VL-LIGHT Dev thread

[Witek Mozga]

Just what would you suggest we do with older computers? Land fill perhaps?

I don`t suggest any treatment of older computers. I only think that creating a distro that is suppose to have X and gui apps on older machines (say 32M RAM and 200MHz) is waste of time. Such a machine can be a server or a net gateway, but GUI? Please... Maybe I`m wrong so I made a poll
http://www.vectorlinux.com/forum2/index.php?topic=5508.msg37734

Modern software is to blame. It is bloted. Several years ago 64KB of RAM on my Commodore 64 was enough. Today thousand times that is not enough. I still have my Commodore somewhere but it is unusable (even if there is unix-like OS creted for it). Even if you want to use older machines you cannot because modern soft requires you to have more RAM and more CPU cycles to be able use Flash, browse net, burn DVD, etc.

Maybe VL light should be an extensible base for STD, SOHO, Delux etc. Not intended to have small simple apps but normal usefull apps that are heavier but more usable on modern machines (gimp, k3b to name a few).

[caitlyn]

There are modern, useful lightweight apps that aren't bloated and are still very much in development.  There are a number of distros designed for machines that have specs that you consider a waste of time or even lower specs that run X apps.  (Think Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux, etc...)  VL Light and VL Mini promise a current kernel, a friendly community, and the best variety of apps for low spec machines.  Folks in the developing world often have to make do with what a lot of us would call obsolete.  I also believe keeping old machines useful is good for the environment.  Beats the hell out of landfilling them if they can still do a job.  I sure don't consider VL-Light or VL-Mini a waste of time or effort.

The smaller size will also make these versions of VL useful for green low spec PCs (nano- and pico-ITX technology) and machines like the Asus Eee PC.  Hardly old stuff, that.

[caitlyn]

Regarding display managers:  KDM may not consume more memory than XDM but it is noticeably slower to load.  I'd suggest that neither is the right answer.  Have you looked at Slim (used by Wolvix Cub) or WDM?  I've tried both on my ancient Liberty P133 with 32MB of RAM and they are better choices than wither KDM or XDM -- more functionality than XDM, significantly faster than KDM.  Slim is the fastest of the bunch.

[nightflier]

SLIM is included in Alpha 2.3. It works. Hit F1 to select your wm. I don't know if it has a logout option anywhere.

[nightflier]

.. comparing VL to Puppy..

That is really comparing apples to oranges. VL is a full traditional distro. Puppy is a specialty product.

BTW just what is a "non-source Linux distribution"?

A source distro is compiled on your machine from the raw source. It usually takes days but you end up with an install tailored to and optimized for your hardware.

[caitlyn]

SLIM is included in Alpha 2.3. It works. Hit F1 to select your wm. I don't know if it has a logout option anywhere.

I've had issues getting 2.3 until now -- slow, interrupted downloads.  It looks like the download is running well now.  wget is my friend

[Sweet William]

Sweet William, VL is fast on my PIII @ 600 mhz, and is just amazing in my main desktop, which is a pretty decent computer for today standards. Many users report the same. Some people here is testing Light in a PII with 64mb, iirc. Less than that... I don't think the effort worth it.
If you put the dev tools on Pup you get a 200mb iso already. And if you "finish" it, you get the size of VL Light . Anyway this is a work in progress, and the size is not definitive.

I can't comment on machines like PIIs and PIIIs because scrounging memory and cards for any machine that old is impossible where I live. I can however comment on your size assertions. I'm using Puppy 2.17 (83M); the dev kit is 66M. Call it 150M.

I've been programming long enough to know that the sort of finishing I mean does _not_ result in code bloat; in fact apps generally shrink. Better algorythms always come to light after the first cut.
--

Sweet William

using VL-5.8-STD-GOLD

[Witek Mozga]

There are a number of distros designed for machines that have specs that you consider a waste of time

Let put it in another way then: consider it a waste of time in context of Vector Linux. In my opinion SOHO is a wonderfull distro and developers should concentrate on it. Making several other versions is a waste of time.
Keep in mind, that Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux are good because they are concentrated on what they are designed for. They don`t try to make Puppy DeLux, because it would make the releases less often, more bugs, etc. Thus all these versions would "disolve" in several hundreds of distros and versions. Now they shine among them because they are strictly dedicated.

[Sweet William]

.. comparing VL to Puppy..

