From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 6 18:30:03 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAE0106566B for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:30:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from QMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.64]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6088FC13 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by QMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SEku1d00D0bG4ec57JW324; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:30:03 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SJW11d0051f6R9u3PJW1wQ; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:30:03 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:29:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:29:59 -0800 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Da Rock Message-ID: <20100106182959.GC95215@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Da Rock References: <1262685825.15832.5.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20100106072531.2b0c18b1.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20100106172105.GA95215@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 X-Composer: VIM 7.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Subject: Re: Tuning for very little RAM X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:30:03 -0000 On Wed 06 Jan 2010 at 09:52:32 PST Warren Block wrote: >On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Charlie Kester wrote: >> >>Assuming you have to use X, you'll want to avoid heavyweight desktop >>environments like KDE or Gnome. I like tiled window managers like musca >>or dwm myself, but your skeptics will probably want a more traditional >>window manager (aka MS-Windows clone) like xfce or openbox. > >Hey, xfce is not like Windows, it's fast. LOL >If you want really light and Windows-like, icewm. Although last time I >tried it, desktop icons--the lifeblood of the typical Windows >user--required external programs (idesk) and were a hassle. I don't think we want to hijack this thread or this forum and turn it into a debate over which window managers and apps are best. As I pointed out in my followup to my original reply, there's already a voluminous discussion on those topics. I think we should simply point interested readers in that direction and let them make up their own minds. > >>When you say "internet (with plugins)" I think you mean Firefox. If >>this isn't a hard and fast requirement, take a look at some of the more >>lightweight browsers like Midori, Kazehakase or Arora. (I'd recommend >>even more lightweight alternatives like surf or elinks, but I don't >>think your skeptics will approve.) > >AdblockPlus and FlashBlock are near requirements for browsing, >particularly for slow machines. Maybe they'll work with non-Firefox >gecko browsers. Good point. Something anyone considering these Firefox alternatives should investigate. > >>Same for OpenOffice. There are alternatives to each of the apps in the >>OpenOffice suite that might not have all the same bells and whistles, >>but will run in much less RAM. > >gnumeric is nice for a spreadsheet. May not be particularly >lightweight, but lighter than OO. Same with Abiword for a word processor. But again, we probably shouldn't get too deep into the discussion of various apps.