[linux-elitists] gnome, trial by fire
Wed Jan 7 09:18:48 PST 2004
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:21:46AM +0000, Peter Whysall wrote:
> on Tue, Jan 06, 2004, Aaron Lehmann (email@example.com) wrote:
> > The first thing I got when GNOME started up was a segmentation fault
> > from the Mixer applet. It offered to remove the applet for me and I
> > agreed.
> > Gnome is pretty responsive these days. At least on modern hardware...
> > My dad runs it on his 500mhz K6-2 and it never felt nearly this smooth
> > there.
> Yeah, one of the things I'm happiest about in GNOME2 is the slickness of
> it; it feels much smoother and "together" than GNOME1.x or KDE.
Perhaps it is because you are using a recent kernel for your recent
test, and were not for the other desktop environments? :)
> > gconf truly scares me. Looking through it, I can't see how it differs
> > significantly from the Windows Registry. I know someone will yell at
> > me for saying that, but I'm not attempting to troll. I really disagree
> > that such a system is a sane way to keep track of configurations, and
> > I think that gconf will ultimately be detrimental to users.
> It's way different.
> 1. The windows registry stores system settings. GConf doesn't.
> 2. The windows registry is stored in a number of binary files. GConf is
> stored (at the moment) in XML files which (you're an elitist, right?)
> you can hack on with XEmacs.
> 3. The windows registry does not contain any metadata. GConf does.
Actually, the windows registry, like all Object Manager managed
components in Windows, contains a baseline level of metadata required
for the security and auditing subsystem. This includes Orange Book
style owner, inheritance flags, DACL, and SACL information as well as
last modification time.
Win9x doesn't do this, but:
- it's not really Windows, and
- who cares about win9x anyway, it was crap.
- Jason Last known location: 1.3 miles northeast of Union City, CA
The stage between puberty and adultery.
More information about the linux-elitists