It would seem to me that since my performance rant that there are a bunch of problems related to a GUI desktop for Linux that kind of "snaps" as far as the user experience is concerned (again understanding that one mans speed is another mans sluggish, etc. etc.)
We're also getting a lot of info/opinions about the specific issues and some very specific fixes. My impression so far is that the Linux GUI desktop can be "fixed" by basically optimizing the individual structures, X, fonts, wm, etc. WITHOUT starting from scratch (X and associated stuff). Is that the impression others have. For me it sounds pretty good, certainly better than I was thinking (in my ignorance 8*). I'm an old fart but I still have to say *KEWL* Peace, Mike Wafkowski ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Messmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice? > MWafkowski wrote: > > I'll try to distill my point. At this time there is no full blown GUI > > (functonality, eye candy, ease of use, etc.) that is not a pig on Linux. > > http://www.xfce.org/ > > > I'm quite willing to concede that the problem might be KDE or Gnome, but > > since they must reside on X it's hard for me to believe that no one has > > developed a "full blown" GUI for Linux that does not suck (performance > > wise - look and feel is obviously a matter or preference) if X were not part > > of the problem. > > X is part of the problem. One of the most glaring problems is the > recently introduced Xrender extension. Among other things, it's used > for the also-recently-introduced Xft2 (font display). Because it's new, > it's not accelerated. For a lot of stuff it isn't a huge hit; in other > situations it is. > > Most of X is very small, and very fast. Xrender will eventually be > optimized and accelerated. > > > If someone wiser in the ways of code and hardware could explain to me if > > (and how) that's not true I'd be glad to hear and place the "blame" > > exclusively at the feet of KDE and Gnome. > > GNOME and KDE pay a lot for their eye candy: root window drawn by an > application rather than cached in the server, theme engines, alpha > blended icons... All of this is currently done in software and isn't > well optimized. > > > > But then why is there not an > > alternative to them that does not drag like a boat anchor on anything but > > state-of-the-art hardware? > > Because optimization is hard? > > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
