[lug] Linux Distr. Size (was: no fun with the sun)

[Jeff Howell]

"Harris, James A (Jim)" wrote:
> 
> Please don't take this as a personal attack:
>         I think the ideal of keeping memory requirements trimmed is
> wonderful, but I think it's time we all recognize that a workstation really
> needs to have 64MB of RAM these days.  I think certain applications of
> machines can run off of 32 or less very well, (routers, DNS, DHCP, etc.
> servers) but I would never imagine running a personal X workstation off of
> anything less than 64.

For my machine at home, I found even 64 to be "cramped". Didn't have enough
memory for X, enlightenment, and Quake3 to run. Running quake3 while swapping
is BAD! I got around that by running X without a window manager. I've 
upgraded to 192M RAM and that is no longer an issue.

<off_topic>The new Aureal Vortex2 drivers are a godsend! OSS's beta drivers
sounded like AM in an airport tunnel!</off_topic>

X is the biggest memory pig out there. If you're setting up a task specific 
machine to run without X (Masquarading, DNS, mail, whatever), 32 should be 
just fine. My masqurading box only has 24M RAM and a 400M disk. runs like
a champ. Although it takes it about an hour to compile a kernel. I'm
thinking of throwing a 2nd disk in there so I can set up a dedicated Quake3
server.
 
> Just out of curiosity, why $100 for RAM.  32 should only run ya around $60
> at the most these days.  The prices appear to have come down a tiny bit from
> their high.

I just bought 64M PC133 for $48. Being a SPARC, I'm sure it has proprietary 
memory requirements, thus higher cost.

> 
> My two cents...
> -Jim
> 

-- 
 Jeff Howell
 EDS Unix Support
 
  Linux Slackware: The Ultimate NT Service Pack