Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Ubuntu Linux Derivative Works with 32 Megabytes of RAM

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote
on Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:28:27 +0000
<2304159.UYkGfkKgEe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Friday 12 January 2007 16:46 \__
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>  wrote
>> on Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:46:20 +0000
>> <2290679.UAutez2RMh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Ubuntu Goes Low Spec!
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Ubuntu Lite, by contrast, is said to work with 64MB of RAM, and if
>>> | need be, it can even work with as little as 32MB of RAM. Considering
>>> | the advantages demonstrated by other Lite Debian-based distributions,
>>> | it could very well open up some doors for folks looking to make
>>> | the switch, yet not possessing up to date hardware.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=7707
>> 
>> Wake me when they get to 4 MB. :-)  Not that there'd be
>> much of a GUI, of course, but older Debian distros had
>> no problem installing in 4 MB.  Nowadays, the minimum
>> they recommend is 14 MB.  (Side note: 2048x2048x16M is
>> 12 MB video ram, and 16 MB if they waste a byte per pel --
>> or reserve a byte for alpha.)
>> 
>> Contrast this to Vista's 512 MB -- according to
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905075.aspx
>> anyway -- and 1 GB if one wants Windows Vista Premium Ready.
>> 
>> Apples and oranges, certainly -- a Linux text console
>> doesn't do 3D graphics very well! -- but one wonders how
>> much of that 1 GB is truly needed, and how much is merely
>> for "window dressing".
>
> One ought to worry about CPU (or power in the case of hardware-level
> processing) usage as well. Apart from many memory-related (or--goodness
> forbid--swap) operations, there are many scrambling and unscrambling
> operations going on (e.g. to secure "premium content"). IIRC, DRM in iPods
> increases battery drainage by about 30-40%. I can't recall where I saw these
> tests/benchmarks.
>

Hm.  Mind you, encryption does seem to steal about 1/2 my
bandwidth, the few tests that I've run while copying files
around at home.  There's a few issues running around in
there (in particular my fastest CPU is a 1.4 GHz Athlon),
of course.

I'll admit I had not considered the particular subissue
of trading off DRM versus battery life.

But one might want encryption anyway, if only so that
eavesdroppers don't steal one's password during WiFi login.
Whether DRM is layering thereonto is not clear to me,
and I'll admit the user community is suspicious about
DRM generally (and for good reason, as it turns out,
since Sony and Microsoft have botched their respective
implementations; the jury's still out on whether the public
would accept a perfect DRM implementation).

What is the cost of privacy?  What is the cost of antifraud
measures (which DRM is touted as being, to ensure that
songowners -- not necessarily songwriters! -- get their
"fair share")?  What is the cost of "media piracy" -- perhaps
more accurately termed media theft?

And what is the cost to the industry, because of perceptions
that DRM is an overbearing restriction?

Again, the Internet is corrupting things -- though it's not
something directly Linux-related.

*scratches head*

-- 
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index