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.
Most of programs on list have dedicated page in arch wiki. Now the link from software name points to package homepage and few have link to arch wiki article at the end under HOWTO. I personally would prefere to point directly to arch wiki article (as it is in Common_Apps). What do you think? If you disagree, I will try to add link to arch wiki under HOWTO.