On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:00:59AM +1000, James Cameron wrote: >On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 06:39:32PM +0700, Yang Ha Nguyen wrote: >> Puppy Linux should be better than Ubuntu on XO since it's much more >> lightweight. > >Sounds like you haven't tried what I built then. I've not included >everything Ubuntu includes. > >-- >James Cameron >http://quozl.linux.org.au/
Hi James, No, I have not. I don't have an XO to try, but according to what you have specified: >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: >>> The desktop build is GNOME based, is 284 MB compressed, 814 MB >>> installed, and is built on a 2 GB partition size. >>> >>> The minimal build avoids X and contains only text virtual consoles, is >>> 138 MB compressed, 258 MB installed, and is built on a 512 MB >>> partition size. I don't think 814 MB (GUI) is considered to be lightweight, especially it runs GNOME; JVM or IceVM is much less resource hunger and has faster response. With 256 MB memory of XO-1, Puppy should run quite well without even installing into XO's flash memory. It might be just the matter of taste, but for me, Ubuntu could not be Puppy's opponent on lightweight aspects. Regards, -- Yang Nguyen Web log: http://cmpitg.wordpress.com/ Life is a hack _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
