On 7/30/06, Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> We will ship what we feel to be the optimal tradeoff between resources and
> functionality. Note that Tomboy and Mono consume nothing but disk space
> unless you actually run the application, so you don't need to worry about it
> on low-memory machines. OpenOffice.org gets pretty unhappy on such systems
> as well.
I know but you missed my point. Why should an efficient app (Gthumb) be
replaced with one thats considerably more inefficient by default?
I see this claim that "Mono is bloated" being bandied about a lot.
However, I don't see much evidence either way. In this specific
instance, do you have hard data that gthumb uses less memory than
However, this is really beating around the bush, because the biggest
issue is that gthumb is basically dead as an upstream, while fspot is
very active. Gthumb also has serious issues with importing and
stability. So even if you were to come with evidence that gthumb is
smaller (memory wise), I I just don't see it out weighing the
unmaintained aspect of gthumb.
Oh, and lets keep this on topic of gthumb, fspot and other mono apps.
Lets no wander off into OOo and abiword, etc or even what to ship by
default beyond this specific issues. There are good reasons to talk
about those, just not in this thread.
ubuntu-devel mailing list