Razor and LXDE-Qt merging

So people try again on their own and just crank out something else terrible.

More often then that they are phrases that are used by people that are expressing a opinion, which is what I am doing.

> Without any sort of detail at all to back up your complaints?

What details do you want? It's not like anything I said was a secret.

I won't go into QT because it appears that it's a sore spot.

So I'll concentrate on the positive stuff:

I don't like duplicated work because it's inefficient and you end up with software that is inferior then if people just learned to work together and give up on their differences. All software sucks, all toolkits suck, all package management sucks.. It's all really terrible. Writing new toolkits or new software or new anything as 'alternatives' only really creates new things that suck in different ways. Only by spending a lot of slow grinding work fixing problems do things actually improve substantially. Things like the original split of GTK and QT was forgivable because the software licensing made accomplishing the goal of the Gnome dev's impossible, but since then it's been resolved and it's been a bit of a tragidy every since. It's true that sometimes you need to go back 10 steps to take 2 steps forward (ie abandon a approach that isn't working), but that's just the nature of progress.

And this is why LXDE and Razor all of a sudden got interesting, because they choose to work together. They didn't decide to go and create a new set of standards or guidelines or 'platforms' so that they can still do their own things, but actually decided to work together on the same thing for the same goal. This is a very promising thing. Really good news.

Also I remember how short of a time LXDE go to the point were it was decent, which was very short. So it makes me think that Razor is teaming up with a project ran by very competant people.

> Well perhaps you could write some solid guidelines on what it means to "run the system"? What does that even mean?

Well. Since you so nicely demanded a explaination I will attempt to give one:

When I say 'it would be nice if they actually get solid guidelines on what resources are required to run the systems', I mean to say: Quantify the amount of resources used by the OS and desktop system so people can know how much is left over to run their applications.

This is something LXDE got right and is why I would actually recommend using it for people who wanted something 'lighter'.

http://lxde.org/lxde

LXDE was probably the best of the bunch. Certainly one of the most usable. When it came out it was actually a breath of fresh air. I don't know how accurate those recommendations are nowadays, but it was certainly accurate when it came out.

Goto XFCE's page and they mention something like this:

https://wiki.xfce.org/minimum_requirements

> CPU: Intel Pentium I
> RAM: 32 Mb

Which is just plain silly. The other descriptions on that page are also not really accurate either. Like I mentioned before it is not unusual for XCFE to actually end up requiring more resources then Gnome or KDE as long as you stuck to Gnome/KDe's setup as intended by the devs.

Razor is easily the worst, referring to simply the ability to 'run on weaker machines', unless I am missing something on their website.

It's a nice thing to have these sorts of things quantified accurately. It's not the end of the world if it doesn't exist. Worst thing that happens is it just waste's a bunch of people's time trying to run the software on systems that can't really run it well and that creates a really bad impression and ruins credibility. I think accurate statements and documentation can create realistic expectations that helps to improve the experience massively.

For example: It's hard to get upset about software that runs like crap on a machine with 512MB of RAM when the software developer said you will need at least 1GB. Sometimes it can actually feel like you are accomplishing something by getting to run decently. However, it's very easy to get upset when the software developer, or at least a bunch of people claiming to be experts, says 256MB is plenty.

> You are like the person on the hot stranded subway car who complains about the heat.

That sounds like something I'd do if I was irritated about it.

But more importantly you said more then you probably anticipated:

By this very statement you are inferring that everything I talked about was blindingly obvious. Not only that, but I just made things more miserable for you by simply stating the obvious truth. Stuff you already knew and that you believe that everybody already knew, but nobody can do anything about.

Which means that your last sentance completely countradicts your desire to get any explaination at all from me and your claim you didn't understand what I was talking about.

> I guess you can get away with it in cyberspace.

Not to mention your entire post was intended to be a insult.

yay. I think I heard something about darkened kitchen appliances or something. I don't remember.

It was fun.

:P

> If you install a lean desktop you want all your applications to share as much memory as possible. When your applications are GTK and your desktop is Qt you effectively have to have both loaded into memory all the time.
You claimed you don't have a use for Qt, but since you're using a program (Razor, to be specific) that uses Qt, you obviously do have a use for Qt. You're contradicting yourself.