On 09/06/2015 12:14 PM, Xen wrote:
Thank you for your lengty response. Very helpful.
On 09/06/2015 03:38 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
Yes and I have it running on equipment that makes that look like a bleeding edge speed daemon!
Perhaps I've mentioned that my system is not really naturally sluggish. My system is really fast enough. I just think the designers made some choices that caused 'embedded' delays in how you experience the speed of the system, some of which are caused by animations, some are caused by search, some are caused by hickups in the system they did not intend. My Linux is as fast as my Windows except for all those experiences of delay.
Its more likely that, since you won't tell us the specifics, that you've selected 'eye candy' options that are sluggish. There could be many reasons for this. File system layout//lack of indexing//lack of search caching. Graphics that take time to render/resize. KDE is very tempting about eye-candy.
For you with your 4G, possibly, but on this 1G clunker I have, I doubt it :-) and the bulk of 'caching' is likely to be the virtual memory dirty queue retrieval.
Right, well, I was not saying it was a problem with you. On my system, it can clearly not be a cause. Which is why I wonder why and HOW ON EARTH can the alt-f2 thing take so long at times.
Since you don't give details and don't report on the 'alternatives' I've suggested, there's no way any of us can meaningfully comment. So long as you refuse to give details of wht eye candy you have, what those alternatives are like, you're jsut baiting, little more than a troll. Comparing Windows running insecure at ring zero with linux running securely and with security checks in place (such as apparmour) that Microsoft won't allow, your comparing a 1960s Lotus Elan with a 21st century mainstream sedan. The old Lotus compromised a lot. It made many things like 'struts' do 2 or 3 jobs. A marvel of ingenuity. But those compromises that kept the weight down and so the performance up had some .... very interesting failure modes. in fact just about any failure mode was catastrophic. And so too with even the mainstream. A crash test of a 1960s GM with a modern GM makes it clear that even though the latter is using lighter/thinner body steel, lighter engine parts the DESIGN makes it safer in a head-on collision. We do have something to thank nader for.
And yes, all with an eye-candy GUI.
Sure, but I don't know what causes the delays. I don't think it is the downtime of processing speed/calculations. I'm not sure. For instance, I would have to dive into all the things that happen when alt-f2 is pressed.
*sigh* Since you refuse to compare it with the other methods I've suggested this thread of argument is pointless.
Many of these clunkers, like some I got from the School Board, even pre-date the Capacitor Plague!
Before 1999 (I never heard about it!) I had an AMD K6 266 MHz. Are you saying KDE still runs on it?
Yes, I've been saying ths all along. The 800Mhz.1G clunkers run KDE quite acceptably. This is why I'm convinced you have a configuration problem. This is why I think you are wrong to be blaming the KDE designers. But you won't give details or run comparison test.
I don't think my problems with Linux currently stem from this cultural difference. It stems from KDE trying to do what Windows does but failing at it equally bad.
Others of us, not least of all me and the 'clunkers' from the proverbial Closet of Anxieties are finding KDE doing it all quite well and not encountering the delays you talk of. You keep harping back to Windows: windows does this, that. Windows is a different architecture. It has specifics for the Intel architecture like running non kernel stuff at ring zero (aka hardware high privileged mode), which is security nightmare.
There's an article I reference occasionally
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/murphy/why-many-mcses-wont-learn-linux/1137
Actually I only read the Nathan part. I didn't read the Paul part as it's so full of...well.. bigotry.
Yes, so?
The take-away is that there is a BIG culture gap. its a way of looking at things, a way of envisioning how things work, and ought to work.
I know there is a culture gap and I could discuss this with you at length (great length!) but it doesn't mean to say that the "linux" culture is superior to the "windows" culture. (Mac culture is not even referenced, apparently).
The issue isn't about superiority. its about different assumptions about how things work, should behave. its about perceptions. You keep going on about Windows does this, does that. you're still stuck in Windows culture. That you think the "Paul' side is bigoted as opposed to simply saying "this is the way UNIX people see things" tells me that you don't see things the way UNIX people see things. So that sums up the roots of your problem.
The way I use my computer(s), search (desktop search) works against me rather than for me.
True for many people including myself.
But Linux people (distro developers, and the like) don't give you the choice to turn off Baloo.
You are misinformed. There is s way to turn it off. Its documented. its been discussed in this list. Its there in systemsettings.
Have you compared start-up by different means?
I've suggested alternatives to using the alt-f2. I admit I hardly ever use the alt-f2 since I have my system configured so my 'favourites' are more easily, readily available.
So why do you defend it?.
I'm not defending anything here except a methodology; I'm saying there are alternative ways to start programs and before condemning alt-F2 as slow you need to establish a comparison with the other methods. You seem to be studiously avoiding doing this.
How does the start-up of kwrite compare ...
* from a command line in an kterminal * from gecko: Application -> utilities -> editor * from 'recently used' in the gecko menu * as a pinned 'favourite' in the gecko menu * as a pinned main item in the gecko menu * using the search bar in the gecko menu
Obviously the program launch speed itself is going to be the same from one option to the next.
No, its not obvious.
1. launching programs from a command line (graphical ones) is troublesome because they leave behind residue output in the shell that you don't want.
Right, so you run with all system logging turned off. perhaps? This is a puerile excuse. The issue isn't lifetime CLI, its performance comparison. You obviously are unwilling to compare alt-f2 with a CLI start. What's tour real reason?
3. Never used that; I consider most of the "Gecko" menu (KDE menu) to be quite unusable. I only use the favourites and the search feature.
What you consider your likes and dislikes is beside the point when doing comparison testing. The issue is to cover all contingencies.
4. I use that but only to launch bigger applications like browsers, irc chat, email, sometimes dolphin, the configuration settings thing. I don't use it for smaller items I need to open more often or more quick.
Again, that's a cop-out. This is a comparison test.
Not CLI?
You don't use the CLI in Windows to start GUI applications, except when you are in a CLI and you want to open a file browser there.
Again, beside the point. This is abut comparison testing. The windows shell is quite conceptually different from the UNIX shell. Under UNIX the shell and mastery of same is key to getting things done. The Windows shell is a holdover from the days of DOS and is poorly integrated. "Scripting", be it the shell, be it VIM, be it darktable, is where the real power of UNIX/Linux lies.
Same in Linux I guess; opening GUI applications from the cmd line is often fraught with peril.
NOT! very very NOT! In many cases the CLI or its embedded equivlent is the only way to get at the full power of a GUI application. Heck, even when confiuguring the system for MINE dispatching, even the core of systemd units, all this uses CLI/shell notation & syntax.
I have mine configured (thanks to 'systemsettings') to present a wall. There are also there keybindings to do 'next'/'prev' and some defaults for that. It depends how little you want to use the mouse. I'm getting the feeling you don't like to use the mouse.
What is a wall?
Its where the various processes are presented in an array like bricks in a wall. Nice big icons. Scaled so that they, togehter, fill the "lightbox'-like popup area. More processes, smaller icons. All this set up in systemsettings.
Prev/next is just alt-tab and alt-shift-tab.
Thumbnails I can't interpret visually ;-). What's the use even.
Why don't you use the tools to adjust size?
What tools? I have no use for "Window" thumbnails (in the task switcher) whatsoever. What can a shrunk-down minitiature of a window possibly achieve?
A shrunk down miniature of a larger image takes CPU power to resize. If your icon set is all large (e.g. 64/128) then scaling them down to 16x16 pixels or smaller takes CPU power. Fonts take scaling and if you have many fonts or use fancy fonts that are more CPU intensive to scale .. well you figure out why eye candy takes power.
Someone, create Medium :P. Why is there "too small" and "too big" but not "in between"? :P. Or maybe there is and I can download it.....
yes you can download them, either from the repositories or from many other places like KDE-Looks
Oh dear. You seem to be stuck using an icon package that has only fixed sizes. There are ones that are scalable. Why don't you try those.
No, the window switcher sets the size of the icon that it scales to. Ultimately any icon, and bit array, is re-scalable, but some packages have descriptors, such as vectors, that make the resizing easier. BitMapped icons, which are most icons, most images, are not designed for re-scalability. Many are designed for compression, things like run length coding of the bit array.
I don't know. Like I said, I got myself into a kind of life where I don't really have time to learn how to use a system where every little bit needs to be adjusted to your preference or else it is unworkable.
its your decision that a) the defaults are unworkable for you even though they are workable for so many other people b) you are unwilling to customise even if it will save you time and/or grief/heartache later on
Currently I am achieving a high level of customization but imagine the horror of having to do it all over again.
Why would you do it all over again? What? when you upgrade? Move? Don't be silly. Exclude /home from the update. Take backups. I backup onto DVDs so its easy to restore onto another machine :-)
What's your
systemsetting -> Desktop Effects Configure Desktop Effects
settings?
That fade thing was caused by Fade. The Window switcher Fade in was also caused by Fade. I turned that off now...... for the moment. There is nothing special in there, all are KDE defaults. Blur. Translucency. I don't know. Make a new user lol, it will all be there.
Turn all that eye-candy off.
Why do you want to 'blame' someone? Why do you want to call designers 'incompetent' when they are just making different assumptions from what you expect?
Because I can't blame myself if I don't understand how I ended up here.
Seems narcissistic to me. There's and old saying In the fight between you and the world, back the world. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org