more than 128 M needed for liveCD
danjele at gmail.com
Tue Nov 7 07:18:45 UTC 2006
On 11/7/06, panshizhu at routon.com <panshizhu at routon.com> wrote:
> xubuntu-devel-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com 写于 2006-11-07 01:09:04:
> > Unfortunatley we have a bad regression since dapper. The liveCD will
> > not function properly
> > with 128M of RAM and no swap. This I only noticed in qemu and
> > wrongly assumed (hoped) it's
> > specific to it, but we get bugreports confirming it on real machines.
> > This sadly makes xubuntu lose one of its selling points :( I have no
> > idea what causes the extra memory
> > use, it may be system-tools-backend which use perl, but I don't knowfor
> > Jani--
> To be honest, I don't think that 'low memory consumption' could be a
> selling point of xubuntu in the long run.
> The "really low memory consumption" Linux is Damn-Small Linux (a.k.a. DSL),
> which requires 64M memory, the live cd is less than 200M and it uses debian
> package system. if you tried it you'll be amazed how complete it is. I have
> to admit that future Linux for computers with 128M should be DSL.
dsl is not based on ubuntu-base + ubuntu-standard + ubuntu-minimal,
it's even very difficult to maintain as pacakges cames from sid, etch
and there are custom ones. If you install a new package that calls an
upgrade of other pacakges , then dsl is just gone.
I guess the only smart idea is to use a slimmed down xserver.
> The "Xfce-based ubuntu", in my opinion is the most beautiful ubuntu, it has
> the selling point of "elegant design" and "elegant feel". As an OS should
> be feature rich, I would not choose an elegant OS if it lacks certain
> So, please, add the useful functionalities to Xubuntu and be glad with it.
> Some story just like this: suppose two guys Tom and Mike have two different
> company, both are making cars that sells $1000.
> Tom's thinking how to makes cars that sells $800 or even less.
> However, Mike's thinking he should make cars that sell $2000+.
> Several years later, Mike has a big company and be a sucessful man, while
> Tom has a poor end...
> Lessons for that: if Xubuntu always tries to be a "low-memory-consumption"
> alternative to ubuntu, it will always be an alternative, always be the
> second choice. But why not replace the "gnome-based" ubuntu at all? why
> not make xubuntu the default choice for some users? It is much more
> important to make xubuntu "beautiful ui and elegant design" than to keep it
synaptic or app-install can help here to add packages.
If i remeber well xubuntu goal is to be installable even on old
machine, that doesn't prevent to install on newer ones ...
> Of course, that's just my 2 cents.
> Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606
> xubuntu-devel mailing list
> xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
More information about the xubuntu-devel