DSL Ideas and Suggestions :: Is mc a must... or any "Commander" would suffice?

Quote (mikshaw @ Feb. 09 2006,02:29)

I don't know where you got the 5mb figure for mc....it's grossly inaccurate.

I knew that at 5MB it was absurdly high, but that is what apt told me about mc. Talking about Debian Unstable size figures for mc. It was far beyond reasonable and that was the point to start this thread.

But your comments show that mc is not that heavy, so now I have the answer. I understand that the question was somewhat weird if all you know beforehand is deco and mc were similar in size (and was me who had overgrown figures). It would have seemed to you a matter of tastes instead of pure pragmatism till now.

Thanks for your time and patience.

OK, I know this isn't taking into account shared libraries or anything, but I just started up DSL 2.1x. The "RAM Usage" display on the upper right hand side shows: 22.4M / 92.1M.
I started up Midnight Commander.
it now shows: 23.2M / 92.1M

To me, that says 0.8M (800K) usage which isn't much.

Since mc is used more than deco, I'm voting for keeping mc

I'm not all too familiar with Deco, but I think that MC is cool.

Now, if it's a matter of size constraints I've written a filemanager in perl that's only 3KB in size (mind you this is without a gui, but I can make it run from a gui click without much change in size) also I still need to add in a few functions, but I don't expect this application to go beyond 10KB in size... It runs great on DSL too

If interested send me an email or post here your interest... I can always make it available either in source or as a tar.gz download from my website.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The 3KB size I mentioned is an uncompressed size.

poppe, gurus here don't like to respond to anyone with an opinion other than their own... They prefer 'sheep' in this forum.

Next Page...
original here.