[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: low performance of kio
From:       Bill Soudan <wes0472 () rit ! edu>
Date:       2000-04-21 15:34:04
[Download RAW message or body]


On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, mosfet wrote:

> I can imagine it being a nasty hack adding it, and I feel somewhat
> awkward strongly advocating an architecture point about software I just
> use and don't contribute to. Everything stated here is just my opinion
> as a user of the library, but I hope a vaild one ;-)

A few more cents :)  I agree with everything mosfet has said.

No one's brought up the end-user perspective yet, I don't think.  You
probably don't want end-users saying 'ugh, this Konqueror is much slower
my old file browser X' when they're copying megabytes of local files
around their computer. And I doubt most of them would be willing to trade
off this speed so konqueror can handle every popular network protocol on
the internet, *which to them isn't a big deal*.  They've probably never
even used such a thing in their life.  The average user, using more common
desktop environments, doesn't have the luxury of accessing ftp sites in
their file manager.  Sucks to be them :)

The perception that Konqueror is slow would be a _very_ bad, I think.  I'm
picking on Konqueror here, but basically I mean any app that uses KIO.

On the other hand, as a developer and more of a power user, one of KDE1's
killer features for me is being able to access ftp sites within kfm.  Of
course I don't *ever* want to lose that capability for KDE2, that's one of
the defining features of KDE, but even I may be loading up another file
manager now when I have heavy duty local file management to do.

So to sum:  I feel optimizing KIO for local file access would be very
worth it, no matter how hackish the code.  Local file access is probably
99% (if not 100%!) of the common case for an *average* desktop user.

Bill

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]