Linux Distribution 205
This is exascerbated by the fact that neither is (merely) a window manager, but rather a "suite" of utilities, libs, applications, and what-all, that get crammed into RAM on a "Three-ring circuses are good for the user" basis, aka "My gods, what is all this chozzeroi in my 'ps' output?"
KDE and GNOME are not really things in themselves: They're somewhat arbitrary collections of things -- which begs the question as to why, if you enjoy the kwin or metacity window managers, and some but not all of their "docks", app-launchers, and such normally dumped into RAM with them by default, you couldn't customise their rc files to suit your needs.
Hi, I have a big problem: I crashed my sshd and no keyboard on the server seems to work...
1. What does the "#1" mean in the uname output? Does that mean 1 physical processor? 2. If so, why would one install a SMP kernel on a machine with only 1 processor? So...
It seems as if the KDE and GNOME developers are hostile to this notion of a user environment pared down to just what the user actually wants, but I see no reason to heed them.
are feasible for a desktop system?
A: Any distribution (if you have enough RAM for the installer, and enough free disk space for what you choose to install). You will be happiest if you configure that distribution to use a lightweight desktop environment, which could use any window manager whatsoever (including the kwin and metacity ones characteristic of KDE and GNOME, respectively), provided you do not launch a huge number of ancillary utilities into RAM.
Note that the "KDE" and "GNOME" predefined desktop suites default to launching a huge number of ancillary utilities into RAM, and so should be avoided for low-RAM-spec machines unless-until you pare them down to suit local needs.
Linux groups from Newsgroups