On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 18:14, CaT wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > s. keeling wrote: > > > I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and far > > > too fat to leave any room for actual applications to run. ymmv. > > > > Could've fooled me. > > > > KDE + Squid + Addzapper + other stuff... > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} free > > total used free shared buffers cached > > Mem: 775556 767612 7944 0 131368 392300 > > -/+ buffers/cache: 243944 531612 > > Swap: 655344 26600 628744 > > > > 531Mb's not enough? Hmph. > > It's more of a case of 'Isn't 240Mb (or 200 cos of squid) a bit much for > a pretty desktop?' ;)
It's always real hard to measure actual memory usage of an app. This 240MB is presumably actually the memory taken by the kernel plus disk cache + all sorts of other stuff too, like SSH servers. But assuming all 240MB are used by the desktop, thats what- US$50? I'm willing to pay that for the chance to run a pretty desktop for the lifetime of that PC. And I live in a country where the US$ is about twice that value in real terms. Of course some people live places where that *is* an unacceptable amount of money. So it's good that they have options, like XFce or others [see the RULE project for details on running a truly "light" linux install...]. Regards, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
