Re: [seul-edu] Best wm for tiny slow computers?

[Michael Viron <mviron@findaschool.org>]

I got away with installing 6.2 on a 127 MB hard drive once (w/ X)--hardly
more than an Xterminal at that point.

Michael
--
Michael Viron
Registered Linux User #81978
Senior Systems & Administration Consultant
Web Spinners, University of West Florida

At 08:54 AM 02/12/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>You can squeeze a basic RH 6.2 with gnome into about 400-450 meg; from what
>I've seen and heard, 7.x takes at least a couple hundred meg more. Don't
>know why.
>Dave Prentice
>prentice@instruction.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeremy C. Reed <reed@reedmedia.net>
>To: seul-edu@seul.org <seul-edu@seul.org>
>Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [seul-edu] Best wm for tiny slow computers?
>
>
>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Ralph M. Deal wrote:
>>
>>> will run in RH 6.2 which I've chosen for its size.
>>
>>Does a recent version of Red Hat Linux really take up more space or
>>resources?
>>
>>It seems like if you install the same packages, then it will be similar in
>>size (with better performance and security with the more recent release).
>>
>>   Jeremy C. Reed
>>   http://www.reedmedia.net/
>>
>>
>
>