Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #232606 > unrolled thread

Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-09 23:40 +0100
    Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-09 23:50 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100
          Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:20 +0100
            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 01:20 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 10:30 +0100
        Re: Plasma can be a lightweight (was: Hardware requirements between  Debian 9 and 10) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 11:40 +0100
          Re: Plasma can be a lightweight Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 12:30 +0100
            Re: Plasma can be a lightweight Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-11 09:20 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100
    Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:20 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:40 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:00 +0100
          Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:10 +0100
            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-03-10 12:40 +0100
              Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 14:20 +0100
            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 15:00 +0100
    Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 00:30 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:50 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 01:10 +0100
          Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:20 +0100
            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 02:50 +0100
              Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 03:30 +0100
            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 15:10 +0100
              Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian  9 and 10) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-10 17:10 +0100
                Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 17:40 +0100
                  Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian  9 and 10) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:00 +0100
                Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian  9 and 10) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:00 +0100
              OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-10 17:10 +0100
            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 mmDebMail2020@marwedels.de - 2021-03-10 19:10 +0100
              Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:20 +0100
              Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 23:00 +0100
    Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Keith Bainbridge <keith.bainbridge.3216@gmx.com> - 2021-03-10 00:30 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:30 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 08:50 +0100
          Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 10:30 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:40 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:00 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:00 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:10 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-03-10 14:30 +0100
    Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-10 16:20 +0100
      Multipart HTML emails (was: Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-10 17:30 +0100
        Re: Multipart HTML emails (was: Re: Hardware requirements between  Debian 9 and 10) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-10 18:50 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-03-10 17:50 +0100
      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:10 +0100
        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 22:20 +0100
          Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:40 +0100
            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 00:00 +0100
              Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:00 +0100
                Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:40 +0100
                  Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:00 +0100
                    Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:10 +0100
                      Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:50 +0100
                        Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 04:00 +0100
                          Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 04:40 +0100
                            Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-11 14:10 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#232630

On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:44:44 -0400
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I recommend against Debian 9, as it is getting old. I generally
> > recommend keeping to the current Debian release for security
> > reasons.  
> 
> Hmm, I thought that Debian 9 received enough security updates, and it
> still have LTS and ELTS remaining.  I don't think it is older than
> Windows 7 (from 2007, if I remember well)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. You are correct that 9 is still
getting support, especially security updates. However, older versions
of Debian don't get newer versions of the software. Not all security
fixes can be backported. So there is a slow, imperceptible gap between
older versions and newer. You are almost certainly just fine on 9 now,
and will be until LTS support ends. But 10 will be more secure at some
point. Right now, it's a judgment call you'll have to make.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232635

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. You are correct that 9 is still
> getting support, especially security updates. However, older versions
> of Debian don't get newer versions of the software. Not all security
> fixes can be backported. So there is a slow, imperceptible gap between
> older versions and newer. You are almost certainly just fine on 9 now,
> and will be until LTS support ends. But 10 will be more secure at some
> point. Right now, it's a judgment call you'll have to make.

Well, I could try to wait a little with Debian 9 as I did with Windows 7.

That thing of no software updates is very weird.
Windows 7 is many years old yet I can still use the latest version of
Firefox.
Isn't there a way to update user programs without updating
the operating system itself.  I read there was something called backports,
but the warning about instability just terrifies me;
I know more or less how to fix Windows, but not Debian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232639

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>
> That thing of no software updates is very weird.
> Windows 7 is many years old yet I can still use the latest version of
> Firefox.
>
Yes, but you can't run the latest Chrome on the Windows XP. And you can't
run it on Pentium 3 (because it doesn't support the latest SSE4).
Modern software needs a modern OS and modern hardware.

Microsoft has much more resources than Debian team, so they can provide
support much longer than Debian.
This is because of money Microsoft gets for their products. But Debian is
free. Maintainers are volunteers. They simply do not have enough time to
spend it on backporting software to the ten years old distro..

