On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:39:16PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, guy keren wrote: > > > the fact that something is open-source, doesn't have to mean its a > > resource hog. and mozilla is a great resource hog, and so is KDE. and > > unlike various movie playing software - they don't _have_ to be such > > resource hogs. just that nobody cares enough to make them less 'hoggish'. > > > > I beg to differ. Mozilla has to support a lot of things: all the HTML > versions (2.0, 3.2, 4.0, 4.01, XHTML ), broken HTML, CSS, images, the XUL > portable GUI library, java and Flash applets, JavaScript, many protocols > (all versions of HTTP, FTP, gopher, etc), XML and XSL and the other W3C > inventions, and possibly other things I forgot. It needs to be bloated if > it wishes to support all of those things, and with the advancement of W3C > standards, the situation is only getting worse.
A rich feature set doesn't necessarily imply bloat. On my 550 MHz 256 MiB RAM
machine, I find that mozilla is highly unresponsive and slow. As an example,
Opera's feature set isn't significantly smaller than Mozilla's, but it boasts
extremely fast rendering speeds. I argue that there is a very loose connection
between features and speed. I don't see any valid reason why Mozilla should
be sluggish, regardless of features.
[...]
Regards, Yotam Rubin
msg23601/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
