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

[flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx]

>> My laptop (486DX2/50, 24mb RAM, 10gb HD) is living proof that Win95 is
>> better than Linux for GUI operation on limited hardware.  I have both
>> 95 OSR2 and Linux (Debian woody) installed.  I don't even bother using
>> X any more.  For a while, when my main PC was down, I used that laptop
>> as my main home computer, and used it in 95 the whole time (nearly 6
>> months), b/c it was so much faster than X with the most basic
>> configuration was in Linux.
>
> I'm not sure you're comparing apples to apples here.  Go find a 1995 or
> so version of the linux kernel (smaller than what's in Woody), and use
> something like fvwm (or even mwm, and preferably from 1995 if it's
> changed much) as your window manager.
>
> Or, to go the other route, run Windows 2000 on your laptop.  Or try
> to... it probably will refuse to install.

As I mentioned to the last person who said I wasn't making a fair
comparison... X itself has changed little since 1995/96.  And most of the
bloat that has been added to Windows since 1995 is easily trimmed from
Linux, simply by not installing certian pacakges, or by using light window
managers (fvwm hasn't changed much, fundamentally, since 1995, either) or
by disabling configuration or compile-time options you don't use.
Most additions to Windows are "manditory" (meaning you cannot choose not
to install them), whereas most Linux additions are optional.
A modern day Linux kernel compiled using only options also found in a 1995
kernel will be nearly the same size, and perform as well, if not better.



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