[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kernels: i386 vs optimized

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 07:30:07AM -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.
> NOTE: I am now running a box with an Athlon K7 2400+ and 1.25 GB of 
> memory and I am still quite happy with fvwm.

I used to use fvwm myself, then changed to WindowMaker. One of the main
things I liked about wmaker was the 'snapping' feature where windows
glue themselves together when you move them next to each other. Do I 
make any sense? If yes, is there such a feature available in
fvwm? Last time I watched I didn't find anything...


> -- 
> Marc Shapiro
> No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
> What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
> Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!
> - Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail

Andreas Rippl -- GPG messages preferred
                 Key-ID: 0x81073379

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: