On the issue of Memory usage, does anyone know what this 700k is used for? Could it easily be slimmed down? If you run a bunch of apps, it could add up if you don't have a lot of memory. Bob Smith On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 15:14, Marius Andreiana wrote: > James, > > Here are the reasons I'm against your patch, perhaps not all of them are > right: > > * concept > As I understood, the clock applet becomes more independend from the > panel. If either crashes/hangs, the other will keep going. > > The clock never crashed on me since I use gnome ( starting with 1.0 ). > Also, if an applet crashes, I get a gnome dialog saying it died > unexpectedly, should I add it back to panel? ( _this_ is a good solution > ). > > Panel hangs - it shouldn't. Panel it's a very important component of > gnome desktop. Let's fix that instead of trying to make pieces of gnome > work without the panel. > > * more code / memory use. > I'm also a developer and i love having as little code as possibile. More > code = more time maintaining it, more possibilities to get errors. While > this patch adds only a few lines of code, it's good without them too. > Memory - hp said about 700k. Even 1k extra it's not acceptable. Lots of > 1k hacks results in megabytes. > > I'm also selling Linux to companies desktops and I often get complaints > it loads much slower than MS Windows and that it consumes more memory. > Every piece of memory saved it's welcome. -- Bob Smith <bob thestuff net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part