9/4     For those who have both linux and freebsd on their system which
        one do you like better.  i'm running linux with X on a 16mb system
        and it doesn't fair much better than win95 in terms of speed.  I'm
        hoping that freebsd will be much slimmer and have better
        process/memory management.  Is this true?  (Please no 'get win nt
        or more memory.' i can't afford laptop memory and i'm not going to
        pay $80 for a buggy os).
        \_ 16MB is way too little for doing real work under X.  4 is barely
           enough to boot without too much swapping, 8 enough to maybe
           start X without swapping..  X also is NOT "faster" graphically
           than Windoze.  Windoze and MacOS are optimised to be graphical
           environments.  X is optimized to be flexible, portable, and
           useful over a network.  --dbushong
                \_ NT Terminal Server (Hydra) is pretty slick, even on
                   a modem. Faster than emacs + X + modem. :-) -slow
                   \_ Remote X programs over 28.8 using ssh -C actually
                      aren't bad at all.  The compression helps _a lot_.  I
                      used to run netscape this way when I was running X
                      on my Mac IIcx + NetBSD (but then that machine had
                      20MB RAM).  Also check out dxpc (it's in ports), which
                      is supposedly a "differential X protocol compressor"
                      --dbushong
                \-Hey 16megs would have been great on a sun3+X. As long as it
                is just running X and slip, you can get by with under 4mb.--psb
                   \_ Beware: using a sun3 may distort your sense of "great".
                      \_ Beware: using psb's mom may distort your sense of
                         "great".  --psb's mom's #1 fan