That is really comparing apples to oranges. VL is a full traditional distro. Puppy is a specialty product.

Adding the dev kit (66M) to Puppy 2.17 (83M) in round figures is 150M. I think VLs dev tools are probably more extensive. Allow say another 50M for 200M total. Still a big difference when the principal apps of interest to general users are about on a par.

I don't see how Puppy is any more a speciality product than VL.

None of which explains why Puppy boots in 1min and VL takes 2.5min especially when both are derived from Slackware

BTW just what is a "non-source Linux distribution"?

A source distro is compiled on your machine from the raw source. It usually takes days but you end up with an install tailored to and optimized for your hardware.

So is Puppy.
--

Sweet William

using VL-5.8-STD-GOLD

[Sweet William]

snip...
Keep in mind, that Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux are good because they are concentrated on what they are designed for.

With the exception of dev tools VL std offers no more than Puppy. Possibly less.

If SOHO was the only one available, I would not be using VL at all. Std Gold is what interests me and so that is what I've got.

They don`t try to make Puppy DeLux, because it would make the releases less often, more bugs, etc. Thus all these versions would "disolve" in several hundreds of distros and versions. Now they shine among them because they are strictly dedicated.

Actually, there are more spin off distros of the basic Puppy than you can poke a stick at. Mind you, I would not like to run Fat Puppy as a live cd on a P3/600. I gave up the wips and chains.
--

Sweet William

using VL-5.8-STD-GOLD

[rbistolfi]

I can't comment on machines like PIIs and PIIIs because scrounging memory and cards for any machine that old is impossible where I live. I can however comment on your size assertions. I'm using Puppy 2.17 (83M); the dev kit is 66M. Call it 150M.

Where do you live? There is lot of stuff for PII and PIII in Buenos Aires.
I didn't time it, but my VL takes many less than 2.5 mins.
The size of the dev packages may vary depending in what do you consider to go in there.

I've been programming long enough to know that the sort of finishing I mean does _not_ result in code bloat; in fact apps generally shrink. Better algorythms always come to light after the first cut.

[/quote]

Ok.

[exeterdad]

None of which explains why Puppy boots in 1min and VL takes 2.5min especially when both are derived from Slackware

I've only booted Puppy once a while back so I don't remember the experience. But there's many factors that will increase the speed or slow up the boot process.  VL aims to work for the majority of the people who install it.  Including dhcp, a print server and processes at startup. Though VL has fewer at boot time then most other distro's.  I'm curious if Puppy's network is up at boot, or cups run?  Or are these things turned on after your in your desktop?  Or if they are finishing setup in the background while you are busy logging in?  There's a ton of ways to speed things up.  My LFS system I tweaked would boot from lilo to the KDM greeter in 13 seconds.  Or it would appear.... because I messed with the init to have things silently loading, connecting to the network and such while I was typing in my password in KDM.  But that type of init wouldn't work for everyone. Things have to be kept generic to not exclude other users.

But on my newly retired, underpowerd machine, I don't think VL ever took 2.5 minutes to boot?

[newt]

I can understand how a person could feel that creating a new product line is a waste of time and resources, especially considering the limited resources that are already available along with the fact that the product line that's intended is already developed by many other parties.  I can see that logic; it makes sense and is a legitimate concern.  I also think that the actual developers realize this and will weigh their effort carefully so as not to become too fragmented.

On the other hand, I do not believe this venture of creating a slimmer product line to be a lesson in futility.  I believe that new insight and development will come of it that will contribute directly upstream (i.e. standard and soho/deluxe) - I'm betting that some already has .  Whether or not a slimmed down VL will survive (let alone survive to a final release) remains to be seen.

VL Light is not Puppy, nor is it DSL.  That fact alone should dictate that there is valid reason to pursue a venture of this sort.  If it fizzles, then so be it; if not, then so be it.

The original thread of "should VL attempt at Light version?" was closed.  I do not think this thread should be a continuation.

[nightflier]

I don't see how Puppy is any more a speciality product than VL.

I have used Puppy a lot while traveling. It is an excellent live product. I have not tried a hard drive install of it lately, but when I did in the past, the installer was very much a work in progress.

[rbistolfi]

I am sorry about that (mine) last post. Honestly, we shouldn't be discussing this. We already did it and the choice was made. I think is offensive with uelsk8s, saulgoode, nightflier and Darin, who are already working on this (sorry if I missed someone) and the guys testing and such.