Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

A Newbie's Guide To A Lo-Fat Linux Desktop

Posted by Hemos on Fri Dec 28, 2001 06:12 PM
from the lean-and-mean dept.
A reader writes:"This article is what I needed a few years ago, when I first started playing with Linux. It's about building a fast and usable desktop using software that doesn't need a squillion horsepower." Good article if you are putting together an older machine to run as a dedicated box, or what to cobble together a terminal with spare parts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • lo-fat? (Score:4, Funny)

    by The Turd Report (527733) <the_turd_report@hotmail.com> on Friday December 28 2001, @06:14PM (#2760818) Homepage Journal
    Looking at the average linux user, I don't think lo-fat is in their vocabulary. (or diet)
  • Yippee!!! by mcdermr (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @06:18PM
    • Re:Yippee!!! by blakestah (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @06:33PM
    • Re:Yippee!!! by horster (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @06:33PM
    • by Cuchullain (25146) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:36PM (#2760902) Homepage
      Hey,

      Blackbox is great, but it has been out of development for a while. It is a bit NeXt-ish but super lightweight, and quite attractive. There is current development on the same codebase under "fluxbox". A few guys got tired of waiting for improvements, and just went for it. I love open source... I use fluxbox on my p133 laptop w/ 32 mb of ram, and it works great.

      Icewm can be made to look more win32-ish. I have used it on and off, and think it is ok. It seems slower on my system than blackbox or fluxbox.

      If you really want minimal, check wmx or aewm++. They are pretty cool, but do not have many features (by design).

      For mail, try sylpheed or mutt. sylpheed is a nice gui mail client, mutt is console.

      For news try pan, or slrn etc. I use pan exclusively now, as it is acceptably fast and has great features.

      rxvt is blindingly fast, as an xterm replacement, and aterm is quick with cool features. i use aterm.

      try Feh for images. It is lightweight and powerful. The montage feature is uber hip.

      nedit is a good editor, as is kde's kate. Vim always runs quick.

      Get mess and mame for games, they are lightweight and run a million old console or arcade roms.

      Good luck to you,

      Cuchullain

      PS: management of your system becomes an issue with slow boxes, try debian with dselect. It seems to kick right along even on my slow boxes.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Yippee!!! by X-Dopple (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @06:38PM
    • Re:Yippee!!! by _johnnyc (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @07:58PM
      • Re:Yippee!!! by Enahs (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:49PM
    • P1 200 by Trevelyan (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @08:38PM
    • Re:Yippee!!! by swv3752 (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:46PM
    • Re:Yippee!!! by archen (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @10:52PM
    • Re:Yippee!!! by bwillcox (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @11:59PM
    • Re:Yippee!!! by Herstel (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @03:57PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • there are distros for this purpose (Score:4, Informative)

    by Frothy Walrus (534163) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:20PM (#2760839)
    building a low-fat box is a snap. just install a distro which is obviously devoid of bells and whistles. the bloated distros like Red Hat and Mandrake and SUSE look totally retarded next to little powerhouses like slackware and stripped-down debian.

    or, if you want a beautiful pure-UNIX box with unbeatable package management and outstanding security, install NetBSD (my favorite :).
  • Why weight down new hardware with new crap? by qurob (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @06:22PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • FVWM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VAXman (96870) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:28PM (#2760866)
    Why not just use FVWM instead of that fancy IceWM or the other new window managers? It's very fast, small, and configurable. I'm running on a 1.2 GHz Athlon / 128 MB, and FVWM works great for me.

