Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: The Natural Philosopher <a@xxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:47:47 +0000
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2006-03-22, Captain Dondo <yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:My first ever X server I installed was on a 386 with I think 512K ram...interactive unix that was..
I recently rolled my own on a 100 MHz laptop w/ 32 MB RAM; it
ran painfully slowly but it ran. busybox for a shell, some
basic utils, nano-X for windowing... But of course I wasn't
trying to run any X apps.
And I remember X11 running quite happily on a 25MHz 486 with
8MB of RAM, and on a 20MHz 68K with 4MB of RAM. And that was
back when I used emacs.
We used to use 386SX servers with about 64K ram as linux print servers...no XC of course. You don't need X for anything except user interface bollocks. All configs done with Vi..into the config files..
(Emacs is a disaster: I spent hours after our so called 'Unix system administrator' edited all the congifgs with Emacs. Loads of extraneous pagination characters that ruined the /etc/passwd file)
- Prev by Date: Re: Creating and Referencing linux man pages
- Next by Date: Re: More questions
- Previous by thread: Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- Next by thread: Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?