[ltp] Kdrive x server?

[cloakable]

On Tuesday 09 January 2007 03:55, Richard Neill wrote:
> cloakable wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 03:23, Richard Neill wrote:
> >> If you're just trying to make X smaller, you'll find that judicious use
> >> of "rm -r" (and "du -sh *") will save you a lot of time. Keep a backup
> >> of everything, in case you mess it up. And note that you'll be bypassing
> >> your package manager. BUT, most of X consists of drivers and fonts which
> >> you probably don't need.
> >
> > Yeah, but will that get me down to the sort of sizes kdrive will? There's
> > probably a reason DSL uses it as the default windowmanager.
>
> I'm not quite sure I follow you. Are you talking about:
>
> *  Space used on disk
> 	=> Just delete bits of Xorg
>
> *  Space used in RAM by the actual device driver and Xorg process
> 	=> This should be pretty small. Yes, you could use kdrive instead of
> the X driver that you have, or the vesa driver, but I'd guess that
> you'll save a few 100 kB at most.  [kdrive isn't a windowmanager, BTW]
I know, but DSL uses kdrive, and I get much smaller ram usage with that. I 
think it's partly because of kdrive - I've found a precompiled kdrive deb 
package, but I'm not going to use it because it's old (2003, I think).
>
> *  RAM used by the *Window manager*
>          => Pick a small one. Personally, I like icewm for this. It's
> small although not tiny, but it does have support for most of the usual
> Window-Manager things that you'd expect. If you want even smaller, try
> blackbox.
I use JWM.
>
> * RAM used by your GUI toolkit. For a 240, you can probably afford to
> use GTK1 OR GTK2 OR Qt, but not to mix and match. I'd recommend you go
> for GTK2, which allows you to have modern apps like firefox.
I use GTK2.
>
> * RAM used by the X-server "on behalf of" your applications.
>
> >> I presume you mean 40MB ?
> >
> > Yeah, my typo.
> >
> >> Also, do you actually mean RAM use or do you mean disk space?
> >>
> >> If you meant RAM use, then are you aware that `top` doesn't always give
> >> you a helpful answer to the question "How much RAM is a process using?".
> >
> > True, but I just use it as a guide to find the biggest programs, so I can
> > try to find smaller replacements.
>
> Sadly, top's result here is hugely misleading. Every application you run
> will contribute to making the X-server's RAM consumption look bigger. If
> you want a fair test, make sure you start X in "failsafe" mode without
> even running a window-manager. Then run `top`.
>
> I know that top's information usually causes confusion, although I
> forget what the right answer is. Do google for this - I know I saw a
> good explanation somewhere once!
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard