Re: Is 64MB enough?
Hi there, Jerônimo.
Long time, no see!
On May 21 2005, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:00:54AM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
> > Indeed. Let alone the typographical quality that you get with (La)TeX
> > and that you don't get with other systems (if LaTeX is properly used,
> > of course).
>
> I think it's not easy to use LaTeX so it will generate ugly output.
Yes, you are right. That's the reason why I mentioned "properly used". But
it is like Emacs, regarding the learning curve: you never know 100% of it,
even if you use it daily.
> > Fluxbox is small, functional, configurable, mostly useable with the
> > keyboard (if you configure it correctly) and *fast*. Highly recommended.
>
> But it's getting more and more eye-candy stuff. Transparent menus,
> little icons along with menu entries...
Yes, that is true with the new versions: if you want any of the
functionality that it provides, you have to bear with the new (unnecessary)
features.
> And it's getting big. It was quite slow on my box, so I switched to
> openbox -- and I can say it's FAST!
Hummm, thank you for bringing my attention to openbox. I am downloading
this as I write this message.
Its description surely piqued my interest and what is a better argument to
use for someone that has a limited system than speaking about the size of
the applications? :-)
I am almost sold on it. I will just see if it has something similar to
fluxbox's slit (with autohide) and then I'm done.
> BTW, looks at their sizes:
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1.2M 2005-04-19 13:41 /usr/bin/fluxbox
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 200K 2005-02-21 19:59 /usr/bin/openbox
Wow, what a difference!
> I still do everything I used to do, without that extra 1Mb.
> I know the extra size doesn't necessarily mean it's slower,
Yes, strictly speaking, the extra size doesn't also mean that it is bigger
when running (dynamic memory allocation comes to mind), but, indeed, you
are right that the size of a binary usually reflects how much memory it
will use.
> And fluxbox is very slow (at least it feels slow to me). I have 1.1 Mb
> RAM and I sometimes had to wait ten seconds or more just to open a menu.
> In the same environment, openbox opens menus instantly.
Just for clarification, you have 1.1GB of memory, right?
And, yes, I wish that not only the window managers in use were lower on
resources (especially RAM), but also regarding the Gnome/KDE applications
(that pull an immense amount of infra-structure even if you just want to
use one tiny application from them).
And, as we know, not everybody has the financial position (especially in
our country) to afford computers as easily as people on other countries.
Thanks for your comments and your hint, Rogério
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@ime.usp.br : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/
Reply to: