How much disk space required for Slackware 14.2 32-bit?
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.
If you will not use kde and Qt, your system will be small and fast. See this page for more details.
And how do you determine that using KDE qt means your system won't be fast? I will admit that small is relative, but I'm certainly not bothered by its size. And I've noticed no slowdowns with using KDE and QT... and from what I've heard, Eric's ktown (KDE/Plasma 5) runs even better than KDE4.
And how do you determine that using KDE qt means your system won't be fast? I will admit that small is relative, but I'm certainly not bothered by its size. And I've noticed no slowdowns with using KDE and QT... and from what I've heard, Eric's ktown (KDE/Plasma 5) runs even better than KDE4.
But not faster than the fluxbox/blackbox/fvwm/windowmaker/xfce.
Maybe your world is limited to KDE, but mine is not.
I'd like to know why OP, or anyone, these days when storage is so cheap, has any concern whatsoever for install size?
I know that's hard to believe, but there are solid proofs that the greedy North-American Capitalists sells to inexperienced people around of World computers with really small storage devices which are soldered on board, then they are irreplaceable.
Those irreplaceable storage devices are eMMC ranging from 4GB to 32GB, sometimes more, and there are some proofs of their odious crimes:
Apparently, they try to install and run Slackware Linux.
The issues are exacerbated by facts like the ability of distributions like Ubuntu or Fedora to be installed within 4GB partitions, making the major newspapers and blogs to spread false information about the storage requirements to run Linux.
Last edited by Darth Vader; 04-16-2018 at 05:12 AM.
I have to agree, after getting used to a lightweight window manager (awesome WM in my case), going back to KDE feels painfully sluggish. The same is true for Gnome, which I ran for a spell. Of course, there's no reason that simply having one of these DEs installed will make your system any slower, if you are not using them. By the way, KDE apps are still plenty snappy when run in a different window manager.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.