Oh I know how to search - link was double checked before and after posting
Instructions were exact..
Yup, still looks like one club slackware golfer....

You mean the review where the "top tester" ( ) didn't know he'd need development tools to build SlackBuilds?

https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?i...0214#slackware

Yes, what a performance; enough to put people off linux for life - and so heavy and inefficient..

As I said - Doubt if any slackware user understands efficient use of resource when inefficiency starts at installation; being a pain even for Distrowatch’s top tester who’s experienced with slackware. Just how bad does it get – another topic perhaps?

Attached Thumbnails

 

That review was discussed in the Slackware forum:
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...-a-4175707982/
Have you ever tried Slackware or do you only read reviews of it?

Please stop the trolling - cheers

Try and create an original Topic yourself outside of slackware
Or is that beyond your capabilities?

You haven't answered the question: have you ever tried Slackware or have you only read reviews of it?
Explain why you believe it's inefficient.

It's hard to configure for most users, because they used to convenience of user-friendly software like windows for example.
Not hard at all really, just very time consuming.. for new users..
For older users, with experience in old systems circa 1990-2005, it's really a least time consuming option there is.
It's general purpose though, can run on old machines (I have one 15.0 with less than 1G RAM), but something like kernel+busybox would generally run much faster.
Doesn't mean it's not viable on those machines, just that most users expect maximum efficiency for minimum effort. Some of the windows users I've met, see the shell and shout "EWWWW, why do you have a MSDos"

Why are you guys here bombing this thread…?

Could admin remove your posts please?

If you two slackware users wish to discuss the inefficiencies of slackware or any other slackware issues please start your own thread.

We realize that you wish to obscure disros+DEs that are easy to install and are very efficient in use as it highlights just how bad slackware can be in these areas.

LQ members are most welcome here to post about any Distro+DE that consumes 200MiB RAM or less at idle.

Have you tried WattOS? (Before you ask, no I haven't).
Debian(11) plus lxde.
Their web page shows 262MB RAM on idle.
Maybe you can get it down to less than 200 by not starting so many startup services/processes?

https://www.planetwatt.com/

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks Anticapitalista – WattOS was not on my radar. Had a quick look – it seems to confirm my futile experiment with Debian+LXDE which you saved me from

Looks to be a competent stable Distro but again in line with my experiment it comes in at 300MiB RAM at idle for latest R12 as seen in their video….
Play at least 1080 resolution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTxswVBJhCw

I know it will fall on deaf ears – What is needed is Antix or Debian with LXDE sorted by your good self – It would be top of the pops here at 150MiB RAM used. As with artists and authors you could release it under a pseudonym if that helps

Post #1 - Any sub 200MiB (RAM used) Distros with a Desktop out there..?
As the title says – With a listed Desktop ie LXDE, LXQT, KDE, XFCE etc rather than those WM+FM+Panel distros? Mostly interested in those distros with a good selection of software – Browser, Gimp, Libre Office, Sound and video with the usual tools or utilities.

As this thread was being trolled and bombed by slackware users I thought it would be useful for our readers if I listed the Distros with a Desktop that have come in at 200MiB RAM or less used at idle. Here they are in no particular order…

Slitaz offers LXDE as its default desktop environment and PCManFM as its file manager and Faenza as its icon theme. It works very fast…
https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/11/d...ng-system.html

AntiX-LXDE - Technically a WM Distro but simple instruction on forum by admin Anticapitalista to install LXDE. My AntiX-LXDE uses just 150MiB RAM at idle.

Void LXDE – I have not tested it yet but DistroWatch says 320MiB RAM at idle with the comparatively inefficient Xfce desktop. So should scrape in at 200MiB with LXDE.
https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20221128#void
https://www.maketecheasier.com/lxde-vs-xfce/

Loc-OS LXDE version https://imgur.com/a/EWnk7uR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1D6RWXWxo

LXLE Focal - https://lxle.net/
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=lxle
https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?i...140707#feature
Light on resources; Heavy on functions.
Uses an optimized LXDE user interface.
Simple, Elegant and Familiar desktop UI.
Prudent full featured Apps preinstalled.
Latest stable versions of all major apps.

Trisquel Mini is an alternative to the mainline Trisquel, designed to run well on netbooks and low-power computers. It uses low-resource desktop environment LXDE (Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment)
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-mini

Please post any sub 200MiB (RAM used) Distros with a Desktop – see Post #1

Note: Please, no WM Window Managers like Bodhi’s Moksha – Enlightenment or Puppy with JWM

ROTFLMAO
Since when has asking a sensible question been "trolling and bombing"?

Hi fatmac, not this again..... getting so boring....

If you wish to change this Topic’s criteria please start your own Topic - simple.
I am not interested in WMs no matter how they may or may not operate.
Most Noobs looking for a Windoze replacement will require a proper DE.
Some geeks might not want a compositor; whatever, to slow the system down.
Subject of another topic... You could start it.. See how kind and considerate I am

The scope of this topic is quite specific - With a listed Desktop ie LXDE, LXQT, KDE, XFCE to which I might add Gnome, Mate, Cinnamon, Pantheon and Budgie. The latter five I just added for reference as I believe they are too inefficient to make the grade here.
I have used most of them so I know only too well. The DE’s that I have used all worked perfectly - even Zorin+Gnome, so professional looking and everything works out of the box; but efficient - No

Just curious what makes you consider Bodhi's Moksha not a full Desktop Environment?

A desktop environment of course includes a window manager but also includes everything else to make a complete Desktop Environment so you don't have to patch things together yourself. Never heard anyone try to claim Bodhi wasn't running a full desktop until now, and wonder what you possibly think is missing?

Thought Moksha was a fork of Enlightenment which is a WM according to ArchLinux: - Enlightenment is not just a window manager for Linux/X11 and others, but also a suite of libraries to help you create beautiful user interfaces with much less work than doing it the old fashioned way and fighting with traditional toolkits, not to mention a traditional window manager.
Never seen Moksha in the usual listings of desktops.

I am happy to include the wonderful Bodhi if I have got it wrong

If archwiki is the definitve source, then the first line of the Moksha entry should satisfy you: "Moksha is a desktop environment..." https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Moksha

There are a few less popular desktop environments out there that are only used by one particular distro, so perhaps they don't make the list you're thinking of. I think ElementaryOS has one they call Pantheon, Deepin has one... PopOS i think has one.... there's probably a few more obscure ones out there only used by one distro. But anyways give it a try if you're curious and you'll see it's certainly not missing anything that I can think of, and if you think it is, it's probably just cuz you haven't found it, as Moksha is a little different than other desktops and some things are kinda hidden or use different terms to describe features. It certainly offers a lot more features than LXDE - which afaik doesn't even have a way to search applications, you have to browse traditional menu by mouse, or use terminal! And pcmanfm doesn't even leave breadcrumbs! (Not to discredit LXDE, it's very usable and the lightest of the major desktops - it's just old and no new fancy features.)

2 members found this post helpful.