Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lightweight Applications"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Why is Chromium included?: new section)
(Kazehakaze: new section)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
How does it come that Chromium is included as a "lightweight" browser? According to my own finding and about all random tests that are to be found on the internet - Chromium will eat your memory for breakfast. This being one random finding to support my case: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory . I thought we all had understood that the memory leaks of old days are gone now. [[User:Rovanion|Rovanion]] 00:38, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
 
How does it come that Chromium is included as a "lightweight" browser? According to my own finding and about all random tests that are to be found on the internet - Chromium will eat your memory for breakfast. This being one random finding to support my case: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory . I thought we all had understood that the memory leaks of old days are gone now. [[User:Rovanion|Rovanion]] 00:38, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Kazehakaze ==
 +
 +
Kazehakaze is a buggy browser. There are lots and lots of tiny little bugs that drives you crazy once you start to use it. So I removed it.

Revision as of 14:44, 13 November 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.

Why is Chromium included?

How does it come that Chromium is included as a "lightweight" browser? According to my own finding and about all random tests that are to be found on the internet - Chromium will eat your memory for breakfast. This being one random finding to support my case: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory . I thought we all had understood that the memory leaks of old days are gone now. Rovanion 00:38, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Kazehakaze

Kazehakaze is a buggy browser. There are lots and lots of tiny little bugs that drives you crazy once you start to use it. So I removed it.