Why gnome or kde???

[sgt_b]

I have a crappy 266MHz, 37 MB laptop that I thought was dead and useless. I started messing with nix and presto! the laptop breathes again! Of course it was sluggish, and slow. I was running gnome at the time. I recently switched over to fluxbox, and its really quite amazing how much faster this little laptop is! Now I have a nice little penetration testing laptop that runs everything I need!

Question is....why use a memory hog GUI like Gnome or KDE? I agree there are some nice little bells and whistles on there, but why use such a system hog when there are things like flux?

Just looking for some other opinions on the subject!
:D

[Jomboni]

If you have 512 megs like I do Gnome and KDE aren't really memory hogs!

Although I still use Fluxbox...

[z0mbix]

I've always used Blackbox, Fluxbox or Openbox, but at the moment I'm trying out GNOME2 as it's now in Debian and I like it alot. My box (Athlon XP 2000+ w/521MB RAM) can easliy handle this and it performs very well so why shouldn't I use it? ;)

I still prefer a minimal environment, but my fiancee really likes a full blown environment with all the bells and whistles that it provides. She uses RH8.0 Gnome2/bluecurve and loves it.

She hates *box as it doesn't have icons, and everything needs to be configured via config files whereas Gnome2 worked out the box for her and she can configure everything via GUI's.

[Clone5k]

I use fluxbox on my 166mhz/32mb ram box. Works just fine :)

[thread_killer]

1 GB DDR RAM in my home machine. What's wrong with some bells and whistles? I kind of like how KDE looks, especially with the liquid gui theme :)

My daughters P II 266, 96mb EDO RAM box.....she runs a little slow in Gnome, but she's eight, so ease of use is more important than speed to her.

My war dialer/penetration tester/port scanner laptop has no gui anything on it. It's a P75 with 32 MB ram and it works lickety split.

I have another nearly identical laptop that I only use for console connections to Cisco devices, again no GUI, again works fine.

My SYSloggers are P II 233's and 266's with 32mb ram and 10 GB hd. KDE is way too slow on them, but some of the people I have working for me are way too ignorant to figure out how to check the syslogs without a gui, so I'm probably going to migrate those to flux or open box and re-train them. Of course, first I'll have to train myself :D

It's all about having the right tool for the job.

[sgt_b]

1GB RAM.....512GB RAM...ok ok! Gnome and KDE for those machines....:D

I guess I'm just all excited since this is my first time running Flux, and am quite impressed with the ablilty to bring a machine back form the dead.

I guess I like the minimal environment as well Cheeky. All just preference I guess!

:)

[MartinB]

I run an Athlon 1800+ with 256MB RAM... I use Flux mainly for the faster start-up time... with KDE, I have to wait around for those icon thingies to colour themselves in, with Flux, I hit enter and I'm straight in.

Besides, I think Fluxbox just looks cooler, and I wanna learn to do some neat desktop configurations, like icons, launcher bars, transparrant terminal windows with no decorations on start-up etc.. :)

[jglen490]

Why not?

Isn't that the idea -- to have choices?

If you like one of the *box wm's, and someone else likes IceWM and someone else likes KDE, it seems to me that's good enuff! I'm glad you have found what works for you -- personally, I don't like the *box wm's, but that's immaterial, right ;) ?!?

[leebase]

Originally posted by MartinB
I run an Athlon 1800+ with 256MB RAM... I use Flux mainly for the faster start-up time... with KDE, I have to wait around for those icon thingies to colour themselves in, with Flux, I hit enter and I'm straight in.

Besides, I think Fluxbox just looks cooler, and I wanna learn to do some neat desktop configurations, like icons, launcher bars, transparrant terminal windows with no decorations on start-up etc.. :)

I have Mandrake 9.0 and am suffering the performance problems of kde (only 80mg of ram).

If I switch to flux will I still be able to use the graphical config utilities?

Lee

[IvanHoe]

Personally I like things light weight and simple, so I use XFce; no Gnome, no KDE, just XFce.

[ferreter]

The difference is in the apps you get with Gnome or KDE. You don't get anything that you didn't have when you run just *box or other minimalist environments. I don't use the extras in kde or gnome so I stick with fluxbox but many people, especially if they have previous windows experience, like the robustness of those desktops (can't really call them wm's as they rely on wm's like sawfish to run).

[tripwire45]

I think the general tone of this thread is that Linux is flexable. Everybody has their idea of what the ideal environment would be for them, ranging from the CLI to a full blown GUI with all the "bells and whistles". There's no right or wrong in this. It's just a matter of having a choice and exercising our preferences.