ubuntu-users Digest, Vol 11, Issue 204

Colin McDermott colmcd at optusnet.com.au
Sun Jul 17 11:29:55 UTC 2005

>> Why not XFCE instead of ICEWM ?

>> why not.  is there really a significant difference on memory usage
between XFCE and ICEWM bec in terms of interface its Huge? i am sorry,
to me ICEWM is just butt ugly.

To be honest I think that the particular theme and configuration that you use on either window manager will have the biggest impact on appearance! There are both bad and good for XFCE and ICEWM. I personally am a big fan of the XP theme on ICEWM (though it won't stay as default). 

As far as ram differences I am not sure. I do believe that XFCE does take more resources. Also physical Hard drive space is much greater with XFCE. I was doing comparative installs with aptitude (I think that it was the same sizes with apt-get) and XFCE came off significantly bigger (50mb to 5mb after rox filer (with allot of XFCE dependancies along with it) was installed). Though XFCE is tempting because it is a complete desktop environment.

Same time, I don't want to be making those decisions. Each user should be able to decide their own packages via download while at least one package is supported by the distro and used as the default option. The Default should be decided by the community. Also ede is looking better then both options and Vedran's work on it looks very promising.

Either way hang around the ubuntu lite site.


Colin McDermott

P.S. Ill set up a ubuntu lite development list soon. 

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list