    Does anybody actually use those silly little file managers? IMHO, they just get in the way - why not just use the command line?
    • Re:FVWM by sarcast (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @06:34PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:FVWM by a_n_d_e_r_s (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @06:34PM
    • Re:FVWM by nbvb (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @06:36PM
    • Re:FVWM by Ed Avis (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @07:01PM
      • Re:FVWM by fanatic (Score:2) Saturday December 29 2001, @02:41AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:FVWM by bricriu (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @07:21PM
    • ctwm by "Zow" (Score:3) Friday December 28 2001, @07:58PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:FVWM by foonf (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @09:41PM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • blackbox for me by horster (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @06:29PM
  • Um by rendler (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @06:29PM
    • Re:Um by sabinm (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:23PM
  • Start with X? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Telastyn (206146) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:30PM (#2760875)
    Maybe I'm showing signs of age, but I know how much knowing DOS helped me when I moved to win95 as it came out. I knew how to do things, and more importantly how things worked rather than how windows showed it to me.

    So when I installed linux (SuSE at first) I benefitted greatly from using just console for a short while (mostly because I couldn't setup X properly, but that's another thing). I learned how things worked in this new system before I encountered window managers that assumed I knew such things.

    I certainly understand the need for lightweight WM's for some machines, but for learning purposes the only thing they can provide is maybe Netscape to help files. Of course imo someone should use the system they are comfortable with to browse help, because god knows the easiest way to get frustrated is having to fight with a machine while trying to find help.
  • Why no mention of APT? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nailer (69468) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:32PM (#2760883)
    Where to Get Packages
    You'll find a lot of this stuff is included on the installation cd's of most distro's, or you can follow the links. Wherever possible, these point to the project's homepage, or else to rpmfind's download site. If you're using something other than a RedHat style distro, you may have to backtrack a bit from the rpmfind sites to get the right version.


    No offence, but fuck backtracking :). There's been a billion tools to download apps and their dependencies, and Ximian's Red Carpet and APT are two of the best - between the two there's very little software which isn't available packaged to work on a Red Hat box.

    Best of all, freshrpms.net is now available via APT. Freshrpms is an invaluable source of this kind of stuff - eg, if you're into DVD, its always up to date with the latest Ogle, Xine, Transcoder and Drip packages. Furthermore, Matthias from Freshrpms does requests: just name the software and he'll package it. He's also a bloody nice guy and writes tutorials on how to package properly too, asking for very little in return. Freshrpms is easily the best Red Hat package source out there.

    Anyway, get APT here [rpmfind.net]. Install it, then stick the following in your /etc/apt/sources.list

    rpm http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/apt redhat-7.2-i386/redhat os
    rpm http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/apt redhat-updates-7.2/redhat os
    rpm http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/apt redhat-extra-7.2/redhat extra
    rpm http://apt.freshrpms.net freshrpms/7.2 main

    rpm-src http://apt.freshrpms.net freshrpms/7.2 main
    rpm-src http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/apt redhat-7.2-i386/redhat os
    rpm-src http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/apt redhat-updates-7.2/redhat os
    rpm-src http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/apt redhat-extra-7.2/redhat extra

    As you probably know, Ximian Gnome including Red Carpet is available from ximian.com. Combined with APT they provide a way to run up to date software on a stable distribution using standard packages, which as far as I know isn't available from anyone but Connectiva, Red Hat, and Polished Linux Distribution.

  • Kernel (Score:4, Informative)

    by bartyboy (99076) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:32PM (#2760884)
    He forgot a couple of things: the kernel and libs.

    Zipslack would probaby be best for this base system. Or a stripped-dopy (minimal install) of Slack or Deb.
  • Ultralinux on Debian by Skuld-Chan (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @06:34PM
  • Dont want to start a flame war (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zule_Boy (45951) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:41PM (#2760925) Homepage
    Working in a large ISP environment, I have really learned to love A nice clean FreeBSD install. Anymore I find myself taking a Linux Box (mostly RedHat) and stripping out all the packages and going and rebuilding them the way they should have been. You may also find yourself rebuilding servers with a BSD based system just cause.
    In my opinon, you have to try as many UNIXs as you can. get an extra box. Install anything else on it than your normal install. play. repeat. There is more to computing than Linux. I just saw someone get modded down in another thread for mentioning Solaris. Solaris rocks. He got modded cause Solaris aint Linux.
    You need the right tool for the right job. Square pegs dont fit in round holes, and so on. Once you do BSD, you will never go back. I have heard of people falling in love with Debian also. YMMV
  • by SuperDuG (134989) <be@ecle c . tk> on Friday December 28 2001, @06:44PM (#2760929) Homepage Journal
    First off ... if you want small and fast ... Try peanut linux ... Website [ibiblio.org] or ISO's [linuxiso.org]. "Just 99 Mb of data contain this already pre-software configured OS with a spectacular GUI for the most versatile operating system available today!. - Quoted from their page.

