Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-08 Thread Amos Shapira
On 08/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The last version of winders where loadlin works is 95 or 98. So you can expect it to not get much attention anymore. Wots wrong with PXE? see http://www.rom-o-matic.net/ My lappie F12 = boot menu, option PXE. Loadlin may not even work

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-08 Thread jam
On Friday 09 February 2007 06:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The last version of winders where loadlin works is 95 or 98. So you can expect it to not get much attention anymore. Wots wrong with PXE? see http://www.rom-o-matic.net/ My lappie F12 = boot menu, option PXE. Loadlin may not even

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-08 Thread Amos Shapira
On 09/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, the reason I pointed you at rom-o-matic was their wealth of options eg grub: boot windows boot pxe or CDROM pxe boot or CDROM network boot (tagged image) or HD versions of above etc Point of LTSP is that your stately

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-07 Thread jam
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] What do you mean by that? All these live CD's are mostly a an easy way to get the right Debian packages configured easily for newbies or when the situation fits the prescription (LTSP). Debian has a super-set of all these

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-07 Thread Amos Shapira
On 07/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LTSP is easy, but you need to do it right. I can get LTSP up-n-running in 30 min. The apt-get solution is experimental and mostly does not work. What apt-get solution? The LTSP package? Do not go for ltsp-5 (experimental, read about

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-07 Thread Zhasper
On 06/02/07, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 192Mb, which is the maximum it supports. Minimum? :) I happened to stumble on http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-memory.html a few days ago, which seems to tackle your original question regarding xubuntu vs

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-07 Thread jam
On Thursday 08 February 2007 14:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LTSP is easy, but you need to do it right. I can get LTSP up-n-running in 30 min. The apt-get solution is experimental and mostly does not work. What apt-get solution? The LTSP package? Do not go for ltsp-5 (experimental, read

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-07 Thread Dean Hamstead
avoid ooo, try abiword - it may do the job Dean Zhasper wrote: On 06/02/07, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 192Mb, which is the maximum it supports. Minimum? :) I happened to stumble on http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-memory.html a few days ago,

[SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Amos Shapira
Hi, Ubuntu 6.06 live CD boots up fine on our Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT but is very heavy on the machine. Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? The box is a Pentium II with 192 Mb RAM (Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT). I can't install it on the machine's disk (wife still wants the assurance

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Jeff Waugh
quote who=Amos Shapira Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? Not significantly so... particularly if you actually want to *do* something (which to my mind, implies running an application, and that usually ends up being Firefox or OpenOffice.org). - Jeff -- Open CeBIT 2007: Sydney,

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Dean Hamstead
you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends Dean Amos Shapira wrote: Hi, Ubuntu 6.06 live CD boots up fine on our Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT but is very heavy on the machine. Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? The

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Amos Shapira
On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's setup it

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Jeff Waugh
quote who=Amos Shapira On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Dean Hamstead
i cant say i have used it, i run debian with enlightenment. i just know it exists. Dean Amos Shapira wrote: On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Amos Shapira
On 06/02/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Amos Shapira On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread jam
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread jam
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Well, maybe I wasn't clear about my intentions because I tried to avoid tiring you with details, so here is the deal: We have this Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT ( http://linux.toshiba-dme.co.jp/linux/eng/spec.php3?model=PAS403U)

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread jam
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? Not significantly so... particularly if you actually want to *do* something (which to my mind, implies running an application, and that usually ends up being Firefox or OpenOffice.org).

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Amos Shapira
On 06/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Amos Shapira
On 06/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Well, maybe I wasn't clear about my intentions because I tried to avoid tiring you with details, so here is the deal: We have this Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT (

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Peter Chubb
Amos == Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Amos On 06/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amos The live-cd phase is just a tool to get the nfs-root Amos configuration right, once I have nfs-root I prefer it to be Amos Etch. Try PuppyLinux. It's ultra-light-weight but

Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?

2007-02-05 Thread Amos Shapira
On 06/02/07, Peter Chubb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also check out damn small linux -- it has a mode that'll boot from a zip archive on a windows partition. Now THAT's cool, and I wasn't aware of. Will check. Thanks. --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List -