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

["Paul Sutton" <psutton@uklinux.net>]

I guess Gnome or KDE would be good on perhaps the server,  and terminals you
can use a lighter one,  According to my local lug, you don't need a WM to
run star office.  I am off to play with open office,  as it looks pretty
good under Windows.

Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Viron" <mviron@findaschool.org>
To: <seul-edu@seul.org>
Sent: 12 February 2002 16:04
Subject: Re: [seul-edu] Best wm for tiny slow computers?


> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>