monsters more light. The monsters I can't even *compile*?
|
|||||||||||||