Gotta love waking up to find some clueless
pundit trashing you personally. I was reading that article
thinking “well, the guy is kind of naive on what the issues and
solutions are but sure I agree with the goal” but ended up kind of
bitter when I got to the end. 😉 Especially the part where he blames
me for gnome-terminal code I didn’t even write.
A hint on Metacity performance:
[hp@localhost hp]$ metacity-theme-viewer Bluecurve Loaded theme "Bluecurve" in 0.03 seconds Drew 100 frames in 0.55 client-side seconds (5.5 milliseconds per frame) and 1.78428 seconds wall clock time including X server resources (17.8428 milliseconds per frame) [hp@localhost hp]$ metacity-theme-viewer Simple Loaded theme "Simple" in 0.01 seconds Drew 100 frames in 0.15 client-side seconds (1.5 milliseconds per frame) and 0.831834 seconds wall clock time including X server resources (8.31834 milliseconds per frame) [hp@localhost hp]$ metacity-theme-viewer Atlanta Loaded theme "Atlanta" in 0.01 seconds Drew 100 frames in 0.1 client-side seconds (1 milliseconds per frame) and 0.338352 seconds wall clock time including X server resources (3.38352 milliseconds per frame)
I added this profiling feature to metacity-theme-viewer long ago,
specifically so theme authors could get an idea how bad/good their
theme was on this dimension.
yesterday I was posting about some performance issues. Volunteers
wanted. I’m sure we’ll get a patch from this OS News guy who knows
exactly where the bottlenecks are and how to provide equivalent
features in 1/10 the memory, due to his extensive profiling of GNOME,
detailed architecture review, and overall coding skills.
(This post was originally found at http://log.ometer.com/2004-06.html#10)