[ I'm changing the subject, so shoot me ;-]
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 14:37, jeff wrote:
> I used to have an old 486-50 with 32MB of RAM that was quite happy with
> FVWM95.
My first Linux desktop was a 486-SX25 with 8MB of RAM running FVWM v1
(Yggdrasil distribution circa late '93). I subsequently ran FVWM95 on
Red Hat Linux 4.2 on a 84MHz NexGen Nx586 (Superscalar, 4-issue i386
w/TLB) with 16MB of RAM and it worked well. Of course, FVWM is only a
window manager and not much else.
Late in the 5.x series, Red Hat went full-up GNOME, and adopted KDE in
6.x. So you then had a choice of "well setup/integrated" GNOME or KDE
versus "lightweight/bare" Afterstep, FVWM, etc... The latter were
totally lost in the "total solution" of "session + file + window
manager." That's the holy grail of the "full Linux desktop."
That changed once Fedora came out (among countless other things --
Fedora developed based on sound, _technical_ considerations).
Off-shoots like Cobind have done a lot of things with Fedora, things
that I've seen Red Hat adopt in their next revision. Fedora Core 2
included the GTK+-based XFCE4 session + file + window manager as a
standard, "well setup/integrated" desktop alongside GNOME or KDE (XFCE4
also supports various GNOME interfaces, but doesn't use them by default
-- depending on the distro implementation).
So starting with Fedora Core 2, it installs and works very well for "5th
gen" class (i686 ISA compatible recommended) systems with as little as
as 32MB of RAM -- assuming you have swap available (48-96MB if you don't
-- depending on if you have UMA video, various requirements, etc...).
With 64MB of RAM, XFCE is a very slick desktop setup with minimal
footprint "out-of-the-box" with Fedora Core 2. Just my observations,
others should feel free to differ.
> It was not noticeably any slower than it was with Windows.
But which version? A lot of people ran "Chicago" aka MS-DOS 7.x with
Windows 4.x atop aka Windows 95.
For those of us who "never touched the stuff" ;-> and ran NT, NT 3.5[0]
was the last "tolerable" release. Once NT 3.51 "Daytona" came out with
"Chicago" bloat, it was starting to get bad. Linux/X+FVWM was much
snappier at the time. And then there was the NT 4.0 fiasco whereby
Microsoft put the GDI in the kernel, because once the "Explorer" shell
made NT its "bitch" (like most other "Chicago" designed code with 0
consideration for NT), it was a dog and the kernel move wasn't optional
for pure usability reasons.
Red Hat Linux 5 and GLibC 2 added in some overhead, especially for
non-superscalar microprocessors, but anyone who had a NexGen, late K5+
or Pentium felt right at home. The trifecta for me was GNOME 1.05
(especially 1.053) on Red Hat Linux 5.2 (added afterwards) and 6.0
(included in stock). I then became a GNOME bigot. ;->
But I was also running with serious amounts of memory, nothing I expect
others to do.
> IceWM is also very easy on resources.
Definitely agree on IceWM, especially when used with ROX Filer. ROX
provides the session + file manager, IceWM provides the window manager.
I would love to see a distro ship a "well integrated, off-the-bat" set
as such. So far I find myself creating icons and setups for any distro.
Of course, ROX Filer probably works best with just the window manager
from XFCE, XFWM. That's the most ideal/integrated setup I've seen.
But, again, I've yet to find a distro that ships a "well integrated,
off-the-bat" set of ROX (session + file) and XFWM (window).
> I have used that on a few P-90 64MB machines with no problems.
> Distro shouldn't matter, as how much stuff you are loading
> seems to be the main factor for performance.
Exactomundo.
Most people who stopped using Red Hat after Red Hat Linux 9 don't
realize a new "90MB minimal" install was created. This allows you to
get a "bare-boned" setup using just CD #1, and then using UP2DATE
(APT/YUM) or YUM (directly) to get any other packages. This is how Red
Hat is _now_ distributed (even RHEL has this capability if you don't
subscribe to the Red Hat Network).
I only mentioned the XFCE solution starting in Fedora Core 2, because it
is a full "equivalent" and "well integrated, off-the-bat" in
session+file+window manager like KDE or GNOME (and is fully GNOME
aware). But there's nothing stopping someone from fetching IceWM and/or
ROX Filer to use another combiation.
I don't know if it will be Fedora Core 4, or more likely Fedora Core 5
(which will be a new "major version" change / ".0" revision for RHEL 5)
when Red Hat introduces the new YUM-based Anaconda and related tools.
You can already get countless 3rd party packages from various YUM (and
APT) repositories that are Fedora Core/Extras/Legacy aligned. But you
have to do it with a command after it is installed (which seems to be a
major "sticking point" with many people, even though other commercial
distributions have the same, legal issues and do the same).
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:17:32 EDT