Tuning for very little RAM
corky1951 at comcast.net
Wed Jan 6 18:30:03 UTC 2010
On Wed 06 Jan 2010 at 09:52:32 PST Warren Block wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Charlie Kester wrote:
>>Assuming you have to use X, you'll want to avoid heavyweight desktop
>>environments like KDE or Gnome. I like tiled window managers like musca
>>or dwm myself, but your skeptics will probably want a more traditional
>>window manager (aka MS-Windows clone) like xfce or openbox.
>Hey, xfce is not like Windows, it's fast.
>If you want really light and Windows-like, icewm. Although last time I
>tried it, desktop icons--the lifeblood of the typical Windows
>user--required external programs (idesk) and were a hassle.
I don't think we want to hijack this thread or this forum and turn it
into a debate over which window managers and apps are best. As I
pointed out in my followup to my original reply, there's already a
voluminous discussion on those topics. I think we should simply point
interested readers in that direction and let them make up their own
>>When you say "internet (with plugins)" I think you mean Firefox. If
>>this isn't a hard and fast requirement, take a look at some of the more
>>lightweight browsers like Midori, Kazehakase or Arora. (I'd recommend
>>even more lightweight alternatives like surf or elinks, but I don't
>>think your skeptics will approve.)
>AdblockPlus and FlashBlock are near requirements for browsing,
>particularly for slow machines. Maybe they'll work with non-Firefox
Good point. Something anyone considering these Firefox alternatives
>>Same for OpenOffice. There are alternatives to each of the apps in the
>>OpenOffice suite that might not have all the same bells and whistles,
>>but will run in much less RAM.
>gnumeric is nice for a spreadsheet. May not be particularly
>lightweight, but lighter than OO.
Same with Abiword for a word processor. But again, we probably
shouldn't get too deep into the discussion of various apps.
More information about the freebsd-questions