Re: Window managers-which one?
Micha Feigin wrote:
Precisely! The last two that I actually used were kcalc and kate. They
have been replaced by galculator and SciTE and I am quite happy about
it. Nothing left to start up artsd and interfere with my sound, or to
startup a million kdeinit processes. Removing libartsc0 did a
marvellous job of eliminating kde and its apps from my box.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:55:40 -0800
Marc Shapiro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Douglas Tutty wrote:
I have been using fvwm since I started with linux and Debian about 8
years ago. That was on a 486/33MHz with 12MB of memory. I installed
Debian on a 128MB removable disk. I have used KDE on a few occaisions,
but I generally prefer a clear, uncluttered screen. I also don't care
for all of the extra processes that get started by KDE apps, even when
you are not running KDE.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:48PM +0000, Clive Menzies wrote:
On (31/10/06 14:51), B. Hoffmann wrote:
I' ve been installing purely a base sytem this time as opposed to before
always going with the default install with Gnome.
Also for example icewm and fvwm seem to be both window managers and
Since getting into Debian I've progressed down the scale (of bloat) from
KDE to Xfce to Enlightenment to Fluxbox. I'm very happy now but guess I
may get bored and try something else but fluxbox is lean mean but pretty
I like basic functionality, configurability, without bloat; I have been
running a 486 for years...
I use icewm. It does everything I want without the struggle of adding
features to a less featurful wm and is low on resource usage. It must
be fast because it doesn't get in the way on the 486.
One of the main reasons I don't run any kde apps. There are a few nice ones but
if you start one up you then need to kill off 7 others manually when you close it.
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