    Now for older boxen ... the best way to make them efficient is to follow the Keep It Simple Silly method of making a working box. Win95-Lite was made for this exact reason ... but that's just if you want win95 ... For linux I would have to recommend Slackware or Debian ... after a base install you have very little bloat and very few apps that you won't need. Apt makes it real nice to find and install, but slack also has a decent package list to choose from.

    You may also want to look into the BSD's ... all of them have a very bland base install and all of them run the latest greatest stuff.

    Along with being so great all of these (except slack) offer net installs, so all you need is a disk drive to boot the things up ... so if the CD has crapped out (which it has on many old computers) you can still do a full install on the net.

    People are saying FVWM or other things like that ... SawFish and BlackBox were made to be VERY lightweight window managers and like windowmaker are very customizable and since they are so small ... they take up a very small memory foot print.

    The thing would also make a cool Home Server, Make it into a router, webserver, email server, and file server ... perfect ...

    Lastly ... you could set it up with a VNC client and use it that way as a terminal system. I think the one thing that needs to be realized is that old boxes are far from useless.

  • A few more suggestions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Otter (3800) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:44PM (#2760933) Journal
    My Linux box at work is a PowerMac 7200/75 MHz that gives me snappier performance than my 1200 MHz Athlon running Mandrake at home. I like the tips here but have a few more suggestions:
    • Use an older distro. I suggested this the last time this topic came up here, and generally got flamed for it, but I still think it's worth considering. If you're only running CLI or old style X apps, you may find it a lot easier to use Red Hat 5.0 and add the newer pieces you want than to try to cut one of the newer megadistros down to size. New distros don't even come with stuff like xplaycd or xfm. Just made sure to update for any security holes.
    • Try Gtk only apps. A lot of the utilities like xchat and grip run perfectly happily without Gnome, pointing out just how little you (or me, anyway) need all that hyped communication framework bloat. KDE apps don't cut down nearly as well (I'll leave it to the zealots to argue whether this is a win for KDE's superior integration or GNOME's modularity...) but your old distro will have KDE 1.x which is usable and really fast.
    • I must put in a plug for WindowMaker. It's all the desktop I need, whereas the really minimal WMs are too little for me, and still flies.
    • I also like Xenon as a text editor. It's lighter weight than Nedit, and is nice if you want a minimal X editor.
  • Nedit lightweight ?? (Score:4, Informative)

    by blakestah (91866) <blakestah@gmail.com> on Friday December 28 2001, @06:45PM (#2760935) Homepage
    If he is really looking lo-fat, he is kinda screwed.

    Nedit is not bad, but a terminal based editor will KILL it for RAM usage. Like vi, or Microemacs, or joe, or even jed.

    IceWM is OK, but blackbox is the screamer lightweight favorite Window Manager.

    For a file manager use the command line. Or MC - another terminal based utility (GUI utilities chunk out 8-10 MB RAM just for playing).

    For graphics viewing, skip ee. Raster is cool and all, but his imlib1.0 sucked for RAM usage. Try imlib2 and ee2, or eog. Either minimzes RAM usage while viewing images. GQview is pretty good, too.

    All browsers blow chunks for using RAM, especially konqueror and mozilla. Opera is the clear lo-fat winna. Or lynx, or w3m.

    And work on X - hard. Make a beautiful image your desktop background, and give up 20-30 Megs of RAM. Change it to a flat color (xsetroot -solid black) and you gain a lot back. Change X to 16 bit, and/or lose some resolution and you will gain more. I guess it all depends on what compromises you are willing to make. You can always hit Ctrl-Alt-F2 and save even more.
  • by Jacek Poplawski (223457) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:59PM (#2760973) Homepage
    This article is strange for me. While icewm is great choice, I don't understand why he wrote about mtv and xanim. I think that software is bad, very bad.

    Thanks to avifile author we have many free and powerfull players today. Please try mplayer [sf.net] and avifile [sf.net] if you don't know it.

    How xanim or binary-only mtv can be better than free alternatives? Last time I checked it was even impossible to rewind a movie there!

    XWC as fm? Well, ok, but I preffer emelfm [sf.net], which is much better than mc for me (try to use mc in directory with 10000 files!).

    Last but not least - word processing. What about LyX [lyx.org]? OK, there is kword and abiword, but there are fat. IMHO LyX is much more powerfull than real MS Word, and it's fast and light. The only problem with LyX is xforms :-(

    So - it's nice to see that kind of article, but I think choices are not best there.
  • Web browsers by Ed Avis (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @07:05PM
  • Linux From Scratch (Score:4, Informative)

    by J'raxis (248192) on Friday December 28 2001, @07:12PM (#2761020) Homepage
    Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org]. Not for newbies, but you can make an extremely small distro yourself.
  • More usable, and still just as light (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SCHecklerX (229973) <slshdt@freefall.homeip.net> on Friday December 28 2001, @07:22PM (#2761039) Homepage
    for the Window Manager, use Windowmaker [windowmaker.org] and for the filemanager/pinboard, use Rox Filer [sourceforge.net].

    And whatever you do, DON't run KDE apps!

  • Kword (Koffice) is lightweight? by SCHecklerX (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @07:28PM
  • blackbox screenshots? by simetra (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @07:33PM
  • Why I like IceWM by Chicks_Hate_Me (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @07:34PM
  • My school Lab by Beowulf_Boy (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @07:37PM
  • how about ultra-low-fat by Lumpy (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:04PM
  • similar articles? by solferino (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:05PM
  • best distro for this (Score:5, Informative)

    by staeci (85394) on Friday December 28 2001, @08:16PM (#2761166) Homepage Journal
    HowTo Build a Minimal Linux System from Source Code [netspace.net.au]

    Linux from Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org]

    Now if someone can tell me why programs (so far MAKEDEV and Lilo) won't run from
    harddrive /dev/hdd1 I'll be a happy little linuxer
  • better ideas by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @08:18PM
  • Geek pride by Syberghost (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @08:21PM
    • Re:Geek pride by fishbowl (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:42PM
      • Re:Geek pride by Syberghost (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @09:04PM
        • Re:Geek pride by livitup (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @10:30PM
        • Re:Geek pride by fishbowl (Score:2) Saturday December 29 2001, @12:03AM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Geek pride by quarter (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @09:50PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Geek pride by archen (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @11:31PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by solferino (100959) <hazchem@gmai l . com> on Friday December 28 2001, @08:22PM (#2761181) Homepage

    ok, there's always lynx and w3m for lightweight web-browsing

    but my question is - what is th most lightweight, free software graphical web-browser out there? - nothing fancy, just functional please

  • Lo Fat?!? How about Slim? by strredwolf (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:26PM
  • The only thing left out... by Mulletroll (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @08:43PM
  • XWC by MicroBerto (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @09:11PM
    • Re:XWC by cgleba (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @10:16PM
      • Re:XWC by SCHecklerX (Score:2) Saturday December 29 2001, @10:24AM
  • My way... (Score:5, Informative)

    by madleech (240267) on Friday December 28 2001, @09:20PM (#2761279) Homepage
    Here's what i use.
    • ROX-Filer for the file manager. It manages desktop icons, and has a panel as well if you want one. It's based on Gtk+, but doens't involove any gnome.
      rox.sf.net [sf.net]
    • Oroborus for the window manager. It's default theme is beautiful and it is amazingly quick. Uses only xlib for drawing.
      www.kensden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Oroborus/ [blueyonder.co.uk]
    • FSPanel, for F*ing Small Panel. The whole app is only 10k under linux! Plus it works and includes a pager (optional patch).
      www.chatjunkies.org/fspanel/ [chatjunkies.org]
    On my box it takes about 2 seconds to fully load everything! how's that for performance. KDE 2.1.0 took close to a minute to load.
  • by biglig2 (89374) on Friday December 28 2001, @09:21PM (#2761280) Homepage Journal
    Flame on!

    "use GIMP for image editing"? Thanks guys, would never have thought of that one. Better yet: "install KDE even if you don';t use it as the apps are good"

    Look, I found in the back of my dead machine closet an old 386 laptop (woo, way back) and I want to set it up for my brother to encourage him to not email me instead of not calling, so I need a really low-fat linux. Whats the advice there? No PCMCIA or CD-ROM and about 4Mb of RAM, so KDE is out. Suspect X might be too. I'm going to try debian via floppy and fake a PPP connection via COM1 into my LAN for apt-get goodness.

    Also, since when have newbies needed guides to setting up unusual configs? I'm an experienced systems engineer, I run a laptop thats well documented, whose manufacturer puts millions into Linux, and happens to be a model Alan Cox personally owns. Despite all this, I can't get the fecking sound card to work. (It works now, because I wanted to listen to MP3 using it pver the holidays, so I uninstalled Linux and put Win2K on it, which detects and configures and makes work all the hardware out of the box) You have more problems than "newbies can't work out which window manager to put KDE on top of to save on space", people.

    That's it, from now on I'm drinking decaf.
  • Well, pick a simple distribution. by Decimal (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @09:34PM
  • I'm happy living in the past (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sunhou (238795) on Friday December 28 2001, @09:52PM (#2761338)
    When I got RedHat 5.0 almost 4 years ago for my laptop, I used fvwm2 with the AnotherLevel macros, which were one of the defaults at the time.

    Now, on my latest desktop machines, I still use the same setup (although on a newer version of Linux). I had to copy over my old startup files to get the newer RedHat to fire up a desktop that looks like what I was used to. I also use this on a couple of 486's I have.

    With this setup, I get multiple screens if I want, a very thin title bar at the bottom (so it doesn't take up much real estate, very important to me), and I have programmed various function key combinations to warp to (and bring to the foreground) the various windows I use:
    • F5 goes to my chinese xterm with simplified characters window
    • F6 goes to my main local terminal window
    • F7 goes to my second local terminal window
    • F8 goes to my main terminal window which is logged into my office computer
    • F9 goes to my netscape window (or the next one, if I have multiple ones open, which I always do)
    • F10 goes to my emacs window
    • F11 lowers the current window
    • Ctrl-Shift-F5 goes to my chinese xterm with traditional characters
    • Ctrl-Shift-F7 goes to my xdvi window
    • Ctrl-Shift-F8 goes to my gv window
    • Ctrl-Shift-F9 goes to my xv window


    The sysadmin in my dept laughed when I told him about all that, but a few days later he told me he'd done the same thing, mapping a zillion function keys. Once you use them a bit and remember them, it's so much faster than the mouse (and he probably has about as much aversion to the mouse as I do).

    I tried to do all this function key mapping under Gnome a year or two ago, but couldn't figure out how to do it, so I gave up on it. Anyway, the stuff I do works fine under fvwm2 / Another Level, so there's nothing driving me to switch.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Amen! by BrookHarty (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @10:35PM
  • by jmd! (111669) <jmd@po[ ].com ['box' in gap]> on Friday December 28 2001, @11:02PM (#2761435) Homepage
    The filemanager he mentions seems to be bitroting. Can anyone recommend a windows explorer style file manager for X that I don't have to worry about eating my files? I just searched through freshmeat's 190 matches for "file manager", and found only one file manager that looked usable... and it was binary only.

