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
The hell with the money. There are people running Linux on P-II 450MHz systems that can't even carry more than 512MB RAM. That's half their memory, right there.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
