- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Dec 13-9:07 pm by Brian Masinick.
-
Posts
-
blur13
https://itvision.altervista.org/linux-desktop-environments-system-usage.html
Icewm is also there as a baseline for comparison. Its worth noting that an icewm setup uses a lot less memory on an antiX install.
I thought it was interesting and convinced me that xfce actually is a viable DE for old computers. I’m still not convinced that a DE is necessary.
rokytnji
Though not having as many features as XFCE.
I always had a soft spot for E17 because it runs lighter.
Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problemsPPC
Wow.
I never expected that wayland would use less system resources!
Also, nice to see IceWM mentioned, like it was a D.E., and not a mere Window Manager… but I never seen IceWM use over than 200mb on idle, even with the Nvidea driver loaded, in antiX… So this values, when applied to antiX would be a bit lower.Side note: I consider that antiX with all it’s scripts and applications + IceWM can be considered a D.E. – there are not that many features that users are missing when compared to other “real” D.E.- anything that’s missing, can be easily installed. Probably the single thing antiX really should have to be a killer OS would be a real “App Store”- our Package Installer is very useful, but has only some essential tools/apps and synaptic is a bit overkill for most folks coming from OSes that have “app stores”.
P.
Brian Masinick
https://itvision.altervista.org/linux-desktop-environments-system-usage.html
Icewm is also there as a baseline for comparison. Its worth noting that an icewm setup uses a lot less memory on an antiX install.
I thought it was interesting and convinced me that xfce actually is a viable DE for old computers. I’m still not convinced that a DE is necessary.[/quote
I agree; a DE is *NOT* necessary, at least it is not mandatory; perhaps for some people who cannot take the time to learn, they THINK that a DE is NECESSARY!
Quite frankly, not only is a DE unnecessary, a graphical user environment is NOT necessary for all situations. Most of us take a GUI for granted, and yes, in order to use many modern applications, including the majority of Web browsers, yes, a graphical user environment is practical, but there are a few Web browsers that do not mandate a GUI. If you don’t need a Web browser and you are running certain payloads, perhaps it is optimal to use the fewest number of mandatory components.
For example, what if your application does only number crunching, such as a numerical analysis application, a physical science study, or a news server that produces news abstract articles and optionally emails them? In those instances, devoting at least one server, even multiple servers to a specific task is valuable. No desktop environment desired or needed, though the CLIENT systems where the outputs of these services are sent may benefit from the presence of a desktop environment or at least a graphical presentation of the results.
Special purpose servers are NOT dead; if anything, there are more servers than ever, supporting the client user environments we all take for granted.
--
Brian MasinickBrian Masinick
By the way, one of the examples I provided comes from a “real world scenario” from my past work in a computer manufacturing company; we wrote a LOT of software, and our business included hardware development, software development, sales, and marketing. In one scenario, the Sales and Marketing organization DID have two really large server systems. They were used to provide server-based office products to the sales and marketing staff, such as Email, word processing, etc. They were also used to send sales and marketing articles, many of them useful technical documentation and research reports.
As it turned out, the office automation software and the Email servers for technical and research reports used very different workloads.
The systems were chronically having issues, so some senior system administrators were given responsibility for managing them.I happened to be selected to take care of this one and it was right up my “alley”. First of all, I was interested in those reports and frequently read them, so I had personal reasons for wanting them to work effectively. I found a way to provide more network channels to devote to handling the Email. Of course, this was in conflict with the optimal office automation software.
The solution? There were two large servers available; separate the workload: put all marketing Email on one server and devote it to sending mail to interested parties. Then fine tune both the Email server and the office automation software to be optimal for each community; the result was two important applications that both worked much better – and furthermore, did not require constant calls, frustrated people, etc. Big win for everyone. Good analysis followed by a plan of action and improved implementation make a lot of people happy!
--
Brian Masinick
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
