Comments on: A clarification: Gnome on Arch

By: shamefulWindozeuser

shamefulWindozeuser — Thu, 05 May 2011 22:03:58 +0000

Things like this make me feel like I’m running a supercomputer; that I’m spoiled.
I have an HP G62 running Windows 7
4gb ram
Intel i3

By: No joke: A full Gnome desktop on 105Mb « Motho ke motho ka botho | Don Bishop's Blog dweb98

Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:38:03 +0000

[...] you can get smaller desktops with very sparse installations, in other distros as well. But this comes with all the bells and whistles, from the word [...]

By: No joke: A full Gnome desktop on 105Mb « Motho ke motho ka botho

No joke: A full Gnome desktop on 105Mb « Motho ke motho ka botho — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:46:42 +0000

[...] you can get smaller desktops with very sparse installations, in other distros as well. But this comes with all the bells and whistles, from the word [...]

By: Look out Ubuntu, look out Arch: Linux Mint Debian « Motho ke motho ka botho

Look out Ubuntu, look out Arch: Linux Mint Debian « Motho ke motho ka botho — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:54:30 +0000

[...] I haven’t seen a full Gnome setup ride out a startup in under 110Mb since I put together a Gnome skeleton in Arch Linux. And that one was rather [...]

By: The Trouble with the Framebuffer « Shell Person

The Trouble with the Framebuffer « Shell Person — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:24:41 +0000

[...] Why I'm really glad I failed I gave up on my console-only, framebuffer, desktop system, and I'm really glad that I did. I installed bare-bones Debian Stable (using the netinst cd), then installed X and the ratpoison window manager, and haven't looked back since. It turns out that my assumption that X was slowing me down was wrong — in fact, on my hardware I get better performance from X than I did with the framebuffer. This is immediately evident when large amounts of text scrolls down the screen (which is noticeably slow in the framebuffer), but also evident when trying to play movies in the framebuffer. If I had to guess, I'd say that it was GNOME that was slowing me down, and in particular it was Ubuntu's (and Debian's) implementation of GNOME (I've heard that GNOME can be fast). [...]

By: Crunchbang and Archbang « Motho ke motho ka botho

Crunchbang and Archbang « Motho ke motho ka botho — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:05:59 +0000

[...] This Crunchbang release will be the first built from Debian, if I understand correctly. It incorporates a healthy shake of Gnome, it seems quick and speedy, even off the CD. Using Gnome doesn’t mean it has be sluggish and bloated, it only means that some renditions will be sluggish and bloated. [...]

By: Build a lighter Gnome in Ubuntu « Motho ke motho ka botho

Build a lighter Gnome in Ubuntu « Motho ke motho ka botho — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:10 +0000

[...] Published 2010/03/22 Ubuntu Leave a Comment In light of the last post and this post from a day or two ago, I suppose it’s worth mentioning (or showing) that a simplified Gnome [...]

By: Nugnuts

Nugnuts — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:05:23 +0000

For the same reasons Ubuntu is bloated

By: MK

MK — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:44:19 +0000

I have to say, 70MB for a running Gnome is quite astonishing, well done Arch. I wish you’d posted the list of running processes before removing it. However, this post begs a question, ‘Why didn’t you install Arch+Gnome or Debian+Gnome on your friend’s computer from the start?’.

By: John Bohlke

John Bohlke — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:43:56 +0000

I just wanted to chime in and note that on a clean install of Debian Lenny that gnome uses about 90 MB sitting at the desktop. This is with no tweaking. Which of course I will be doing very soon.