VectorLinux
April 24, 2014, 08:28:00 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Poll
Question: How would you define a lighter version of VL?
simply parr it down
further optimize it for slow systems
we dont need no VL-light.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
  Print  
Author Topic: VL-Light?  (Read 37598 times)
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2503



« on: January 14, 2008, 03:32:07 pm »

Let us know what you think.
Logged
newt
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1132



« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2008, 03:55:13 pm »

I wanted an 'other, please explain' category but went with 'optimize for slow systems' because perhaps that will be end result of my day dreaming Grin

Quote
Core: a fully-functioning, very-light-weight CLI release (i.e. no X implementation) centering around creating the engine that drives Standard and SOHO/Deluxe (perhaps, by definition, this will REQUIRE including X, but perhaps not). No desktop environment or window managers included.  Very light on the resources.  Not intended for use by 95+% of users; only for the hard-core; only for devs; only for capable hackers; only for those that love white text on a black background.

You know (probably not cause I never mentioned it) but the ck kernel for vl58 worked terribly on my laptop.  IIRC, the biggest problem were application crashes when I tried starting them (I think wifi-radar was one that I recall).  I'd have to load it back on my system to know the full implecations because I don't remember exactly.
Logged
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2503



« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2008, 04:06:30 pm »

newtor,
Can you try the Ck-kernels for 5.9 and see how they do?
Logged
nubcnubdo
Vectorian
****
Posts: 675


« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2008, 04:54:53 pm »

Quote
Not intended for use by 95+% of users

That would make it very 1337, only 5% of users being inclined to use it. I'm a refurbisher of computers and I might want to download a pared down version of VL for the purpose of installing it on a low-end computer. I don't have a clue how to pare down Standard to accomplish that purpose. A person like myself might represent a greater number of potential downloaders/users than the 5% 1337 hacker estimate. Are we interested in numbers here? That is, the greatest number of downloads. Or are we mainly interested in utility, advanced customization/optimization.
Logged
Darin
Member
*
Posts: 35



« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2008, 05:22:55 pm »

Everyone please give impressions please so we can start on a direction to take. I do think having X and a WM is not going to add to much to the footprint and if not being able to to use X really means the computer is just to dang old. I do think we need to throw in a section about using either xdm or kdm as kdm ups the system resources
Logged
kidd
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 682


« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2008, 06:02:32 pm »

We shouldn't forget one of VL's greatest features:  Everything works out of the box.  Trimming down VL would make harder  to build up a functional system, so we have to keep in mind we would be ressembling Arch.

Myself I don't use Xfce nor most of VL default apps, but I love not having to mess with java,mp3 firefox plugins, flash and so.... same for dvd playing.  For me it would be great to keep that killer features, and wiping out all apps that can be installed with just a 'slapt-get --install'.  X, fluxbox, firefox, mplayer, wifi apps and slapt-get /gslapt. 

dev tools should be ripped too?Huh   I like having them all, and being able to compile nearly everything out of the box, but if we want a 'minimal' system....
Logged

uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2503



« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2008, 06:08:33 pm »

I agree on the dev tools as well, you wouldnt want to compile on most old systems anyway.
do we get rid of perl also?
what about python?
Logged
rbistolfi
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2265


« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2008, 07:14:08 pm »

I am hoping to see VL Light intended for small desktops. It would run on ~64 mb systems. As kidd pointed, the strongest thing in VL is it is full featured out of the box. I agree with Darin we dont need to rip X, but a few cli apps can make a full featured desktop with just a few kb of ram / disk and some cpu cycles. For example, links, weechat, some msn cli app (I have one installed but I forgot the name) vim, mp3blaster, etc. Perhaps once defined the goal of this version we could start a thread about the apps to include beyond the core. I dunno about the dev tools. One nice feature of vl is it is easy to compile stuff on it, but perhaps we'll have to let them go with some libs. But no dev tools means "full featured".
Also, accepting the fact each day is harder to keep a small / fast distro, I would like to see VL Light to take the Dynamite spirit and serve as an experimenting field for Standard, looking for creative ways of getting more features with less resources and in a better, simpler way. Even when I think VL std is almost the perfect system, showing a great balance between features and resources needed, there is always room for improvement.
Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."
Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise.

--
Jumalauta!!
exeterdad
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2046



« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2008, 09:04:47 pm »

Yanking Perl should be interesting  Smiley  It's key to so many apps.

I vote Fluxbox.
Logged
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2008, 10:09:04 pm »

I agree on the dev tools as well, you wouldnt want to compile on most old systems anyway.
do we get rid of perl also?
what about python?

Retaining some development tools would be necessary. Perl would be virtually impossible to get rid of. Python, I don't know. It might be a dep somewhere.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 11:49:50 pm by Epic Fail Guy » Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
newt
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1132



« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2008, 11:07:35 pm »

newtor,
Can you try the Ck-kernels for 5.9 and see how they do?
I will but tomorrow evening would be the soonest.  I ran out of time today and work calls my name tomorrow Cry.  Fortunately, I have tomorrow evening free and a hockey game to watch so it's perfect timing Grin

To be honest, I didn't have the best experience with vl59 on my laptop.  I struggled too much to get things working so I scrapped it and went back to vl58, however I'd like to have a pleasantly working vl59 installation so I'll give it another go.  I'll let you know of any/all problems I encounter along the way - in the correct thread of course Cheesy.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 11:09:44 pm by newtor » Logged
BlueMage
Vectorite
***
Posts: 274



« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2008, 11:31:22 pm »

I'd think of VL-Light being a system which has the Xserver already in place, but without any desktop environment or windows manager (except twm or similar for example - really basic) and have it a) optimised for slow hardware and b) be set up so the end-user can customise it almost from the ground up, without having to remove a swath of pre-installed programs.  Basically, what newtor quoted.

Granted, not for everyone, but for folks who get into it, get intrigued and want to go further, but don't want the hassle/heartache of tearing out programs.
Logged

Acer Laptop:  Vector 5.8 SOHO Final & Windows XP Professional & USB (still alive!)
Compaq POS (almost dead): Vector 5.9 Light Beta 5
Quad-core BEAST: Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit & Vector 5.9 64-bit beta-2
Old 500MHz media box:  Vector 5.8 SOHO Final (dead)
701 EeePC:  Puppeee (based on Puppy 4.01)
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2008, 12:05:25 am »

I said we don't need it. It would take developers' time and attention and I think we need that elsewhere.

There already are ultralight distros. Why create another one? There's no need to have a VectorLinux for every possible user.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
alec
Member
*
Posts: 63


« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2008, 05:34:23 am »

How about just adding to the standard installer an option to install a really stripped-down version. With incline to lower disk space and memory needed rather than cpu (how much more can you get it optimized for cpu anyway?).
Say default gets you kdm+xfce+goodies
stripped down gives fluxbox and all goodies optional.
Logged
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2008, 05:52:59 am »

How about just adding to the standard installer an option to install a really stripped-down version. With incline to lower disk space and memory needed rather than cpu (how much more can you get it optimized for cpu anyway?).
Say default gets you kdm+xfce+goodies
stripped down gives fluxbox and all goodies optional.

Only fifteen posts in and already you have said something very wise. Smiley
Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!