Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: xcamel
Yes, it's quite ugly.

But it's lightweight.

If you're recovering a P200 laptop with 32MB of RAM to be used for very light comm duties, FVWM isn't a bad choice.

That said, it wouldn't be my choice. I've got a terminal server that can have displays exported across dial-up + VPN. I needed a lightweight front end. I looked at both FVWM and TWM and felt that both of them would be too different for Windows users to figure out quickly.

I settled on XFCE.

Lightweight, fast, low overhead, and quite usable.

8 posted on 08/09/2005 1:50:11 AM PDT by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Knitebane; N3WBI3
I settled on XFCE.

I have been running Fluxbox for serveal weeks now and love its lightening-quick startup time. I'd gotten so used to KDE taking forever to startup after login, that I keep forgetting that fluxbox typically takes less then 5 secs to start up.

I installed xfce last night (via yum), and played around with it. I like it's combination of quickness and features, it's quick, and it's seems to be quite useful. It's got a very good chance of becoming my deafult WM.

9 posted on 08/09/2005 5:52:31 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson