Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Hello, > > So even if you don't want to use GNOME, if you're used to fvwm, and want to > > start using a different window manager, you may like sawfish. > > Does it work with GNOME 2.x? I thought it was only for 1.x. I confirm sawfish works with gnome 2.x as I use it on my "big" machine. --

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 10:09 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > So even if you don't want to use GNOME, if you're used to fvwm, and want to > > start using a different window manager, you may like sawfish. > > Does it work with GNOME 2.x? I thought it was

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 10:09 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > I am using fvwm on my 2GHz Athlon and P4 machines with 1GB RAM each. Do you > > have to switch to a memory wasting wm once you have a faster machine? fvwm > > rocks, unfortunately th

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > I am using fvwm on my 2GHz Athlon and P4 machines with 1GB RAM each. Do you > have to switch to a memory wasting wm once you have a faster machine? fvwm > rocks, unfortunately the current version in testing does not like my config > anymore that I

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:21 +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:45:20PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 00:10 +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:57:27PM -0500, Joel Ewy wrote: > > > > > > > > For what it's worth, fv

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:45:20PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 00:10 +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:57:27PM -0500, Joel Ewy wrote: > > > > > > For what it's worth, fvwm would probably still fall under the category of > > > a Window Manager

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 00:10 +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:57:27PM -0500, Joel Ewy wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, fvwm would probably still fall under the category of > > a Window Manager rather than a full-blown desktop environment like KDE or > > Gnome. Bu

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Am 2004-08-25 00:10:23, schrieb Christian T. Steigies: > I am using fvwm on my 2GHz Athlon and P4 machines with 1GB RAM each. Do you > have to switch to a memory wasting wm once you have a faster machine? fvwm > rocks, unfortunately the current version in testing does not like my config > anymore

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Am 2004-08-23 20:57:27, schrieb Joel Ewy: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:37:40 +0200 > Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For what it's worth, fvwm would probably still fall under the > category of a Window Manager rather than a full-blown desktop > environment like KDE or Gnome. But yes

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:57:27PM -0500, Joel Ewy wrote: > > For what it's worth, fvwm would probably still fall under the category of > a Window Manager rather than a full-blown desktop environment like KDE or > Gnome. But yes, it does do pretty well on low-resource computers. I > still use fv

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:37:40 +0200 Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For what it's worth, fvwm would probably still fall under the category of a Window Manager rather than a full-blown desktop environment like KDE or Gnome. But yes, it does do pretty well on low-resource computers. I

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Michelle, I am currently running xfce on advise from several users. Thanks for the tip. Tony Am 2004-08-16 20:32:17, schrieb Ron Johnson: > Specifically, desktops are richer and more powerful than window > managers. Meaning they use more RAM and disk space. What about 'fvwm' I run it on a Macintos

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Am 2004-08-16 20:32:17, schrieb Ron Johnson: > Specifically, desktops are richer and more powerful than window > managers. Meaning they use more RAM and disk space. What about 'fvwm' I run it on a Macintosh IIvx :-) Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://co

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 21:50, Erik C.J. Laan wrote: > Tony Pitman wrote: > > I was wondering if this could be a similar problem to the Q700 2 drive > > problem? While trying to install on a Q700 I had to add a line > > (mac53c9x=1,0) to fix that problem. Is there something similar maybe > > goin

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Erik, It does have the 5390. I can't remember where I saw it, but it showed up in a text output. I think during boot. The kernel is using the 5390 driver at any rate because I saw that one get loaded. So far so good on installing. The base system is installed and working great! Now I am trying

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Tony Pitman wrote: Stephen, It is the LC model chip. How do I tell if it needs the mac53c9x=1,0 Tony On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:15:55PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Stephen, > > that is one of the weird things. I went back to mac os and deleted the > partitions hoping that maybe the installer would

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 02:31:38PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > > Well, I have a Q700 with an 040 in it. I will swap them. > > > > What is special about the LC anyway? > > No FPU. It's not just the lack of FPU, which can be worked around by the floati

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Stephen, Well, after changing out the 68LC040 for the 68040 I have gotten farther than ever before. I am into the partition process now, so that must have been it. I never would have thought of that. BTW, it is not really that I care about the 610 as much as I have more memory for it than for t

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Stephen, Ah, well I definitely want the FPU! Tony On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 02:31:38PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Stephen, > > Well, I have a Q700 with an 040 in it. I will swap them. > > What is special about the LC anyway? No FPU. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it ri

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 02:31:38PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Stephen, > > Well, I have a Q700 with an 040 in it. I will swap them. > > What is special about the LC anyway? No FPU. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Desc

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Stephen, Well, I have a Q700 with an 040 in it. I will swap them. What is special about the LC anyway? Tony On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:54:09PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > It is the LC model chip. How do I tell if it needs the mac53c9x=1,0 It can't hurt to use the mac53c9x=1,0. The LC chip is a real

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Tony Pitman wrote: Stephen, that is one of the weird things. I went back to mac os and deleted the partitions hoping that maybe the installer would rather create them itself. When i look at /proc/partitions now (after rebooting and getting the installer going again) it shows all the partitions i

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:54:09PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > It is the LC model chip. How do I tell if it needs the mac53c9x=1,0 It can't hurt to use the mac53c9x=1,0. The LC chip is a real problem, since linux doesn't currently run stably on it (as far as I know). Some attempts have been made

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Stephen, It is the LC model chip. How do I tell if it needs the mac53c9x=1,0 Tony On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:15:55PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Stephen, > > that is one of the weird things. I went back to mac os and deleted the > partitions hoping that maybe the installer would rather create them

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:15:55PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Stephen, > > that is one of the weird things. I went back to mac os and deleted the > partitions hoping that maybe the installer would rather create them itself. > When i look at /proc/partitions now (after rebooting and getting the

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Stephen, that is one of the weird things. I went back to mac os and deleted the partitions hoping that maybe the installer would rather create them itself. When i look at /proc/partitions now (after rebooting and getting the installer going again) it shows all the partitions including the ones I

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:29:07PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Stephen, > > I am actually trying that now. The problem I keep hitting is when it loads > the partition manager it tries to detect drives. It keep dieing on that. I > will try to get a copy of the output log to post to the list. > >

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Stephen, I am actually trying that now. The problem I keep hitting is when it loads the partition manager it tries to detect drives. It keep dieing on that. I will try to get a copy of the output log to post to the list. I know that dmesg gives the kernel messages. How do I get the stuff that is

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 06:06:43PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Thanks for the tips. I am still fighting with getting base deb > installed, > so I will keep this around for when I get that far. If you're having woody problems, then please test out debian-installer

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Ron, Good to know. So the front runner combination at this point is xfce and Dillo. Tony On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 11:26 +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:42:29PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, To

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 11:26 +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:42:29PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: [snip] > > If you really want some lightweight window manager, try twm.

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Finn, Nice tips, I will check it out. Tony On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:42:29PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > > > Does anyone know of a light weight desktop that I can install on my old > > > Quadra7

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 00:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:07:10PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > > Wouter, > > > > thanks, I will try and see if I can get it to work on my system. Is there a > > light weight desktop you would recommend to go along with it? > > Why do yo

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:42:29PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > > > Does anyone know of a light weight desktop that I can install on my old > > > Quadra700? I have a 100mb drive and a 230mb drive

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Joel, Thanks for the tips. I am still fighting with getting base deb installed, so I will keep this around for when I get that far. Tony I'm using IceWM on a Qudra 840av w/128M RAM and a 4G HD -- not that I think you'd need such hardware to run it. It's pretty quick and I don't think i

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

I'm using IceWM on a Qudra 840av w/128M RAM and a 4G HD -- not that I think you'd need such hardware to run it. It's pretty quick and I don't think its hard disk footprint is too enormous though I don't remember exactly how big it is. It's a little more featureful than twm but not near

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:07:10PM -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Wouter, > > thanks, I will try and see if I can get it to work on my system. Is there a > light weight desktop you would recommend to go along with it? Why do you need a full desktop if all you want to do is browse the web? Desktops

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Wouter, thanks, I will try and see if I can get it to work on my system. Is there a light weight desktop you would recommend to go along with it? Tony On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:42:29PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > > Does anyone know of a lig

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:42:29PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > > Does anyone know of a light weight desktop that I can install on my old > > Quadra700? I have a 100mb drive and a 230mb drive. > > > > I know that the gnome desktop takes a lot

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

Ron, I have 36mb of RAM. It is the hard drive space that is the main concern. Can you tell me what are the minimum options I can choose during the debian install of packages to get a desktop and the Dillo browser and fit it all on the drives I have? Tony On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, Tony P

Re: light weight desktop for browsing

On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 13:21 -0600, Tony Pitman wrote: > Does anyone know of a light weight desktop that I can install on my old > Quadra700? I have a 100mb drive and a 230mb drive. > > I know that the gnome desktop takes a lot of room. > > All I want to do is browse the Internet with this comput

light weight desktop for browsing

Does anyone know of a light weight desktop that I can install on my old Quadra700? I have a 100mb drive and a 230mb drive. I know that the gnome desktop takes a lot of room. All I want to do is browse the Internet with this computer. Nothing more. Tony Pitman Shatalmic Company