It's somewhat similar to Gnome in look as it uses the GTK framework, but much lighter in RAM and quite flexible.megamaced said:
Yes, Xfce would be an excellent choice for those specs. If you are a minimalist there are lighter desktops still, but Xfce offers a lot of features for the welter resource footprint.megamaced said:
I have a use for one, that being network audits! Unfortunately this laptop is not mine; I'm gonna need to buy one. :(ninja fetus said:
Anti-Trend said:
Mandriva is good, but I don't like Mandriva's implementation of Xfce as much as Ubuntu's to be honest. I'm not a huge fan of the Ubuntu, as it's not quite as solid nor as secure out-of-the box as I'm used to most Linux distros being. But it is still Linux, and terms like 'solid' and 'secure' are relative terms with OSes like Windows in the world. Still, Mandriva has much better wireless support and is IMHO a smarter design overall than Ubuntu.megamaced said:
Gnome is more resource hungry than KDE, so you'd be much better of with a lighter desktop. Xfce is more of a middle-weight desktop than a light one, but I think it would be sufficiently fast without leaving you feel too naked and exposed. :) A super-light desktop is fine for someone who understands the underlying system well, but is not very helpful to a user who is less than famaliar with what's going on under the hood.megamaced said:
Well, I don't recommend using Gnome at all, as IMHO it is a poor desktop. And the color schemes can be changed easily in Xfce, so it's kinda moot, don't you think? (P.S. - I agree that the earthy tones are drab-looking)megamaced said:
Ubuntu is a Debian-based distro which is made easy for beginners to use, which is why I recommended it at all. :) Fedora is less than desirable, IMO. It is basically a test-bed so Red Hat can work the kinks out of RHEL, not much good on the desktop if you ask me. It's a cluttered, disjointed mess. Many recent converts from Windows seem to like FC quite a bit, but I suspect that may be from lack of a reference point in the Linux world.megamaced said:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is actually a pretty decent server platform, although it's not very good on the desktop IMHO ...though I'd still prefer RHEL over Windows for getting the real work done. You're right that Red Hat is not free as in 'gratis', though it is still under the GPL which makes it free as in 'libre'. That's why the CentOS project exists. It's a 100% free (as in gratis and libre) version of RHEL, since it is built from the same source code but all of the RH logos and trademarks are removed.megamaced said:
There is no equivilent to YAST or MCC in Ubuntu, as each of the configuration tools are seperate. Xfce has its own consolidated look & feel control panel though.megamaced said:
Not really, everything is still organized in pretty much the same place. It's just not as convenient I suppose.megamaced said:
Yeah, that's from the PowerBook. Custom window frames, color scheme and background though.megamaced said:
