Tim: >> But being serious, I think you may be on the wrong list for that sort of >> thing. You want an OS that's designed for efficiency (Damn Small Linux, >> perhaps?), whereas Fedora seems to be the *big* Swiss Army knife with >> razor sharpened edges - size being less important than features. Timothy Murphy: > I agree that I am not really on the right list, > since my query was entirely hardware-related. I didn't mean it in a "hardware's off-topic, go elsewhere" way, but that efficiency doesn't seem to be a prime goal of Fedora, and other distros have specifically aimed for it. You might be better served by trying to find which other distro would suit you better, than trying to sort out how to shoehorn Fedora onto a little computer. Fedora comes with a bit of baggage. It's management tools are fairly hefty (e.g. yum update/upgrade isn't a light task, etc.), compared to a distro where you simply unpack a tarball from the originator of the software (e.g. you get Apache from the Apache website, etc.). It comes with a plethora of things that it deems must be there (e.g. CUPS has to be there, even if you don't have a printer). Even just booting Fedora's more of a chore than some other releases (e.g. a minute or so rather than just a few seconds). -- [tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr 2.6.23.12-52.fc7 i686 i386 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. ________________________________________________________________
