Linked by Sean Oliviero on Wed 28th Jul 2004 05:54 UTC
The promise of Desktop Linux (DL) has been long coming. It's made significant progress since the mid-90s when GNOME and KDE came out, giving Linux users a somewhat modern desktop to work upon. However, it's been 7 years and DL hasn't progressed much at all since then. Today, DL is still nothing more than a UNIX-clone with a task bar, a start menu, and a desktop with some icons on it. But why has DL evolved at such a glacial pace?
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
--- "Linux will be ready for the desktop when their usable GUIs (ie KDE, Gnome) don't each up all a systems resources.
128-192mb of ram is insane. I'd rather use Windows XP, atleast I'd get compadibility."
Your perceptions on RAM usage are a bit skewed, both for Linux and WIndows XP, and as far as how much is too much.
I have a modern Gnome 2.6 desktop setup with a 2.6.7 kernel on a modern machine with 512mb RAM that I use regularly for various multi-media and gaming, but after booting and starting X Im generally using LESS then 100mb. After using it all day, and with Firefox, Gaim, and a few minor background things running to check my mail and update my xplanet generated background (so cool!), Im using only 113mb RAM.
There is no way Windows XP can be this lean. I know, I still have it installed, and I used it primarily for a while before I was finally comfortable to make the switch completely. Neither uses too much RAM though, not for a modern desktop anyway. Also, have you tried Vector linux? Its a great Win95-like graphical desktop that works ok on 32mb RAM.
If you want a light desktop, they are there, you are just ignoring them.