Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (422 mails)

[Rob OpenSuSE <rob.opensuse.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

2009/1/13 Matt Sealey <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Rob OpenSuSE
> <rob.opensuse.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 2009/1/13 Larry Stotler <larrystotler@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Matt Sealey <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is not old low memory hardware but specifically designed new
> hardware. 128MB was determined a couple years back to be a
> cost-effective and pretty usable amount of memory to run something
> like Xfce in. Between 10.3 and 11.1 it's changed and while nothing

> If you imagine the efforts on LTSP etc., a thin client needn't and
> definitely shouldn't be specced like a "general desktop". If you
> needed a 2GHz dual core and 2GB of RAM in every thin client, what
> would the point of having thin clients be? Where is the cost or power
> saving? It is a dumb concept, but this is what Linux forces

A thin client needs kernel, X server, and uses a server for
applications so it does not require as much RAM or CPU speed as a
typical desktop.  It does not need all of the features of a desktop
OS, so I'd not be making a default openSUSE install in such cases.

Now firing up 10.3 and 11.1 on same machine, I saw some increase in
memory consumption but not a great one.  In my 10.3 KDE 3.5.10
install, beagle and kerry were expunged, as they were initially buggy
and caused trouble.  The 11.1 install memory increase was simply
accounted for by beagle helper, kerry and nepomuk features under KDE4,
which so far haven't disturbed me, so I've left them be.  Also 11.1
used AMD 64bit with rather than the conservative 10.3 32bit choice,
which increases pointer and program size, so adds  a little to memory
consumption.

So checking quickly, I just do not see any evidence to support 11.1
being "bloaty" compared to 10.3.
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx