I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

punkrockguy318 · 2004-10-18 22:29:00

Kde Libraries/Base/Bindings - 80 megs
Full KDE - 200 megs
Full GNOME - 80 megs
Base Gnome - 55 megs

I hear so many people saying "Ew, it's using gnome-libs I don't wanna install that" I have said this many times. It's seemed like a lot of usage on my hard drive with all those packages... In reality, 50 megs for GNOME libs or 80 megs for KDE isn't a lot at all.. Heck, UT2004 is around 90 times bigger than installing base KDE and GNOME libs. Thanks to modern technology, most PCs have 80 - 120 gigs on them.. Even with this 30 gig hard drive, 150 megs does not even put a dent. Unless your using a floppy for your hard drive, it won't hurt to install gnome and kde libaries. You need a gig and a half for just winblows stuff! Just because it says:

Targets: hal-0.2.97-2 libgsf-1.9.1-1 gnome-desktop-2.8.0-1 nautilus-2.8.1-1
         nautilus-cd-burner-2.8.1-1 libdvdcss-1.2.8-1 libdvdread-0.9.4-2
         libdvdnav-0.1.9-2 faac-1.24-1 faad2-2.0-5 hermes-1.3.3-1
         libmikmod-3.1.11-1 gtk-1.2.10-4 mjpegtools-1.6.2-1 gst-plugins-0.8.5-1
         totem-0.99.19-2

Total Package Size:   11.5 MB

Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]

It seems like a lot of depedencies, being on four lines and all... But it's really not that much. I won't hurt to have it on your PC.

Just my .2 for the day

slackhack · 2004-10-18 22:47:31

i totally agree, and it's worth it to be able to run apps like K3B, grip, gedit, etc. without having to use gnome or KDE themselves. best of both worlds.

wickedlester · 2004-10-19 01:21:31

Right on man! I remeber when I started using a pc I had a 4 gig hard drive. I am sure most people today have at least that much. It's not like it's "wasting" space.

punkrockguy318 · 2004-10-19 01:31:14

Yeah, forreal. It just feels like your "junking up your computer" because it's like 20 packages. I used to have all GNOME/KDE and a bunch of other apps, 12 cds of oggs, a couple movies, a bunch of WMs, and a web server on my PC and I was only using 2.5 gigs. It's really nothing to worry about

paranoos · 2004-10-19 02:26:47

your first pc had a 4gb hard drive?
am i really that old? my first pc had 100mb, and that was a LOT. at least the drive was silent. a few years later, we upgraded to 450mb, and it was noisy. oh well. gotta love the 486DX 33MHz.

installing all these desktop environments becomes a hassle when i have to upgrade my mom's computer every once in a while, and there's a brand new version of gnome out. ~130mb of packages last time, and it had to update scrollkeeper after every other installed package... that's retarded. Checking for file conflicts alone took a few minutes on her Duron 800.

robot5x · 2004-10-19 09:58:35

Agreed - HD space is not an issue anymore, but for me it's the principle. If I was going to make a new app/package I'd make it so that anyone could use it (including millions of people who don't use kde/gnome) without downloading a shitload of stuff that they shouldn't have to. I've got enough space to install gnome, but I'm not going to do it just to use grip - cutting my nose off to spite my face? You bet!

KalephOne · 2004-10-19 15:14:31

paranoos wrote:

your first pc had a 4gb hard drive?
am i really that old? my first pc had 100mb, and that was a LOT. at least the drive was silent. a few years later, we upgraded to 450mb, and it was noisy. oh well. gotta love the 486DX 33MHz.

You're not alone - i remember when we had a 386 with a 100mb hd and when a uncle told me he had buyed a 250mb hd i thought: WOW!
--
about libs: well, i also dont like having to download lots of libs/toolkits, but i think thats the price to pay for having options: some people like to program in qt, others gtk, fox, python, mono, etc.

sarah31 · 2004-10-19 15:30:43

for me it is not a matter of size .. it never was. i just don't want gnome or kde libs on my system. i don't like them. when i reinstalled arch after giving up on crux i managed to avoid any gnome or kde libs (i believe). all that i had to "sacrifice" was celestia but i never ran it anyway.

kth5 · 2004-10-19 16:10:07

if someone really want's to go for it and needs both GNOME and KDE on more than one comp she/he should really think of mounting /usr or something from NFS!
anyway, GNOME isn't all that big so it won't hurt much to have it beside KDE but the other way around it's a bit more wasteful. when i think of what KDE want's to have up before it runs a single Konqueror or Kate session... eww... Dcop, kdeinit a.s.o guess GNOME is much more lightweight here.

anyway, i don't care much for GNOME since the KDE enviroment - yes, it's not only a WM - offers almost everything u prolly ever need out of the box. and what's so wrong about using cdparanoia + oggenc to rip-cds?

