[Solved] Windows Manager using less resources than IceWM and IceWM installation

[CloisteredNeuron]

Update: Not for sure if this is the best approach as I pulled together several videos and posts and too many Debian reinstalls but it works. I unfortunately can't use this as I'm switching to Wayland so I'll have no long-term testing results. Detail in image and textually below:

https://i.postimg.cc/L5zxgB99/Ice-WM-Config.gif

# Installing IceWM on Debian 6.7.12-1
Linux 6.7.12-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.7.12-1 (2024-04-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux

# Installing packages
sudo apt-get update --fix-missing
sudo apt install xorg lxpolkit slim icewm arandr pulseaudio volumeicon-alsa

# Create ~/.icewm/startup - need lxpolkit for administrative access elevation
# rwx for owner and group
#!/bin/bash

[ -x ~/.icewm/restart ] && source ~/.icewm/restart &

lxpolkit
[END UPDATE]

I'd like to build the lightest Linux system I can that is based upon Debian and IceWM or lighter windows manager.

Are there any windows managers lighter than IceWM?

Are there any guides/videos on installing IceWM on base Debian?

I was able to get IceWM running on Debian but have encountered issues. For instance, menu items for shutdown and restart would not work - no error given. Also, the gparted menu option would not start gparted but like shutdown and restart, gparted would run from the cmd line. I was hoping to find a tutorial/video/blog that goes into locating/editing/moving the config files controlling IceWM and whatever config files required to allow elevated permission functions such as reboot/shutdown and gparted/synaptic to run from the IceWM menu.

[amin11]

What are your computer resources? How lightweight a distribution is doesn't just depend on the window manager, there are many things involved.
If you want to build the lightest distribution, you have to spend a lot of time.
I'm sure someone has already done this and you can find it on distrowatch

[kalle123]

Have a look at https://www.slax.org/

br KH

[CloisteredNeuron]

Hi Amin11,

I currently have Debian 6.7.12-amd64 running within a 300MB RAM/20GB Storage/2 Core Processor VM and consuming 63.7MB of RAM and 0MB SWAP as reported by HTOP. Another VM with IceWM and the same config has HTOP numbers of 97.1M RAM and 8.8M SWAP. I've installed Debian over 20 times trying to deal with these issues so I totally agree on spending a lot of time with this endeavor. Why all the work? I want to learn more about Linux as I’ll probably have to upgrade this notebook to Linux in 17 months as MS will not allow me to upgrade it to Win 11 and Win 10 support is ending.

[CloisteredNeuron]

HI kalle123,

I was trying SLAX out for a computer requiring a 32BIT OS. I went with Puppy Linux for that computer but Slax was interesting.

[steve_v]

Are there any windows managers lighter than IceWM?

Of course.
TWM for example is <1/10th the installed size of IceWM, and depends only on basic X libs and libc. It is however a properly mesozoic unix WM, so it works rather differently to what you are likely expecting.
FLWM is somewhat more modern and similarly tiny, but again has it's own workflow making no attempt to ape Windows.

If by "Windows Manager" you really mean "Windows-like", with icons, a taskbar, a Windows-style application menu, and a bunch of other not-strictly-needed junk, then the lightest option is probably JWM. Still 1/5 the size of IceWM, and can be even lighter if you compile it without some optional features.

guides/videos
...
tutorial/video/blog

IceWM has a perfectly good set of manuals, available both online and at the command-line once installed.

VM with IceWM and the same config has HTOP numbers of 97.1M RAM and 8.8M SWAP.

>100MB just to boot to a WM? What's your memory consumption at the CLI without X loaded?

If you want a properly lightweight system, have a look at what DSL/TinyCore does (to run just fine on my 100Mhz/48MB 486) and be prepared to build packages yourself. Debian is a general-purpose distribution, and as such Debian packages tend to be built with most if not all optional features enabled.

[amin11]

It is better to use zram. Slitaz distribution may not be bad.

[CloisteredNeuron]

Hey Steve,

Good call. I took a look at TWM and FLWM and the look and workflow are not what I really want. I was pleasantly surprised with JWM. I thought I tried JWM with Antix and it used more memory than IceWM but I must have been wrong. I definitely need to give JWM on Debian a go.

I agree ice-wm.org does provide exhaustive details on IceWM components but a Debian apt-centric install and configuration guide showing how to edit the start menu and allow elevated permission apps to run would be nice.

Memory consumption without X and Ice-WM:
"I currently have Debian 6.7.12-amd64 running within a 300MB RAM/20GB Storage/2 Core Processor VM and consuming 63.7MB of RAM and 0MB SWAP as reported by HTOP."

For my needs a lightweight system is more about computer security, reducing attack surfaces, using code reviewed by as many developers as possible, and reducing telemetry. Both Debian and IceWM have a long history going back to the 1990s so that is a huge plus to me.

Thanks Steve.

[CloisteredNeuron]

Hi Amin11,

Just took a look at Slitaz. I used a similar product, Puppy Linux, on a 2004 Dell and I think Slitaz would be good for such an application.

Thanks.

[trinidad]

https://antixlinux.com/

So many options you'll get dizzy but with minimalism at it's heart. Just no systemd.

TC

[CloisteredNeuron]

Hey Steve,

I gave Antix a spin as it has JWM and IceWM. Interestingly swapping between IceWM and JWM resulted in the same memory usage. Do you recall any distros where you saw JWM consuming less RAM? Maybe I misinterpreted 1/5 the size as meaning RAM vs drive storage size.

Image showing memory usage with each windows manager:

https://i.postimg.cc/6p5pNqtF/Ice-WM-vs ... -Usage.gif

Thanks!

[steve_v]

Do you recall any distros where you saw JWM consuming less RAM?

Not unless you want vague recollections from when I was a still a wet behind the ears distro hopper or comparisons done on a K6-2 box running 32bit Debian Jessie, no.

Maybe I misinterpreted 1/5 the size as meaning RAM vs drive storage size.

I was referring to installed size on disk, which likely includes a bunch of irrelevant cruft and does not account for things like shared library usage or X resources. It's usually a fair approximation of the size and complexity of the codebase though, and frankly I really don't care enough to quibble over a few meg used by the WM when the system uses 60+ at the CLI already, at least not on hardware made in the last 20 years.

Image showing memory usage with each windows manager:

...Helpfully cropped to omit the parts which would indicate resident memory size vs. shared libraries.

[CloisteredNeuron]

Hey Steve.

Thanks for following up on the JWM.

[oswaldkelso]

I've been using a fork of catwm for 17months on all my machines. It does everything I need and is very light. It has a couple idiosyncrasies (bugs) but nothing that I can't live with. This is a scrot from my old 32bit machine so lighter than most but the window manager resources are pretty constant across all my machines. It's a lot lighter than icewm and I have a very good icewm setup. icewm is an excellent and very configurable window manager if you spend the time to set it up. I spent about a year tweaking mine. catwm is much more limited but does what most people need but no more.

https://postimg.cc/21CpnpF2

[CloisteredNeuron]

Hi oswaldkelso,

I wish there were more options for wayland. I'd give CAT a go there.

For your oldest PC take a look at PuppyLinux. I needed a completely offline system with no wireless hardware. I installed 32-BIT Puppy on a 2004 Dell server (32-BIT CPU) I had and it worked great. It even worked with my Brother Printer and Epson scanner.