Re: [tlug] Gnome vs. KDE? BSD vs. Linux?

[Phillip Tribble <phillip.tribble@example.com>]

Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:06:43PM +0900, Wayne wrote:
>   
> > On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 14:23 +0100, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote:
> >     
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > It seems that I get soon my hands on a laptop which won't be able to
> > > run my favorite mixture of BSD and Mach.
> > > And therefore I wanted to ask some absolute elemental questions:
> > > Can someone sum up the most important differences between Gnome and KDE?
> > > And what about the (did)advantages of the BSD-derivates compared to
> > > Linux on an old PIII-laptop?
> > >
> > > Niels
> > >
> > >       
> > Old machine? Low on memory? I'd be looking at something lighter, like
> > XFce as a desktop...
> >     
>
> I'd agree with Wayne here.  Both Gnome and KDE are more resource
> intensive.  Also, depending which Linux you use, you might find it quite
> bloated compared to the BSDs.  
>
> Arch Linux is pretty popular with the BSD people though, much easier to
> get used to than say, Ubuntu or Fedora.  It also has a nice centralized
> source of docs in its very good wiki.  
>
> I say easier to get used to because it has a BSD style startup
> file--called /etc/rc.conf.   :)  (For non-BSDers, the smiley is becuase
> that's what the BSDs call theirs. 
>
> Whereas with Fedora or Ubuntu, the network interfaces are defined
> somewhere in etc--in Fedora, for example, the hostname is defined in
> /etc/sysconfig/network and the interface is in
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0.  
>
> Gentoo is possibly more BSD like, but since I think you still have to
> compile lots of things, you'd probably prefer Arch's tendency towards
> binary packages.  (Although I think Gentoo has lots of binaries now, but
> I don't know if their system update still requires lots of compiling.
> Josh or other Gentoo-ers, if you see this, could you confirm or correct 
> me?)
>
>
>   
Arch Linux works the best =)