Sometimes software can't run on modern Windows, and Microsoft creates shims
for it (you can google for that term).
So, they have hacks saying "if this app is called [some_app_name], change
API behaviour to support it".

Linux kernel ABI is backward compatible ("We do not break the user land"
(c) Linus Torvalds): that means old software should run on the latest
kernel, but not vice versa.
But software also depends on libraries, and libraries are not always
backward compatible.

The Debian team guarantees that software installed with package manager
(apt and friends) should run fine.
You can try to download the latest Firefox and run it on Debian 8, but
there are no guarantees for it to work.

Debian has thing called LTS:
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

People who really need long LTS use commercial distros like Redhat. But
IMHO it doesn't make any sense to use it unless you run a business that
depends on it.
For desktop I recommend to use the "stable" version of Debian and upgrade
it every several years.
(I now run bullseye which is the "testing" version, but it will become
stable in the next month or so: not a bleeding edge, but pretty modern and
stable at the same time)

Isn't there a way to update user programs without updating
> the operating system itself.
>

Classic UNIX and Linux approach is to install everything via package
managers and use the latest version available in package manager for the
certain OS version.
There are modern ways to install software along with all its dependencies
much like Windows people do.
Canonical (the company that runs Ubuntu) provides so-called "snaps".
There is also "docker": a tool that downloads all dependencies and only
depends on your kernel.
But again: the latest version of Firefox MAY need something that the
ancient kernel simply doesn't provide.

The safest way to use Debian is to:
* Run "stable" version on Debian
* Upgrade it to the next "stable" once Debian team releases it
* Install everything from the package manager.

It could happen that you wouldn't be able to install the latest version of
software released last week, but on the other hand you will be sure that
this software was tested and it is stable and compatible with everything
else in your system and there are a lot of people who run the same version
of this software (along with all other libraries and the kernel) on their
production servers, so everything is rock-solid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232640

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>> That thing of no software updates is very weird.
>> Windows 7 is many years old yet I can still use the latest version of
Firefox.
>
> Yes, but you can't run the latest Chrome on the Windows XP. And you can't
run it on Pentium 3 (because it doesn't support the latest SSE4).
> Modern software needs a modern OS and modern hardware.
>
> Microsoft has much more resources than Debian team, so they can provide
support much longer than Debian.
> This is because of money Microsoft gets for their products. But Debian is
free. Maintainers are volunteers. They simply do not have enough time to
spend it on backporting software to the ten years old distro..
>
> Sometimes software can't run on modern Windows, and Microsoft creates
shims for it (you can google for that term).
> So, they have hacks saying "if this app is called [some_app_name], change
API behaviour to support it".
>
> Linux kernel ABI is backward compatible ("We do not break the user land"
(c) Linus Torvalds): that means old software should run on the latest
kernel, but not vice versa.
> But software also depends on libraries, and libraries are not always
backward compatible.
>
> The Debian team guarantees that software installed with package manager
(apt and friends) should run fine.
> You can try to download the latest Firefox and run it on Debian 8, but
there are no guarantees for it to work.
>
> Debian has thing called LTS:
> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
>
> People who really need long LTS use commercial distros like Redhat. But
IMHO it doesn't make any sense to use it unless you run a business that
depends on it.
> For desktop I recommend to use the "stable" version of Debian and upgrade
it every several years.
> (I now run bullseye which is the "testing" version, but it will become
stable in the next month or so: not a bleeding edge, but pretty modern and
stable at the same time)
>
>> Isn't there a way to update user programs without updating
>> the operating system itself.
>
>
> Classic UNIX and Linux approach is to install everything via package
managers and use the latest version available in package manager for the
certain OS version.
> There are modern ways to install software along with all its dependencies
much like Windows people do.
> Canonical (the company that runs Ubuntu) provides so-called "snaps".
> There is also "docker": a tool that downloads all dependencies and only
depends on your kernel.
> But again: the latest version of Firefox MAY need something that the
ancient kernel simply doesn't provide.
>
> The safest way to use Debian is to:
> * Run "stable" version on Debian
> * Upgrade it to the next "stable" once Debian team releases it
> * Install everything from the package manager.
>
> It could happen that you wouldn't be able to install the latest version
of software released last week, but on the other hand you will be sure that
this software was tested and it is stable and compatible with everything
else in your system and there are a lot of people who run the same version
of this software (along with all other libraries and the kernel) on their
production servers, so everything is rock-solid.

