Re: [OT] Re: Thrashing WITHOUT swap.

john slee
2001-06-26T12:18:22Z

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 06:32:16PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2001 18:16, Colonel wrote:
> > Had you tried fvwm-1.24r (the original) ? It was designed long ago to
> > be lean and fast on the desktop. I know it whips KDE.
>
> Yes, I did. It's even faster than xfce but there's one problem: it just
> isn't very much like a modern desktop. xfce is, to a surprising degree, like
> a modern desktop. It's roughly equivalent to W95 I'd say - more
> sophisticated in some areas, less in others. Oh, did I mention I haven't run
> into a bug yet? It's true.

firstly, i better have at least one paragraph related to the kernel ;)
2.4 is a *much* better desktop than 2.2 for me. make -j32 bzImage and
other large amounts of processes/io don't destroy the interactivity of
my X session anymore.

(wearing asbestos suit)

i have run, as full-time desktops, kde-1.x, enlightenment, windowmaker
and fvwm-* on 10baseT switched networks with Tektronix XP400 terminals
hosted on linux (and of course on xfree86-based normal linux desktops)

in both cases the better and "more interactive" window manager was not
fvwm or wmaker. sure, E can be a pig with the right theme, but with a
nice lightweight theme it is great. E certainly seems lots better over
ethernet than the other two...

kde 1.x of course was absolutely ghastly over a network (gnome not too
prominent in those days, so i didn't get a chance to try it)

lately i have been trying to make kde2 run smooth like my E setup, but
there are some niggles, and i wouldn't bother if i had less than 256mb
ram.

j.

--
"Bobby, jiggle Grandpa's rat so it looks alive, please" -- gary larson