Re: kernels: i386 vs optimized
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 07:30 -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >>drifting OT, but to help improve your "snappiness" try some of the lightwieght WM's (like IceWM) or a tiled one like WMII which I'm really starting to like.
> >Or even fvwm. Check it out - very lightweight - very configurable.
> >Checkout some of the screenshots at http://www.fvwm.org/ - very nice!
> I'll second fvwm. I have been using it ever since I started with Linux
> and Debian (somewhere around Bo, or Hamm, on a 12 MB 486 box, IIRC). I
> have briefly looked at others when someone has recommended a wm that
> sounds interesting, but it has ALWAYS been BRIEFLY. I come right back
> to fvwm. It is small, lightweight and configurable. I don't need icons
> on the desktop, they just get in the way, but I have read that even that
> is possible.
Oh yes, have tried a few incl. afterstep, wm, icewm, fvwm, blackbox and
I'm afraid the tiled ones are a bit too much for me getting used to, but
it's nice to have your Windows using friends look at it and think you're
some sort of Unix guru 'cos it looks like from a different planet to
At the moment I'm using Gnome, xfce and fluxbox. Although I like them
all three fluxbox does not seem more leightweight than xfce which seems
more functional and is incredibly fast. It actually takes fluxbox longer
to start up.
Will probably remove it in the end 'cos two wm's are enough, but I like
its very minimalist look.
(sorry Marc for sending to your address first - kind of automatic)
Linux User #398054
-Foresight Linux- -Ubuntu- -Debian (Sarge)-