From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262379AbTJNLFY (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:05:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262384AbTJNLFX (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:05:23 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:27786 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262379AbTJNLFO (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:05:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:08:20 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: John Bradford Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: mem=16MB laptop testing Message-ID: <20031014110820.GN16158@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , John Bradford , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031014105514.GH765@holomorphy.com> <200310141101.h9EB10sB001460@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200310141101.h9EB10sB001460@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At some point in the past, I wrote: >> (g) X isn't terribly swift; it's slower than I remember old Sun IPC's >> being, though they had 24MB RAM. OTOH luserspace is much more >> bloated these days. zsh alone is at least 3 times the size of >> ksh, which I used back then. fvwm2 is a lot bigger than fvwm1. >> And so on and so forth. I guess the upshot is "unbloating" the >> kernel wouldn't do much good anyway, since luserspace isn't in >> any kind of shape to run in this kind of environment anymore either. On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 12:01:00PM +0100, John Bradford wrote: > Depends on what you consider usable. I thought X worked pretty well > in swapless 8MB last time I tried it, (last year, around 2.5.40). > Admittedly that was only running a few xterms locally. A 4MB + 20MB > swap box was suprisingly usable for fairly intense remote applications > over a compressed 9600 bps serial link. It's not that it's particularly unusable, it was merely substantially slower than vaguely comparable machines I remember from way back when. -- wli