Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lightweight Applications"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Merge discussion)
(Merge discussion: apology)
Line 39: Line 39:
==Merge discussion==
==Merge discussion==
See [[ArchWiki:Reports#Define 'common' and 'lightweight' applications]]
See [[ArchWiki:Reports#Define 'common' and 'lightweight' applications]]
Alright, sorry for removing merge template. I didn't know about this discussion and I somehow thought that since I added link the other article, template is not necessary. -- [[User:Corvinus|Corvinus]] 15:35, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:35, 21 September 2011

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)

Chromium removed -- Karol 10:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


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.


Since Mousepad has seen no new releases for well over a year now, should it still be included? Khne522 08:50, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Mousepad removed. -- Karol 10:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

FTP clients

Possibly add FTP clients to the list. curlftp would be an option, as well as fuseftp. Also should decide on a place of where to put these

I think you should add them to the bottom of the internet section. -- Karol 22:04, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Network managers

Shouldn't netcfg be on the list here? -- Jocom 09:37, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Sure, go ahead and add it. -- Karol 10:43, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Merge discussion

See ArchWiki:Reports#Define 'common' and 'lightweight' applications

Alright, sorry for removing merge template. I didn't know about this discussion and I somehow thought that since I added link the other article, template is not necessary. -- Corvinus 15:35, 21 September 2011 (EDT)