    I normally don't care for such a thing. I get along fine with mv, bash/zsh's advanced replacements (for file in *.fred; do mv $file ${file%.fred}.barney; done), and a little perl script I cooked up to do regexp renaming (remv [turbogeek.org]). But occasionally a certain file management task comes along that leaves me begging for explorer.exe, and its in place edit, and its quick multifile selection that doesn't choke on quotes and spaces.

    Anything out there for me?
  • Xfce goodness by christurkel (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @11:09PM
  • Some other options by X-Nc (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @11:17PM
  • very on-topic! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 7-Vodka (195504) on Friday December 28 2001, @11:36PM (#2761471)
    Wow. I've recently had to deal with this in a big way. On vacation. Only computer i can use right now is a p200 toshiba laptop with 32MB of RAM and a 56k pcmcia modem.


    First thing I did was clear some room and d/l some floppy images and install debian ( for the first time! )


    Anyway, i'm used to kde. so I apt-get kde. When i boot into it UGH! it's slower than any computer i've ever used before!


    The big problem is the hard disk. I would wager it's slower than that of most 386's. It's CRAP. If the swap fills up more than 10MB that's it. it immediately begins to crawl slower than a slug over the salt plains.


    I had to apt-get blackbox and give that a go. It worked a charm. But, still a little disheartened by konqueror, which as it turns out, is more ram hungry than IE5, I decided to find another web browser. I found Dillo! Dillo is awesome. It's got some problems rendering and doesnt support any advanced features, but what do you want for 97k? I've been using it ever since. Even with several windows open it doesn't even touch swap!


    I also found that gtk programs like gaim are much less resource intensive than their kde equivalents.


    on a side note. Debian is awesome. My jaw dropped when i started using apt-get. Also, the distro seems very well put together. I love the little touches like the menu program which controls menus in all the WMs and DEs. Just using debian on this laptop has already made me vow to switch away from mandrake when i get back to my normal box. It's very weird that a distribution put together by volunteers has turned out to be my favourite, I've tried many others before sticking with mandrake because it's what i give out to my friends.


    Another side note. Although i hate windows, win95 actually runs quite well on this machine. It's crap but it's lean i guess.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Linux Developers read this by jfmiller (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @11:36PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • How do I keep track of programs and libs? by Kit Lo (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @12:00AM
  • Wordperfect 8, Enlightenment by Linuxathome (Score:2) Saturday December 29 2001, @12:12AM
  • by markj02 (544487) on Saturday December 29 2001, @01:32AM (#2761615)
    I'd recommend learning mutt [mutt.org] as the e-mail client, one of the screen oriented news readers (if you care about news), vim as a text editor, and links [browser.org] or lynx [browser.org] as a web browser. The "screen" program can be used to multiplex. If you want something more coherent, you can get most of that functionality within Emacs or Xemacs [xemacs.org]. All that stuff has some mouse support, but it also works great over dial-up and doesn't use a lot of resources by modern standards.

    If you want some graphics and multiple windows, X11 is actually not that heavy-weight, although Gnome and KDE are. Consider running plain X11 with "twm", "fvwm", or Oroborus [blueyonder.co.uk]. Of those, "twm" is ubiquitous, while oroborus is a little more modern. For minimal graphical web browsing, consider the "dillo" web browser, although it won't work on complex sites. You could also download Opera [operasoft.com], although it's commercial.