Well, thanks for your sincerity.  Now I understands things a bit better.
I think I will be installing Debian 10 then.
Thank you and thanks everyone else for your help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232696

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 09 mar 21, 20:18:52, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. You are correct that 9 is still
> > getting support, especially security updates. However, older versions
> > of Debian don't get newer versions of the software. Not all security
> > fixes can be backported. So there is a slow, imperceptible gap between
> > older versions and newer. You are almost certainly just fine on 9 now,
> > and will be until LTS support ends. But 10 will be more secure at some
> > point. Right now, it's a judgment call you'll have to make.
> 
> Well, I could try to wait a little with Debian 9 as I did with Windows 7.
> 
> That thing of no software updates is very weird.
> Windows 7 is many years old yet I can still use the latest version of
> Firefox.
> Isn't there a way to update user programs without updating
> the operating system itself.  I read there was something called backports,
> but the warning about instability just terrifies me;
> I know more or less how to fix Windows, but not Debian.

You should keep in mind that Debian is used in everything from a 
Raspberry Pi (equivalent) to super computers.

Packages from backports are generally good enough to run even on 
"important" systems. For systems that are "mission critical"[1] you 
should do your own testing.

Mind the instructions and only install selected packages from backports 
and you should be fine for a regular desktop.

In the specific case of Firefox it seems the stable release (currently 
Debian 10) gets updated to the latest ESR (so you don't even need 
backports), while oldstable (currently Debian 9) is stuck at the 
previous version.

[1] whatever that means for you

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232704 — Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-03-10 at 11:00, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> Andrei POPESCU and all:
> 
> I see that you and a few other people use what I'll call footnotes in
> your emails, e.g. (with lots of things stripped out):
> 
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 09:08:30 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> Packages from backports are generally good enough to run even on
>> "important" systems. For systems that are "mission critical"[1]
>> you should do your own testing.
> 
> ...
> 
>> [1] whatever that means for you
> 
> I'm curious how you do that, or more specifically, are you using an
> email client that (semi-?) automates that for you?

For myself, I type them out by hand. This does occasionally result in
having one end of the note sit dangling with the other not present.

I've never heard of an E-mail client that supports automating this, and
I'm not entirely sure I'd want it automated, although a "did you forget
to finish this?" reminder such as my Thunderbird configuration provides
when I type a word like "attach" but don't include an attachment might
be helpful.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232707 — Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10)

> I've never heard of an E-mail client that supports automating this, and
> I'm not entirely sure I'd want it automated, although a "did you forget
> to finish this?" reminder such as my Thunderbird configuration provides
> when I type a word like "attach" but don't include an attachment might
> be helpful.

FWIW, Emacs does offer support for that kind of footnotes, of course ;-)


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232736 — Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 10 mar 21, 11:30:01, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I've never heard of an E-mail client that supports automating this, and
> > I'm not entirely sure I'd want it automated, although a "did you forget
> > to finish this?" reminder such as my Thunderbird configuration provides
> > when I type a word like "attach" but don't include an attachment might
> > be helpful.
> 
> FWIW, Emacs does offer support for that kind of footnotes, of course ;-)

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/378/

Kind regards,
Andrei
P.S. never bothered to search for a (neo)vim plugin for this, it just 
never felt necessary.
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232734 — Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 10 mar 21, 11:07:49, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-03-10 at 11:00, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > I see that you and a few other people use what I'll call footnotes in
> > your emails, e.g. (with lots of things stripped out):
> > 
> > I'm curious how you do that, or more specifically, are you using an
> > email client that (semi-?) automates that for you?
> 
> For myself, I type them out by hand. This does occasionally result in
> having one end of the note sit dangling with the other not present.

