SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Well I've run slack with a start-up size of about 60 MB while I've seen ubuntu and other distros start up around 110 MB using the same WM. And I use the default install too with the exception of using dwm or wmii which each have smaller sizes than kde or gnome it xfce
Also I've seen debian start up around 65 or 70 LB. It's partially why I prefer both to other distributions
Last edited by Ian John Locke II; 10-02-2011 at 11:35 AM.
On my machine, I have traditionally compiled my own kernel as one of the first steps on a new install of Slackware. I hadn't done it in a few years, but went and did it this time around again. Con: It takes literally SEVERAL HOURS to go through all the menus and (de)select the various options. Pros: far smaller memory footprint AND things are noticeably snappier--even on the TurionX2 in my laptop; you'll see even better results on older hardware.
Another thing to consider on total memory footprint are the various daemons running: in addition, turning off daemons ("services" in winblows-speak) is also a very security-conscious thing to do. (Now I just need to figure out how to chroot-jail ntpd one of these days...)
If you're REALLY hardcore, only install software, libraries, and drivers you know you'll actually use. I used to do this, but it mostly doesn't make sense anymore on non-embedded hardware; OTOH, it may make sense to remove crap you don't need X to use since it usually auto-loads it (drivers, fonts, etc) into memory.
Bear in mind that, in most cases, your biggest memory hogs will be X (after running for a while, it doesn't like to release memory for some reason), graphical web browsers, and big, fat window manager systems, which normally means KDE on Slackware. XFCE is getting a little plump now, too, but having the extra icons and other bells and whistles on reasonably modern hardware overcomes the limitations of running FVWM2 with its tiny footprint, IMHO. Of course, YMMV.
I hope this helps. Of course, if you're thinking of going embedded and you like the Slackware way of doing things, Linux From Scratch has instructions to help you give it more slack; the down side is that you don't benefit from the experience of Pat and his boys getting even unstable software to seemingly run reliably, a feat that I marvel at to this day.
I have to agree with storkus. I didn't do it on my last installation but even so I feel like it's a leaner installation than a "default" installation of most other distros (unless you start doing netinstalls and don't install much afterwards).
In my case, the things I use the most are:
gcc
python
X
firefox
wmii
vim/gvim
And of those, firefox takes the most memory, then X. wmii should take more memory than the rest depending on what else I'm running but that's only because it's a window manager that's pretty damned fast and slick. As light weight as it is, it isn't for everyone. Openbox and blackbox (and really any *box) window managers are good for lightweight and highly customizable window managers.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.