[plug] Gnome's annoying Windoze-isms

Daniel Pittman daniel at rimspace.net
Mon Apr 13 17:55:18 WST 2009

Ishwor <ishwor at posix.algorithmfreaks.com> writes:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Ishwor <ishwor at posix.algorithmfreaks.com> writes:
>>> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>>> Jason Posavec <jasonposavec at iinet.net.au> writes:
>>>>> I run gnome primarily because it is meant to be faster and lighter
>>>>> than the KDE alternative,
>>>> This has never been true to any measure I have found, with the one
>>>> exception that without prelinking the C++ code used to cost more in
>>>> startup dynamic linking overhead.
>>> I agree to Daniel in that Gnome has larger binary inter-dependencies
>>> than KDE.
>> Um.  I didn't say that, and I don't think it is (strictly speaking)
>> true, although the list of dependencies does support a view that the
>> FreeBSD packaging of it has more independent packages.
> The package names are pretty similar in ports VS. linuxs' package
> magagement right even though I could totally out of whack here.

No, you are generally right — I just couldn't be bothered to fact-check
my assumption that Fedora and Debian have the same breakdown as the rest
of the Linux distribution world, so I made a more restricted statement.

> If the first statement holds though, wouldn't it imply that the binary
> dependencies among Gnome/Gtk libs are more tightly coupled than KDE/Qt
> libs (i.e, the KDE vs. Gnome) and that?

Sorry, I don't really understand the question.  Which first statement
are you referring to?  My /guess/ is your "package names are..."
comment, so my response follows that assumption.

Anyway, um, no.  All that shows is that the GNOME people believe that
fine grained packaging is going to be easier for the project than KDE
do, since the later prefer big packages.

(The distribution packaging usually follows the upstream packaging
 conventions fairly closely, because anything else leads to madness.)


More information about the plug mailing list