Been there, done that, as well as messing the numbering (especially when 
rewording a long message), and probably other stuff I forgot about :D

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232705 — OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10)

Andrei POPESCU and all:

I see that you and a few other people use what I'll call footnotes in your 
emails, e.g. (with lots of things stripped out):

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 09:08:30 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Packages from backports are generally good enough to run even on
> "important" systems. For systems that are "mission critical"[1] you
> should do your own testing.

...

> [1] whatever that means for you

I'm curious how you do that, or more specifically, are you using an email 
client that (semi-?) automates that for you?

If so, which email client (and version).  Thanks!


Irrelevant aside question (for extra credit ;-): I did try looking at the 
message headers (View Source in kmail) to see if your email client was shown 
there, but the things I found that might have been relevant might be 
contrsdictory -- I found (it's been a long time since I looked at email 
headers):

In-Reply-To: <CAMGm-vW7H78ith2ENv-
wRVzqdS3YYCovX6VShLFpKHTom-74yA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716

...

X-KMail-EncryptionState:  
X-KMail-SignatureState:  
X-KMail-MDN-Sent:  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232711

Am 10.03.21 um 01:18 schrieb Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z:

> Well, I could try to wait a little with Debian 9 as I did with Windows 7.
> 
> That thing of no software updates is very weird.
> Windows 7 is many years old yet I can still use the latest version of 
> Firefox.
> Isn't there a way to update user programs without updating
> the operating system itself.  I read there was something called backports,
> but the warning about instability just terrifies me;
> I know more or less how to fix Windows, but not Debian.

Of course, you can manually download Firefox from the official Website 
and use it on a older system. It will probably work for a few years 
until Firefox needs a lib which the old Version does not have.

But using the version of Firefox from Debian is much more comfortable, 
as it simply just works :)

Cant you just upgrade the RAM? My Intel Atom N550 netbook supports 2GB - 
unfortunately the maximum by this processor. As others already said,
the main problem is the Browser itself. I discovered my Firefox needs 
1,4GB for just an empty page (and some plugins like Adblock and 
NoScript) after startup. So with the rest of the system needing <= 
512MB, 2GB still works as minimum requirement.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232724

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> Of course, you can manually download Firefox from the official Website
and use it on a older system. It will probably work for a few years until
Firefox needs a lib which the old Version does not have.
>
> But using the version of Firefox from Debian is much more comfortable, as
it simply just works :)
>
> Cant you just upgrade the RAM? My Intel Atom N550 netbook supports 2GB -
unfortunately the maximum by this processor. As others already said,
> the main problem is the Browser itself. I discovered my Firefox needs
1,4GB for just an empty page (and some plugins like Adblock and NoScript)
after startup. So with the rest of the system needing <= 512MB, 2GB still
works as minimum requirement.
>

I don't think I could upgrade any hardware for now.
As you posted, it looks like Firefox is eating too much.
It is weird that Firefox does that for a blank webpage.
On my PC with 4 GB of RAM, Firefox only eats 250 MB for a new tab,
or at least its what the Task Manager says.
Maybe the problem is with the plugins or something else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232744

> Cant you just upgrade the RAM? My Intel Atom N550 netbook supports 2GB -

That's good advice: check whether your machine has the RAM soldered on
or has an SODIMM: it might be easy&cheap to find a pair of old 1GB
SODIMMs to replace the likely pair of 512KB SODIMMs you have.

[ In my case, when I have such needs I first go to my department's IT
  guys, who have all kinds of old unused hardware pieces stashed in
  boxes.  ]


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232618

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

G'day

My 2 cents worth, Deb10 with either Mate or xfce desktop. KDE/plasma is great, but I find it slow to load on i7 with 8G ram and add. It has more config options, but I've gotten over that.   Oh, I don't boot often, but I've grown impatient.