  • Thanks! by simetra (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @01:57AM
  • lwm by Necronomicant (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @02:08AM
  • My slim desktop by clasher (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @02:09AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • uhm by Rumagent (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @02:55AM
  • Ratpoison (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pete (2228) on Saturday December 29 2001, @03:34AM (#2761820)
    I'm sort of surprised that nobody's mentioned Ratpoison [sf.net] yet, as it'd have to be the slimmest window manager out there. :)

    Here's a snippet of info from top(1) after I tried running a few of the "lightweight" window managers mentioned here (btw, thanks to whoever mentioned fluxbox, looks good):

    PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE S %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
    26154 pete 10 0 3076 3076 1872 S 0.0 0.5 0:01 sawfish
    26009 pete 9 0 1872 1872 1332 S 0.0 0.3 0:00 fluxbox
    26124 pete 11 0 1816 1816 1260 S 0.0 0.3 0:00 icewm
    26059 pete 9 0 1648 1648 1192 S 0.0 0.3 0:00 blackbox
    26094 pete 10 0 1528 1528 1012 S 0.0 0.2 0:01 fvwm2
    20798 pete 9 0 944 944 808 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 ratpoison

    Sorry if that's not terribly readable, but the important figures are SIZE, RSS and SHARE. Note that fvwm2, interestingly enough, appears even slimmer than blackbox (probably partly due to blackbox being written in C++). And, of course, note that ratpoison is significantly slimmer than any of them.

    Of course, you may not be the sort of person that would appreciate ratpoison :) - but if you've used screen(1) and like that, there's a good chance you'll be able to absorb the ratpoison zen.

    If you're the sort of person for whom screen real estate is all-important and you tend to use mainly terminals and a few browser windows, then give it a go - it combines extreme minimalism with useful functionality in a very nice way. No bullshit to get in your way.

    Plus, it's the only WM I've ever used that I haven't had to configure at all before being productive with it... of course, that could be partly because there's very little about it to configure... :-)

    Pete.

    • lwm by don.g (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @05:18AM
      • Re:lwm by wdebruij (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @06:28AM
    • Re:Ratpoison by sti (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @11:52AM
  • My Linux is P75 48Mb RAM by sebol (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @05:00AM
  • The One and Only King of Stripped Down Linux by wedg (Score:2) Saturday December 29 2001, @05:55AM
  • my lo-fat linux guide... www.linuks.mine.nu/workst by tarzeau (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @09:10AM
  • Information is misleading by MwtrV (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @09:18AM
  • Why not Windowmaker? by Idaho (Score:2) Saturday December 29 2001, @11:01AM
  • Attn SlashStaff: - More articles like this please! by gone.fishing (Score:1) Saturday December 29 2001, @12:47PM
  • Say how about a real-life example of a low-fat box by Argon (Score:1) Sunday December 30 2001, @11:14AM
  • cool by jaseman21 (Score:1) Sunday December 30 2001, @08:29PM
  • Amount of RAM by jaseman21 (Score:1) Monday December 31 2001, @09:13AM
  • Re:What's wrong with DOS? (Score:3, Flamebait)

    by rebug (520669) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:37PM (#2760912)


    What's wrong with DOS?



    I think I could give you a much shorter response by listing what's right with DOS:


    • it fits on a floppy
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:okay... (Score:4, Funny)

    by rebug (520669) on Friday December 28 2001, @06:59PM (#2760972)
    We all know that Captain Crunch is bloatware, loaded with features no one needs. "oops...all berries!" comes to mind. Choosing a distro (peanut butter, plain, crunchberries) is getting more and more difficult; it won't be long before we have dozens of varieties to choose from.

    Real me use cheerios and like it. No frills, but you get a nutritious breakfast.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:okay... by abe ferlman (Score:2) Saturday December 29 2001, @10:27AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Neither is PWM (was: blackbox is not lightweight.) by cbv (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @07:17PM
  • Re:What's wrong with DOS? by _johnnyc (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @08:03PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:What's wrong with DOS? by Ratbert42 (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:09PM
  • Re:How about news reader? by _johnnyc (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @08:09PM
  • Re:Something's wrong here by gmplague (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @08:40PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Something's wrong here by spauldo (Score:1) Friday December 28 2001, @09:40PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Something's wrong here by Sax Maniac (Score:2) Friday December 28 2001, @09:43PM
  • 35 replies beneath your current threshold.