Talk:Lightweight Applications

From ArchWiki

What are the criteria for what makes software lightweight or not? If Thunderbird is included I find it strange that Firefox isn't included as well. --Trontonic 20:26, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't call anything based on Mozilla "lightweight". And definitely not Firefox, which is an infamous resource hog.—J. M. 23:20, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Whoops 19:24, 11 May 2009 (EDT) Is there actually a "heavier" email client than thunderbird? Maybe it doesn't add much, if someone already uses firefox - I don't know. And i don't know id there's a reason to keep it in the list. Anyone?

Whoops 19:24, 11 May 2009 (EDT) Yes, I think a definition of lightweight would be nice. It doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to be mathematical, it's just got to be there ;). Maybe just something like: "There's NO comparable program in the official repositories, that's better in at least 3 out of 5: CPU usage, RAM usage, few dependencies, small size, start time" - on a minimal arch system, without preload or anything that's not needed to run & use the program. Nobody has to prove it, nobody has to discuss hardware differences or anything that could influence it, but it's still some sort of guideline. Of course there's got to be a heavy alternative for something to be lightweight. And I do hope someone can make up a better definition/guideline.

Iron is bad

I've removed Iron. Chromium is already there and Iron is just a bad fork of it. It does not remove any spy-crap, which you can not turn off in Chromium[1]. Furthermore they host their source code on Rapidshare (!!!), so there's really no need to promote that piece of shit. --Donald-teh-Duck 19:18, 13 March 2010 (EST)