meerkats at bellsouth.net
Fri Oct 12 16:29:51 PDT 2001
On Friday 12 October 2001 07:15 am, you wrote:
> On Friday 12 October 2001 12:32, Craig Colton wrote:
> > It's too bad that QT/KDE can't be be broken into smaller pieces, so that
> > it doesn't require such a commimitment to get it started. E.g.:
> > /usr/local/kde - 185.2 MB
> > /usr/local/qt - 76.6 MB
> Firstly, Qt is only that size if you leave all the source code and things
> in place. With nothing but the bin, lib, and include directories, it's only
> 16Mb - though it still takes ages to compile, and there's no way (save
> editing Makefiles) to skip the examples and tutorials and all.
> As for KDE being 182Mb, is that a full install of every single package?
> Mine (2.1.2) is only 80Mb - that's the base, libs, and network packages
> I agree though - a simple window manager (rather than desktop environment)
> is much smaller and quicker to install. I use WindowMaker myself, and have
> KDE only for some of the programs it provides - I dislike the interface.
Simply trying to make a point - I think you got it.
My KDE is full install and then some, I guess. I feel differently about KDE.
I'm pretty comfortable with interface, but it needs everything - or at least
everything you *think* you might need to be any good. Otherwise, you run into
just what we were discussing (no aa fonts in X programs) - inconsistency. If
you like it for its looks, this takes away from it. The problem is, there is
no KDE replacement for Gimp, for instance, or Nedit, or XMMS - all of which
use something other than the QT/KDE libraries.
I have no problem whatsoever with an LFSer who prefers not to use a desktop.
If you like the minmalism of LFS, it seems more in keeping to *not* use one,
I guess. I will say this though (something you probably know), KDE builds
great on LFS - better than I've ever had it.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support