As I said, my 2 cents worth.


-- 
Keith BAINBRIDGE 
Keith.bainbridge.3216@gmx.com 

Sent from my Aphone

On 9 March 2021 10:30:15 pm UTC, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello.
>
>I'm new to GNU/Linux systems.  I would like to know
>why the RAM requirements showed here:
>https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch03s04.en.html
>are double the size of those displayed here:
>https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/ch03s04.html.en
>
>Excuse my ignorance, I have a bit old laptop and I don't know if it would
>be better
>to have Debian 9 so I can, possibly, load KDE on it, or instead Debian 10
>but having to limit myself to lightweight applications only.
>
>Anyway, thanks in advance for any help you could give me.
>
>PS: If I'm not using the mailing list properly, let me know,
>I never used any before.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232619

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> G'day
>
> My 2 cents worth, Deb10 with either Mate or xfce desktop. KDE/plasma is
great, but I find it slow to load on i7 with 8G ram and add. It has more
config options, but I've gotten over that. Oh, I don't boot often, but I've
grown impatient.
>
> As I said, my 2 cents worth.

Wow, it looks like KDE is really bloated.
I was thinking that LXQt would be an acceptable alternative,
at least it has a configuration center.
Honestly, I would not like to have to use the command line
everyday to adjust some setting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232653

Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-09 19:22 (UTC-0400):

>> My 2 cents worth, Deb10 with either Mate or xfce desktop. KDE/plasma is
> great, but I find it slow to load on i7 with 8G ram and add. It has more
> config options, but I've gotten over that. Oh, I don't boot often, but I've
> grown impatient.

>> As I said, my 2 cents worth.

> Wow, it looks like KDE is really bloated.
										
KDE is one of the oldest DEs, thus has acquired more features. They need not be
used all at once, so need not generate the giant monolith feeling many would have
you believe. It need not use any more RAM than XFCE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvJOXypAbk
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
	is based on faith, not on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232657

Felix Miata wrote:

> KDE is one of the oldest DEs, thus has acquired more features. They need
> not be used all at once, so need not generate the giant monolith feeling
> many would have you believe. It need not use any more RAM than XFCE:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvJOXypAbk

There is a good project called Slax with KDE fitted to <1GB USB. Just tested
last week, but on some modern PCs.
I doubt it will work well on older Core2 Duo PC/Notebook without tweeking,
but it could be I am wrong. The best is trying yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232622

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

By the way: some people use bare window managers instead of full-fledged
desktop environments.

> Some window managers (like TWM) can run on 8MB of RAM:). The smallest one
is called CWM (created by OpenBSD).
https://packages.debian.org/buster/cwm

but it is for these old UNIX gurus who never leave the command line, not
for regular users.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232625

IL Ka wrote:

> By the way: some people use bare window managers instead of full-fledged
> desktop environments.
> 
>> Some window managers (like TWM) can run on 8MB of RAM:). The smallest one
> is called CWM (created by OpenBSD).
> https://packages.debian.org/buster/cwm
> 
> but it is for these old UNIX gurus who never leave the command line, not
> for regular users.

My grandma is not using any window manager :D - she's being managed as she
is 90y.o :D
Sorry I couldn't resist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232629

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> By the way: some people use bare window managers instead of full-fledged
desktop environments.
>
> Some window managers (like TWM) can run on 8MB of RAM:). The smallest one
is called CWM (created by OpenBSD).
> https://packages.debian.org/buster/cwm
>
> but it is for these old UNIX gurus who never leave the command line, not
for regular users.

He, he.  I think it would not be a good idea, since I'm
changing from Windows to Debian.  I don't want to crash
my head against a wall trying to use my PC.

PS: sorry, I forgot to send this to the mailing list again.  GMail's reply
function doesn't help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web