Re: Looking for distros suitable for low-memory/low processor situations.
- From: Steve Ackman <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 01:53:11 -0400
In <Xns99A5A577F9498lostthreads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on Sat, 08 Sep 2007
15:15:52 -0500, -Lost, maventheextrawords@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I somehow confused the X Window System thinking that it was both the
server and the manager. So I guess in the case of Damn Small Linux it is
basically Kernel > X Window System > FluxBox > ... (No Desktop
Environment).
I really, *really* appreciate this information. It makes it a little
easier to strike out on my own now that I understand what can constitute
a memory hog or not.
Actually you don't even NEED the window manager.
When my wife's laptop was a P200 w/32MB RAM, I had
her login to a console which had a text menu. She
could type "A" through "F" and that menu choice would
run just under X. Anything beyond those, she'd either
have me tell her the command, or add another menu entry.
So, let's say she wanted Netscape. Hit "A" <enter>
and Netscape would be the only thing on the screen.
It wouldn't have Window decorations, so when she was
done with it, she'd do the pointy-clicky thing on
File -> Exit, and be dumped back to the menu.
That's a rather unusual way of doing it, but still
easier for the non-multitasking newbie than say firing
up a really lightweight wm like tvm, and having to
remember what commands to type in the xterm.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Filtering USNET on client side (Thunderbird)
- Next by Date: Re: Looking for distros suitable for low-memory/low processor situations.
- Previous by thread: Re: Looking for distros suitable for low-memory/low processor situations.
- Next by thread: Re: Looking for distros suitable for low-memory/low processor situations.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|