Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lightweight Applications"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Mono Applications: new section)
m (Mono Applications)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
== Mono Applications ==
 
== Mono Applications ==
  
Do mono applications count (in this case, smuxi)? I have nothing against mono but it is a very big package and mono applications tend to take up a lot of ram. I recommend removing smuxi from the list for this reason but would like confirmation on my reasoning first.
+
Do mono applications count? I have nothing against mono but it is a very big package and mono applications tend to take up a lot of ram. I have removed smuxi for this reason; if you disagree, add it back.

Revision as of 04:57, 12 June 2010

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)

Mono Applications

Do mono applications count? I have nothing against mono but it is a very big package and mono applications tend to take up a lot of ram. I have removed smuxi for this reason; if you disagree, add it back.