> On 16-01-04 10:02 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Monday 04 January 2016 14:49:00 Alexandre wrote: > >> Which one? KDE5? > >> KDE Plasma 5 is now default on Kubuntu 15.10 > >> > >>> on Kubuntu 15.10. After all the updates installed, it works very > >>> well on my Core 2 Duo with 2gb of ram, from the 2008 or so era. > >> I haven't tested. Perhaps Felix hasn't either. But why does it matter? > >> Why must TDE constantly compete? Why is it a competition? Each person > >> uses what her or she likes. If you prefer KDE5, I see no reason why you > >> shouldn't use KDE5. Why does TDE have to become like it?? If KDE5 is now > >> faster than TDE on similar hardware, good for it. > >> > >> Yes, everyone uses what he-she likes. I think you didn't understanded what > >> I wrote in the way I meant it. Plasma 5 is overall much faster and > >> responsive than KDE4 on the same hardware. > > Ah! From what I heard that wouldn't be difficult. But as neither an Ubuntu > > fan nor a KDE4+ fan I haven't used it. If I want/need an Ubuntu I use > > Lubuntu. > > > >> TDE is more responsive (when it > >> doesn't lockup) than KDE4 and Plasma 5, but TDE does take more time to boot > >> than Plasma 5. > > Interesting. Fast boot-up seems to be th order of the day. But does it now > > make a difference what is underneath? > > > >> MS-DOS isn't much used anymore (as in not competitive), because it does not > >> fill the needs of most computer's users out there. This is just an example. > > I would analyse its demise as being hardware related. Many of us liked it, > > but it is not up coping with to modern hardware. > > > >> Difference and individuality are part of what Open Source and Free Software > >> are all about. > >> > >> Lisi > >> > >> Yes, differences and individuality is part of open source world, but we > >> should all (all) be respectful for other's work and other individuals. > > Of course. That goes without saying. It is par for the course. > > > > Lisi > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@... > > Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ > > Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting > > > Boot time has come up on various lists for years. > I must say I never understood the point, especially for Linux. > Does anyone boots and reboot her Linus ten times a day - or even more - ? > I think the boot time is of little interest for Linux since updates do > not require a reboot - not like an other popular OS ;-) > A power failure or a major version upgrade are the only occasions for a > reboot on my Linux boxes. > > My 2 cents, > Pascal Agreed. I think it's ego thing. Proprietary OS are claiming it as a "super useful feature" and well, sorry to be rude, but crakmonkeys are buying it as important. Somewhere along the line, some devels did as well. I think it has only a little importants and to be honest I haven't noticed any significant different in boot times over the years. It really depends on the computer. My 1.8 Duo T60 with 4g of ram boots faster with Ark Linux 2008 than it does with most other distros. It does boot after with Alexander and Ali's distros as well as UnityLinux with Enlightenment as the gui. My 2 cents, as well. Cheers and happy new year to all (as applicable) Kate