Memory comparisons

Add your Tips and tricks to configure and tweak your GhostBSD System here.
User avatar
macondo
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:04 pm
Location: PANAMA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Memory comparisons

Post by macondo » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:31 pm

Desktop Celeron with 4 gigs RAM - icewm/jwm/ratpoison - FreeBSD 11.1/GhostBSD 11.1
KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

ASX
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 12:46 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by ASX » Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:48 am

hmm .... looking at comparison between MATE and XFCE, where MATE is ranked as lighter than XFCE .... nope, not in the real world.

User avatar
ericbsd
Developer
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by ericbsd » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:42 pm

On BSD I would say that XFCE is lighter, but on Linux I could not say.

kraileth
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by kraileth » Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:19 pm

You can configure Xfce to be somewhat of a memory hog (Xubuntu comes to mind) and you can use a very light MATE DE. In general Xfce is lighter on Linux as well. How much really depends on the distribution and what they do to make things "pretty".

It's even some more month older than the blog post mentioned in the first post of this thread, but I did such a comparison, too (and always wanted to "revisit" the topic a few years later but never found the time to do so). If anybody is interested in a 08/2012 test of 20 Linux desktops: https://eerielinux.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... r-desktop/

ASX
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 12:46 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by ASX » Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:44 pm

Thanks kraileth, your ranking looks fine to me.
By the way, EDE (Equinox Desktop Environment) is also a good candidate for a next minimal ISO.

kraileth
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by kraileth » Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:29 pm

ASX wrote:Thanks kraileth, your ranking looks fine to me.
By the way, EDE (Equinox Desktop Environment) is also a good candidate for a next minimal ISO.
I've been hesitant to propose this myself but now that you've done so: This would be awesome! FLTK is a great toolkit (I read in another thread that you like it, too) and I've used EDE since about 2012. I'm also in contact with EDE's programmer and I made the official binary packages for several Linux distros.

The only problem that EDE has IMO is that development is really slow... The next release has been delayed far longer than I like. But then again EDE works well just as it is currently even though there is a lot that could be improved. It works well on FreeBSD (I run it on one machine that I do my standby duty with, so that's important for me) and it has never failed me. Also the programmer is very open towards *BSD and not really happy with what happens in the mainstream Linux world.

In the past I've tried to build some kind of usable (Linux) distro with EDE and only FLTK based applications. Here is a list that I've compiled (it's an unexpectedly hard task to find all FLTK based applications): http://elderlinux.org/flapps/desktop.html

If we'd manage to put together a minimal DE with (mainly?) FLTK based applications for ultra light-weight computing that might be interesting for some people. The FLTK community is not THAT small actually and getting a bit of attention for GhostBSD (by doing something that not even one of the thousands of Linux distros has achieved, yet) wouldn't hurt either.

Should we seriously consider this, I'd switch my last vanilla FreeBSD laptop (on which I use EDE) over to that "GhostBSD mini" or whatever it might be called. So there would already be one regular user running it almost daily. There'd be one problem, though: It would be hard to explain the "g“ in GhostBSD in this case as it might be aiming to use as little GTK+ as possible! :lol:

ASX
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 12:46 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by ASX » Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:46 pm

Yes I use and love FLTK, and there is a tool already ready which I wrote myself:
a tool to trasfer ISO/IMG files to USB stick and/or SD card, most likely it will be firstly deployed on next GhostBSD; the tool is supposed to detect the memory stick by monitoring the "plug in" action.

(and btw, I have written it to be portable to Linux too).
img-tool1.png
img-tool2.png
img-tool3.png

User avatar
ericbsd
Developer
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by ericbsd » Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Oh nice I did not know you where working on this.

User avatar
macondo
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:04 pm
Location: PANAMA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by macondo » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:24 pm

I think, IMHO, and speaking as a USER, LXDE as DE, and then a minimal install à la FreeBSD, would be better.

First, LXDE is light (comes with Openbox as wm) and then the minimal one so the client can install whatever they desire, have the dbus/hald already taken care of in /etc/rc.conf, no slim (startx all the way), let them make their own cocktail, you have newcomers on LXDE, and old hands doing their thing, sound enabled of course by default, let the miscreants install xorg, wm, and the rest of what they use.

I would think this will entice LESS work for the devs and the minimal install would fit on a CD. Arrgh, what do I know... KISS it.
Desktop Celeron with 4 gigs RAM - icewm/jwm/ratpoison - FreeBSD 11.1/GhostBSD 11.1
KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

User avatar
macondo
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:04 pm
Location: PANAMA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Memory comparisons

Post by macondo » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:50 pm

Desktop Celeron with 4 gigs RAM - icewm/jwm/ratpoison - FreeBSD 11.1/GhostBSD 11.1
KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

Post Reply