[aclug-L] Re: Linux as an alternative to a Windows desktop

[flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx]

> well, I would have to offer a few sugestions when it
> come to that laptop.  one of the things that has
> always made linux look bad is that people dual
> partition it and usally put it on the slowest part of
> there drive, that could cause temidious speed
> diffrance.  another thing you could try is, get the
> source compile it static this helps tremidously, after
> compliing it, run "strip --strip-debug" to all if the
> new binaries it made this decreases the size of almost
> all complied programs by a 2 to 5 ratio.  as far as
> just trying to use a distro on a computer with limited
> hardware, don't think thats the best idea, make your
> own, or find some one else that has one made for a
> simalare setup, compile kernel specific option.
> Stream line it all for that computer.  and remeber win
> 95 came out when computers were around 25mz with 8mb
> ram.  I honestly can not think of any disro that came
> out trying to meet those requirments.  but in open
> source you can make it

I'm well aware of such options.  I have Linux after teh 1st partition on
my laptop, simply b/c I dual-boot, and Win95 needs to be on the first
partition.  But it's a 10gb drive, and Linux starts at 2gb.  NTM, the IDE
controller is more likely the bottleneck than the drive access times.
I always use my own kernel, regardless of hardware restraints.  And I
usually use minimal options, whether I recompile or not.
I've done a lot of optimization (for speed as well as size) on many
packages for various purposes, so I'm well aware of the available
'tricks'.
And undoubtedly, with enough such tricks, I could get an X system to run
'reasonably well' on my laptop.  Simple fact of the matter is... it's
easier to use Windows :)



-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi