--- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, Scott <scottro@...> wrote:
>
> I'm a bit puzzled by that statement as well. I am also wondering if the
> quoting got messed up on this list, as it frequently does, because,
> especially for a desktop machine that isn't doing that much, I wouldn't
> have more than one swap partition. Usually, as I run fairly minimal
> desktops, I never have more than 1 GB of swap, save on servers, but that's
> a different thing. Yes, Linux only requires one swap partition, and you
> could, in a pinch, even get by without that--depending upon what you're
> doing--if you never do anything memory intensive, then you might be able to
> do without it.
>
> HOWEVER--as far as it being lighter on resources, most Linux developers
> these days are like their Windows and Apple counterparts, and sad to say,
> running Fedora requires more resources than Windows XP (though not more
> than Windows 7). Fedora won't do a GUI install if you have less than 512MB
> of RAM, and RH has crippled the text install.
>
> However, there are other versions of Linux, including Debian and Slackware,
> and probably Ubuntu minimal, that still run on low resource machines.
>
> --
> Scott Robbins
Just because people are developing code doesn't mean that anyone is stuck with running those programs. The beauty of Linux is that it is pretty end user configurable. Distributions of Linux should be considered starting points, that are customized for use. With a distribution I feel one is only buying into a package management scheme, and a software repository, to some extent.
I know I like to personalize my systems to suit my desires. This system for instance I installed with a Debian net image but since then I have been adding plenty to it that Debian does not offer. All of the things I use the most in fact.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (38) |
No comments:
Post a Comment