Xtdesktop and mount appForum: Apps Topic: Xtdesktop and mount app started by: curaga Posted by curaga on May 10 2007,14:38
What is the Xtdesktop version in DSL? Can't find that piece of info on the DSL site (Yes, here you say go boot DSL, but I recently erased that cd-rw).The reason I'm asking is that the newest version, 0.7b from 2005, supports mount icons (of course they umount if already mounted) straightly, without some script. The whole point is that xtdesk is loaded by default, and I think adding mount icons would spare more performance than a Lua box, since Lua is a compile-in-live (sorry, don't remember the actual word) language... Posted by lucky13 on May 10 2007,16:50
That presumes the recent version of xtdesk doesn't add any more overhead, which is doubtful just from the fact that it has this particular feature (and how many more?) that the version in DSL doesn't. Newer versions with more features generally grow, not shrink. Even if it makes a slight difference, DSL's use of lua is so pervasive that the mount app is trivial in terms of its overhead.
Interpreted. The performance of interpreted languages like lua and tcl, particularly in small scripts for simple tasks, is on par with compiled languages. Posted by curaga on May 10 2007,18:16
But I'm not sure if DSL has the same version. If it does, there won't be any overhead....
Posted by mikshaw on May 10 2007,18:23
I think it's more likely that having an icon for each of your available devices would be much heavier than using the script. Once it is loaded, the script does nothing unless you are clicking it. Xtdesk reacts whenever the cursor passes over one of its icons, which happens frequently. Images, even "tiny" icons, use a relatively large amount of ram. Several of the default icons are each larger than the lua script. Plus, you should consider that there are people who HATE using desktop icons =o)
Posted by lucky13 on May 10 2007,21:24
Most programs use more than one icon for that task. One mounted icon, one unmounted. Or possibly more, such as one icon for the device and then two more icons that overlay the device icon to show mount/umount status.
The more I get used to rox, the less begrudgingly I use icons. In fact, I really like it. But that's because rox is much more multifunctional than an icon manager like xtdesk. It's also more functional than emelfm. I think in hindsight it's more accurate to call Lua a hybrid embedded language since it's interpreted but runs through a virtual compiler. It's still very fast, and it's not a wasted resource when you consider how few lines it takes to script together a useful GUI with it. Posted by mikshaw on May 11 2007,02:31
I'm sure I have a bias against clicky interfaces in most cases, which has kept me away from experimenting with several otherwise attractive applications such as Rox and Matchbox.Even when I was still attached to Windows I had been moving progressively further away from the standard interface, changing the shell to blackbox, and windows commander as file manager. I'm not saying I'm opposed to clickable interfaces in general, of course. In some cases they are a very helpful alternative to remembering how to spell lengthy commands, and often just allow me to do stuff before I have any coffee. I guess I just find desktop icons and complex menu trees to be a bit of a waste of space (and I loathe the xdg format that so many developers have adopted). The exception being the ability in some environments to drag objects onto an icon and choose an action to perform on the object. I occasionally miss that behavior. Posted by humpty on May 11 2007,06:40
i never use the mount app, it's too many clicks and i usually overrun. grrr!it's like playing one of those brain-dead mobile phone games. (i hope that emelfm in the next version can mount easily just like 2.1b.) Posted by lucky13 on May 11 2007,08:21
You can do that with rox. That's one of the things I'm appreciating more and more about it. Write a script, include it in an application directory (executable directory), select your files, drag and drop, done. Here's the page I said I'd post: < http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/rox-rocks-ii-application-directories/ > Posted by curaga on May 11 2007,16:45
I don't use the mount app either. It loads ~4s on my DSL comp, which is way too much. Also the first 3 secs it is around the middle of the screen, before it jumps to the corner. I tried to change that with the -geometry switch, but it doesn't respect that. So I just don't start it.I think more people hate the mount box than icons ;) BTW it has only one icon, that doesn't change whether mounted or not. It shows a tiny green light in the lower-right corner of the icon if it's mounted. I don't think displaying 4 green pixels takes much power ;) Posted by lucky13 on May 11 2007,17:50
Using DSL 2.1b...mount.lua = 1378 bytes it calls to ----> mount_common.lua mount_common.lua = 1299 bytes Total = 2677 bytes The MurgaLua scripts in more recent versions are only a few more bytes as far as I can tell. A mountable version of xtdesk would require an extra icon of ~3500 bytes plus the weight of the additional code to make the new version do what the current one doesn't. What quantifiable, noticeable, or appreciable difference in size and performance would there really be? Posted by curaga on May 12 2007,08:26
Are your size measurements in RAM or in storage?And will you please check the DSL version before complaining about increased size, it MIGHT be the same, or it MIGHT be an earlier ver that supports mount icons too! |