xerxes2 · 2004-10-19 16:35:09

this isn't a matter of disc space it's about ram memory , cpu power and zillions of bugs,
I don't use QT and I can load up over 20 programs and not using more than 200MB ram
I've only got 256MB,

kth5 · 2004-10-19 16:41:31

xerxes2 wrote:

this isn't a matter of disc space it's about ram memory , cpu power and zillions of bugs,
I don't use QT and I can load up over 20 programs and not using more than 200MB ram
I've only got 256MB,

hmm, i have exactly the same scenario on my laptop. it's only a Celeron 700 + 256MB ram. i run kde, mozilla thunderbird, several konsole session, xchat2, xmms plus some more konqueror session w/o any problem. only thing that is lagging behind is my GFX card which needs a share of the system memory. anway, my system in KDE w/ all these apps up needs only ~120MB the rest is filled up w/ diskcache or whatever. it's not bad for a desktop system that is not supposed to render 3D or viewing 100MB+ large files from memory.

xerxes2 · 2004-10-19 18:59:30

kth5 wrote:

hmm, i have exactly the same scenario on my laptop. it's only a Celeron 700 + 256MB ram. i run kde, mozilla thunderbird, several konsole session, xchat2, xmms plus some more konqueror session w/o any problem. only thing that is lagging behind is my GFX card which needs a share of the system memory. anway, my system in KDE w/ all these apps up needs only ~120MB the rest is filled up w/ diskcache or whatever. it's not bad for a desktop system that is not supposed to render 3D or viewing 100MB+ large files from memory.

I'm impressed!
I havn't tried kde since 3.2.0 and it was totally unusuable due to bugs, crashes, bloat and so forth,
the kde devs must been busy since then...

punkrockguy318 · 2004-10-19 19:12:04

xerxes2 wrote:

kth5 wrote:
hmm, i have exactly the same scenario on my laptop. it's only a Celeron 700 + 256MB ram. i run kde, mozilla thunderbird, several konsole session, xchat2, xmms plus some more konqueror session w/o any problem. only thing that is lagging behind is my GFX card which needs a share of the system memory. anway, my system in KDE w/ all these apps up needs only ~120MB the rest is filled up w/ diskcache or whatever. it's not bad for a desktop system that is not supposed to render 3D or viewing 100MB+ large files from memory.
I'm impressed!
I havn't tried kde since 3.2.0 and it was totally unusuable due to bugs, crashes, bloat and so forth,
the kde devs must been busy since then...

I was even quite impressed with KDE 3.3.x. I use KDM for my default DM all the time.. GDM is too buggy.. WDM/XDM too ugly... I actually made KDM look pretty sexy.. People say you can't, but it's not that hard... I'll make some screenies if anyone want some

phrakture · 2004-10-19 19:27:44

you can make XDM look sexy too - check out the official arch xdm theme (search on the forums somewhere)

though I don't use any DM anymore... startx pw0nz j00!

kth5 · 2004-10-19 21:04:34

maybe most people don't keep in mind that KDE provides them with everything build on top of QT+kdelibs. of course this is a bad thing if they run complex software like anjuta, mozilla or whatever, which make no use of the cached things but rather try to load their own. :twisted:

to sum up: if they would use mostly KDE/QT apps the bloat overshoots to the user's advantage since all programs use the same libs which most probably already hang in memory somewhere. this not only makes them start up faster the first time after KDE boots but it's a breeze for your comp to relaunch them as well.

:edit:
oh yeah, not to forget. it's only natural that people that try to migrate over to KDE from WMs like fluxbox think it's slow. since KDE takes quite a lot of their resources compared to their plain fluxbox it's much harder for their comps to run all the apps that use GTK+ here, FLTK there, Bonobo elsewhere... heh

rehcra · 2004-10-20 09:08:51

phrakture wrote:

though I don't use any DM anymore... startx pw0nz j00!

I use plain xinit .

Arch Linux

#1 2004-10-18 22:29:00

I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#2 2004-10-18 22:47:31

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#3 2004-10-19 01:21:31

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#4 2004-10-19 01:31:14

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#5 2004-10-19 02:26:47

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#6 2004-10-19 09:58:35

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#7 2004-10-19 15:14:31

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#8 2004-10-19 15:30:43

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#9 2004-10-19 16:10:07

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#10 2004-10-19 16:35:09

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#11 2004-10-19 16:41:31

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#12 2004-10-19 18:59:30

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#13 2004-10-19 19:12:04

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#14 2004-10-19 19:27:44

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#15 2004-10-19 21:04:34

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

#16 2004-10-20 09:08:51

Re: I don't want all those GNOME and KDE libs on my system!

Board footer