Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> [ 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.
I, for one, don't differ at all, at this point. I have some
questions/comments, though:
1. Is this based on the memory requirements of the text-only install?
I ask only because this makes a difference to users that feel
uncomfortable with text-only installs, and thus might be an important
fact to address.
2. As with the text-only install, many users will not be prepared to
set up swap space for an installation. Based on that, it sounds like
one might find oneself dealing with a 96MB minimum for installing
Fedora. This strikes me as being rather high, particularly if this is
the text-only installation.
3. I, for one, would surely be inclined to go with XFCE instead of
Gnome if installing Fedora on a machine. I was not aware, until you
mentioned it, that XFCE was receiving rougly equal support on Fedora
now. That's good news.
>
>
>>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.
>
[snip]
I have extensive (much of it professional) experience with 3.11, 95,
NT4, Win2k, and WinXP. I've never even laid eyes on an NT3.5 machine,
to my knowledge. I actually rather liked NT4, in comparison with Win95,
and found it in many ways superior to Win98. Win2k was a vast
improvement over both Win98 and NT4, in my experience, though there were
some niggling little issues that came up (the most annoying being the
replacement of "network neighborhood" with "my network places", which
foreshadowed the much-loathed Fisher-Price widget set that debuted with
WinXP).
In my own experience, Win2k SP2 is the best OS extant from Redmond.
It's the only one I will consider using personally, and that only for
software that will not run on Linux, and because I need to have a
Windows workstation running for work-related purposes.
In any case, as I indicated, I can't really comment on NT3.5, I'm
afraid. I'll take your word for it, as regards the problems inherent in
Microsoft's move from 3.5 to 4.0.
>
>
>>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).
As I already indicated, I personally dislike the XFCE interface. I
quite like that of IceWM's interface, however. Aside from the fact that
I just like the WindowMaker interface more, the biggest problem I have
with IceWM is the lack of a good, reasonably comprehensive graphical
configuration tool that is trivial to install.
While I'm normally inclined to prefer configuration files from the
command line over graphical configuration utilities, the reverse is true
when what is being configured is a GUI. Being able to interact with the
GUI to configure it seems by far the superior approach, to me. Maybe
that's just me, though.
>
>
>>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 find that, outside of interacting with a given application, I don't
like graphical file managers at all (as contrasted with file management
the old fashioned way, from the shell). I don't even like midnight
commander. I realize I may (or may not) be in a minority in this, but I
went from being essentially unable to comprehend how someone would
prefer the command line (as a Windows user) to preferring it for many
operations (as a Linux user).
As such, all I need is a window manager. Others need more, I recognize,
and I don't begrudge them that. In any case, this is part of the reason
I prefer WindowManager over Gnome or KDE.
>
> 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).
>
I prefer to get pretty much everything by use of the package manager
after installation. This is where that whole Lean Distro vs. Kitchen
Sink Distro decision comes into play. I prefer the lean distribution,
Debian, over the kitchen sink distribution, Fedora. I also prefer the
impressive apt support for Debian over any other package management
options in any other distributions I've touched.
If you prefer a kitchen sink distro, Fedora is clearly a far better
choice than straight Debian (though Progeny Debian has created one of
several available Debian variants that take a more kitchen sink
approach). Clearly, the people with whom the proposed YUM approach of
later Fedora versions is a "sticking point" are not people that are
likely to be seduced by Debian's approach to things, and I'm glad they
have a distribution like Fedora to satisfy their needs.
There. That's my outsider's view of the Fedora way of doing things.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 20:18:49 EDT