On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:20:42 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:12:03 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>
>> ACtually, it's because there's nothing surprising about Linux working
>> well on such a machine, whiy comment on the normal state of affairs?
>>
>> The surprise is that the wintrolls seem to think it unusual. But then,
>> they are thinking of MS-Windows, so their skepticism comes from
>> experience with the 'finest' code Redmond has to offer.
>
> I am talking about THOSE particular applications, on THAT particular
> machine and pleas pay close attention to the amount of memory the
> machine has.
> Had the Linux nuts believed him, they would have been all over that post
> defending him.
> They weren't, because they know the claims are dubious at best.
Look, do *you* leap to the defence of everyone who claims you can boot XP
on a 256MB machine? No, of course not, for a very simple reason: you
*know* XP will boot on a 256MB machine, and frankly, anyone and everyone
remotely familiar with XP knows it will boot on a 256MB machine.
Well guess what? They don't jump to the defence of running Linux with
those apps in 96MB for the same reason: anyone familiar enough with Linux
to actually know what they're talking about, also knows full well it will
happily work in that memory footprint, running that selection of apps.
Granted, a version of Linux current _today_ might be less happy in 96MB,
but that message wasn't posted today, with today's versions of Linux. It
was posted in August, 2005. In August, 2005, version 5.04 was out.
Note, that's 5.04. The earliest version listed in their "release notes"
is version 5.10, successor to 5.04. Let's take a look at 5.10's hardware
requirements:
Server: 500MB disk, 64MB RAM
Desktop: 2GB disk, 128MB RAM
A couple things to note there. First, base Ubuntu 5.10 will work happily
in 64MB - minus the desktop stuff. Second, this is a release *later*
than the one I was using. Third, on the whole, memory requirements tend
to go up, not down, over time, meaning the version I was using would in
all likelihood have had *lower* memory requirements than this.
And here's the kicker: while they do say 128MB for the desktop, they
*also* default to Gnome, which is a *heavy* desktop. I wasn't using
Gnome, I was using enlightenment. I was also using "lightweight" apps,
such as Sylpheed and Pan.
So yeah, running those apps in 96MB doesn't call for "defence" from the
Linux users, because the Linux users know damned well there's nothing
unusual about that sort of setup. There's no more reason to get all
weirded out about that than about XP in 256MB; sure, it's tight, but it's
hardly impossible.
How about, in future, you actually *learn* something about Linux before
telling us all what does and doesn't work, eh, skippy?
|
|
