|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

M[io][cn][ro]... man

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 9:10 UTC (Fri) by sylware (guest, #35259)
Parent article: Mono man accuses Mac Gtk+ fans of jeopardizing Linux desktop (the Register)

Hum... if he could drop its baby bloats (mono and such...) and work on getting the fat out of
GTK... that would be quite better...


to post comments

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 11:30 UTC (Fri) by whitemice (guest, #3748) [Link] (11 responses)

Gtk doesn't depend on Mono  (and several tests have shown that Mono is pretty memory
efficient, even if it did).

And where is the fat in Gtk?  libgtk-x11 is a scant 3.7Mb and has a pretty tiny list of
dependencies (X11, ATK, Glib, Pango, libpng, & freetype), all of which are entirely
reasonable.

This bloat argument people trot out against OOo, GNOME, KDE, etc... needs to be put down once
and for all.  None of the aforementioned products have much bloat at all - bloat is being
unreasonably big and burdened by dependencies given the task at hand.  The task at hand is
HUGE!  People want a nice desktop where printing *just works*, and the bits talk to one
another (thus you have to have an IPC mechanism), devices hotplug and magically appear, rich
media like images can be cut-n-pasted, etc...  That is allot of work and therefore allot of
code.   Features have a price and I (and no other reasonable) user is willing to give up any
of the aforementioned because they save time (the truly scarce resource).    GNOME is pretty
darn lite, not perfect, but not bloated in comparison to what it does.  It is extremely
modular, you can remove bits if you are masochistic enough to want to.   Most of the bloat
arguments come from people who look at "top" and don't understand the UNIX memory model (RSS
!= memory consumed;  it is actually really complicated).   And most people who think running a
"lite" desktop saves them anything significant are kidding themselves - as soon as they fire
up a usable app all the plumbing behind it fires up dynamically anyway - you might get better
performance (at least application start time) by just running the real thing.

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 13:39 UTC (Fri) by tetromino (guest, #33846) [Link] (1 responses)

> libgtk-x11 is a scant 3.7Mb and has a pretty tiny list of dependencies (X11, ATK, Glib,
Pango, libpng, & freetype), all of which are entirely reasonable.

The libX11 dependency is not reasonable. A modern toolkit should only depend on xcb.
Unfortunately, apparently switching to xcb will break API since someone had the *awesome* idea
of using xlib types in a gdk public header...

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 14:11 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

That only means they need to depend on the xlib headers, not the library. 
They could use xcb and convert themselves.. but the whole of <gdk/gdkx.h> 
does seem to be rather wired into the Xlib world, yes. It's not just the 
types, it's what the functions *do*.

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 16:01 UTC (Fri) by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983) [Link] (5 responses)

From your knowledge of the internal workings of Gnome, I assume you are one of the team of
developers, if not a core member.  Could I make a suggestion on making Gnome lighter than it
appears to many?  If you are amenable, change the design where some components that go unused
are not forced upon those that prefer the Gnome desktop.

My suggestions would begin with making the Gnome browser an option.  I know others have asked
how to remove it (many of us prefer other browsers) to be told it is impossible.  My second
suggestion applies to the built-in Gnome eMailer.  It used to be a much larger pain than I
find it presently when it would appear when my default was Thunderbird.  Again for the many
that use other email clients, why is it necessary?

I know that this may not be a practical under this version, but since you are preparing for a
major break why cannot Gnome really become more modular than it is at present?

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 17:29 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

The 'Gnome browser'? Epiphany is optional, Nautilus and Metacity aren't, 
but only because you can't build gnome-control-center without their 
headers: I think you can install it without them (though a couple of 
metacity/nautilus-related capplets might fail).

GNOME components

Posted Jul 19, 2008 10:56 UTC (Sat) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]

Metacity is mostly optional - it's only responsible for a few keyboard shortcuts (Alt-F1, Alt-F2). Nautilus is becoming more essential - features are being moved from gnome-volume-manager into it.

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 19, 2008 14:27 UTC (Sat) by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983) [Link]

Actually other than when the Gnome email insisted on appearing uninvited I really have no real
complaints with Gnome.

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 18:23 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't get what you mean. I don't use Epiphany, nor Evolution. That is perfectly possible.
Further, a lot of distributions use Compiz instead of Metacity, so... where do you see that
these are required?

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 19, 2008 14:25 UTC (Sat) by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983) [Link]

As I mentioned, the problem with the email no longer occurs, it might be due to the
distribution I use.  However, previously when attempting to use an email link, the Gnome
application used to insert itself.  Now Thunderbird works, ignoring Gnome (which is my
preference).

The other comments were just musing that for some, the absence of some applications would not
be missed.

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 18, 2008 17:26 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I'm not sure I'd describe OOo as being non-bloated. Last I saw it 
epitomised the reinvent-the-wheel approach, implementing its own widget 
set, its own object model, its own bloody everything (although at least 
ooo-build lets you coerce it into using an external copy of 
fontconfig/Xft/freetype). I was surprised it didn't come with its own 
video drivers.

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 20, 2008 10:58 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (1 responses)

Most of the bloat arguments come from people who look at "top" and don't understand the UNIX memory model [...].
That is demonstrably not true. I have run several machines with very low RAM (<256 MB) and running XFCE4 saves a lot of resources, even when using complex applications like Firefox. Not only according to top or free, but seeing how much swap it requires and how usable the thing is. With XFCE4 it is actually snappy most of the time. With GNOME every click is a torture.
It is extremely modular, you can remove bits if you are masochistic enough to want to.
I have found I can live without the features you mention (IPC, desktop printing, desktop hotplug, rich copy paste). I cannot however run GNOME on my EEE. Since I cannot actually leave those bits out, it is not "extremely" modular. It is "masochistically" modular, which means that developers don't think users should leave those bits out and don't provide the means to do so.

M[io][cn][ro]... man

Posted Jul 20, 2008 19:51 UTC (Sun) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]

Indeed; converting from GNOME to XFCE would yield memory saving for most users: the average
GNOME user probably runs several non-GTK+/GNOME applications: Firefox, Thunderbird, and OOo.
Thunderbird consumes the same amount of RAM within or without GNOME; Firefox consumes less
because the GNOME integration won't be loaded.

You'll be saacrificing the convenience of several GNOME tools -- keyboard management (layout
manager, multimedia keyboards, and shortcut handling are very nicely executed in GNOME), but
power users with tight memory budgets would find XFCe just fine.

I'm a bit concerned about the seeming lack of activity on their web pages and developer blogs,
though...


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds