on Thu, May 16, 2002, Matt Garman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > when all I use X for is to hold a dozen xterms, and then use them to
> > > hold non-X programs (ftp in one, mutt in another, links, vim, and a few
> > > other programs).
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > when all I use X for is to hold a dozen xterms, and then use them to
> > hold non-X programs (ftp in one, mutt in another, links, vim, and a few
> > other programs).
>
> Why not just use more than the standard 6 virtual consoles? Th
on Sat, May 11, 2002, Miroslav Mazurek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> I need som recomendation for some realy small footprint window manager (it
> should run on 386/16MB). What's best choice?
On that kit, bash.
--
Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" d
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 20:01, Seneca wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:40:56PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > Bummer... I presume you are proscribed by Higher Authority
> > from running IP Masquerading on a "real" firewall? That
> > laptop with 2 PCMCIA NICs would make a great small, sile
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:40:56PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 17:13, Seneca wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:58:48PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 15:09, Seneca wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Not just any web proxy, but one that requires me to login, and
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 17:13, Seneca wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:58:48PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 15:09, Seneca wrote:
[snip]
> > > Not just any web proxy, but one that requires me to login, and requires
> > > java and javascript to do so.
> >
> > Sounds like MS P
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:58:48PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 15:09, Seneca wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:01:38PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 14:20, Seneca wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > >
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 15:09, Seneca wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:01:38PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 14:20, Seneca wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 13:39, Seneca wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, May 13, 20
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:01:38PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 14:20, Seneca wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 13:39, Seneca wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:50:32AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> > > >
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 14:20, Seneca wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 13:39, Seneca wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:50:32AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> > > > On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
[snip]
> > > I currently
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 13:39, Seneca wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:50:32AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> > > On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Maybe I made mistake before, but its 16MB (no further
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 07:05:51PM -0700, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 20:08, craigw wrote:
> > > On Sat May 11, 2002 at 11:57:19PM +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 23:37, Miroslav Mazurek wrot
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 13:39, Seneca wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:50:32AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> > On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Maybe I made mistake before, but its 16MB (no further upgrade
> > >possible).
> >
> > FWIW, I've successfully run X (3.3.6) o
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:50:32AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
>
> >
> >Maybe I made mistake before, but its 16MB (no further upgrade
> >possible).
>
> FWIW, I've successfully run X (3.3.6) on a P75 w/16MB RAM (2.2 kernel,
> glibc) using IceWM. So
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 09:50, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe I made mistake before, but its 16MB (no further upgrade
> > possible).
>
> FWIW, I've successfully run X (3.3.6) on a P75 w/16MB RAM (2.2 kernel,
> glibc) using IceWM. So long as yo
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 04:18, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> 13 May 2002 04:00:48 -0500 "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 01:27, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> > > 12 May 2002 23:55:36 -0500 "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 19:42, Sean 'Shal
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 20:08, craigw wrote:
> > On Sat May 11, 2002 at 11:57:19PM +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 23:37, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I need som recomendation for some realy small footp
On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
Maybe I made mistake before, but its 16MB (no further upgrade
possible).
FWIW, I've successfully run X (3.3.6) on a P75 w/16MB RAM (2.2 kernel,
glibc) using IceWM. So long as you don't run any bloatware (Gnome/KDE,
Office suites, etc), this shoul
13 May 2002 04:00:48 -0500 "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 01:27, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> > 12 May 2002 23:55:36 -0500 "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 19:42, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't this all rather acade
On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 01:27, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> 12 May 2002 23:55:36 -0500 "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 19:42, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Isn't this all rather academic, since Miroslav has a _386_ with
> > > > only SIXTEEN MB RAM? Running
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:27:52AM +0200, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> Thirdly, is there a way to use that box as X terminal?
>
For checking email and writing text, a 386 with 8 Mb ram is perfectly
OK as X terminal. For browsing the webb, the graphics chip is
crucial. An accelerated chip with 1 Mb o
Thus spake Miroslav Mazurek last Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:27:52AM +0200:
> First of all, disk is IBM SCSI 2GB that seems pretty fast to me and provides
> enough space.
> The idea is to find how useful is such old box. If it can do some web
> browsing, mail and some simple word processing I'd be s
12 May 2002 23:55:36 -0500 "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 19:42, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > >
> > > Isn't this all rather academic, since Miroslav has a _386_ with
> > > only SIXTEEN MB RAM? Running X would be folly!! Not only is the
> > > CPU old and slow, but s
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 19:42, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > Isn't this all rather academic, since Miroslav has a _386_ with
> > only SIXTEEN MB RAM? Running X would be folly!! Not only is the
> > CPU old and slow, but so is the RAM, HDD, video card, etc. And
> > the HDD will tiny!!!
> >
>
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 18:04, John Hasler wrote:
> Ron Johnson writes:
> > Isn't this all rather academic, since Miroslav has a _386_ with only
> > SIXTEEN MB RAM? Running X would be folly!!
>
> I used to run X on a 386/33 with 8MB. Slow, but usable.
The 2.0 kernel, libc5, XFree 3.1 (or some oth
>
> Isn't this all rather academic, since Miroslav has a _386_ with
> only SIXTEEN MB RAM? Running X would be folly!! Not only is the
> CPU old and slow, but so is the RAM, HDD, video card, etc. And
> the HDD will tiny!!!
>
sufficient X to have multiple term windows open at once. He won't b
Ron Johnson writes:
> Isn't this all rather academic, since Miroslav has a _386_ with only
> SIXTEEN MB RAM? Running X would be folly!!
I used to run X on a 386/33 with 8MB. Slow, but usable.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 20:08, craigw wrote:
> On Sat May 11, 2002 at 11:57:19PM +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 23:37, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> > >
> > > I need som recomendation for some realy small footprint window manager
> > > (it
> > > should run on 386/16MB). What's b
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 11:37:37PM +0200, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
>
> I need som recomendation for some realy small footprint window manager (it
> should run on 386/16MB). What's best choice?
>
Take a look at PWM. Has great customizable keyboard support. It also
allows you to stick windows to
On Sat May 11, 2002 at 11:57:19PM +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 23:37, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> >
> > I need som recomendation for some realy small footprint window manager (it
> > should run on 386/16MB). What's best choice?
>
> Choose: http://www.plig.org/xwinman/others.
On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 23:37, Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
>
> I need som recomendation for some realy small footprint window manager (it
> should run on 386/16MB). What's best choice?
Choose: http://www.plig.org/xwinman/others.html
blackbox is nice, as is icewm. Personally I always recommend to at l
31 matches
Mail list logo
