VectorLinux

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Visit our home page for VL info. For support and documentation, visit the Vector Linux Knowledge Center or search the Knowledge Center and this Forum using the search box above.

Poll

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 4 ... 10

Author Topic: VL-Light?  (Read 44389 times)

Darin

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2008, 06:05:21 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

Actually I disagree with that statement. I am the lead guy for the supergamer livedvd's and the supergamer vl edition. I already have a trimmed down version for our testing. As for taking time, it's actually alittle easier to start with a basic for testing then add upwards to get the desktop and not the other way around in bug reporting as we can track down what is broke alot easier with doing minimul updates. The pupose of this thread is not to increase the work load as I am sure at this point in the discussion a slimmed down version seems what most people are looking at that can boot on lower end systems and have a installed size of under 2gb. I already went that route with the pclinuxos versions and I can tell you for a fact that having a small base is alot easier to bug report. Uelsk8s has a copy of this iso already so some things are rolling already we just need to define what if anything others would want.
Also the purpose is to have Vector for everything. World domination is not a bad goal :)
Logged

M0E-lnx

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2008, 06:09:52 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.
You just described the current STD
My idea of a lite version was to remove the heaviest things (xfce4 being one of them) and replace them with lighter things
you could do something like JWM + idesk to get a nice desktop like the one here http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs123&d=08023&f=59screenie.png
that could also be done with fluxbox, but honestly, I prefer a well configured jwm over fluxbox any day (just me)

saulgoode

  • Vectorite
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2008, 08:13:27 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.

If a light version of VL is not expected to attract new developers (and testers.. and documenters..) then I would mostly agree with you. However, it is my opinion that there exists a market amongst hardware hackers, system recyclers, and "appliance" experimenters for a distro that not only runs on low-end systems, but provides a convenient pathway for growth to a full-blown and standard Linux. There is a particular benefit to be had by releasing a version which caters to these "geeks" and seeks to attract their participation in the Vector community.

None of the currently available ultralight distros (DeLi, DSL, Puppy, NimbleX, and Wolvix Cub) target this market, nor are any of them particularly suited for such installations. Their goal in releasing a lighter version is in most cases focused on LiveCD operation which in general does not provide the installation flexibility needed for older systems. They do not tend to have as priorities being "standard" Linux -- they will employ "oddball" filesystems (cramfs, unionfs, fat32), custom package management, and/or offer no upgrade path from a rather restrictive GTK1.2/uClib base to a more "full-blown" system. NOTE: I intend no disrespect towards these distros -- they are ingenious and viable solutions in many situations -- they just don't provide the solution which a VL-Light would supply.

Logged
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

M0E-lnx

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2008, 08:25:16 am »

Well said soulgoode.
Completely agree

rbistolfi

  • Packager
  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 2314
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2008, 09:14:50 am »

I like what Saulgoode is saying as well, and it put some light on the dev-tools / perl / python topic. Those persons described by Saulgoode as possible vl light users seems to aprecciate dev tools. In the other hand, they are damn too big, I think we need to think about that, and some more opinions on the topic could help :). A geek could easily slapt-get them. I vote to replace as much as we can the X heavy apps with light ones (as Moe suggested) or cli ones, in favor of some dev tools.
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!!

Freeman

  • Tester
  • Vectorite
  • ****
  • Posts: 323
  • Choice to the user!
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2008, 10:36:32 am »

In my opinion we have to trim Vl down to the bare minimum. That means a working X with no utilities, absolutely none (as they can be approached if necessary by the user through Gslapt). With that working X we could provide the lightest DE possible, with possibility for icons on the desktop.

In short, VL-Light needs the following:
- X (working out of the box with Nvidia/ati drivers if needed)
- Log-on manager (KDM, ...)
- Superlight DE/WM (IceWM, JWM, ...)
- Icon handling for desktop
- no apps except:
      - 1 terminal
      - 1 browser
      - Midnight commander
      - Dev tools

The idea is that the user can choose afterwards what he wants his system to be. A fully functional server, a mail server, a hardware firewall, a system with only the packages he wants, only CLI,... Give people choice by offering the bare minimum.

Just my 2 cents ;)
Logged
It's better to die 10 times, than never to have loved at all.

Triarius Fidelis

  • Vecteloper
  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Domine, exaudi vocem meam
    • my website
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2008, 11:53:46 am »

Not everyone has a fast connection and some need to install to boxes without network connections. Bear that in mind.
Logged
"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months

M0E-lnx

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2008, 01:36:19 pm »

I Agree with hanu there... however, if you do not have a high speed connection, then you'd appreciate the small iso as well ;)

I think what VL-LITE needs to have is this

  • JWM (window manager)
  • idesk (provides desktop icons)
  • xfe (file manager)
  • Seamonkey (takes care of the need for browser, mail reader, chat client, etc)
  • One terminal APP (xterm or alike)
  • Dev tools (so the user can install software, expadability)
  • Maybe use XDM as the login manager (lighter than KDM)
  • Maybe stick to vl-hot for media mounting (using HAL would be rediculous when targetting a light release)
  • Text editor and spreadsheet programs lighter than abiword and gnumeric
  • medit (for script editing (maybe))
  • Games are to be limited to 2D type only... (the good old solitare and it's friends) and only a couple of them... keep it < 5
  • Light system monitor tool (gkrellm or conky)

That should give us a light but fairly useful release.
The idea is to keep it simple, but make it look good and most of all, make it useful. The last thing we want is an ugly looking desktop without any useful software.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2008, 01:39:18 pm by M0E-lnx »
Logged

exeterdad

  • Packager
  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 2046
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2008, 01:46:31 pm »

If XFE is a file manager, that will supply a very simple text editor and a few others.  Fox is a dep of XFE and it supplies editors, shutterbug, calculator and a few more.  Both XFE and Fox are pretty tiny for what they deliver.

So I'll backup MOE on XFE.  XFE also has plenty of handy right click features.
Logged

M0E-lnx

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2008, 01:55:31 pm »

and can also be configured to look fairly descent

nightflier

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 4130
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2008, 06:00:07 pm »

You don't really need XDM or KDM. People who would want this are capable of typing startx. Or slapt-get --install xdm.
Logged

M0E-lnx

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2008, 06:18:42 pm »

i'm sure they are but it would look ugly

Witek Mozga

  • Vectorite
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • Witek Mozga`s Webpages
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2008, 01:24:23 am »

Not everyone has a fast connection and some need to install to boxes without network connections. Bear that in mind.

Right to the point! When I first tested linux distros - a few years ago - I did not have a fast internet connection. Thus when I finnaly got a distro (from a friend or a paper magazine) I expected it to have many apps such as mplayer, gimp etc. That is why I ended up with Vector SOHO. It could be usable as home desktop even without net.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 01:32:25 am by Witek Mozga »
Logged

Witek Mozga

  • Vectorite
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • Witek Mozga`s Webpages
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2008, 01:31:17 am »

In my opinion we have to trim Vl down to the bare minimum. [...]
- X (working out of the box with Nvidia/ati drivers if needed)

ehm... nvidia/ati within the bare minimum?? By the way, don`t they need kernel sources to compile and install modules?

Witek Mozga

  • Vectorite
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • Witek Mozga`s Webpages
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2008, 04:43:07 am »

  • Seamonkey (takes care of the need for browser, mail reader, chat client, etc)

Seamonkey in a system optimized for slower hardware  ???
I`d rather split its usability among browser (Opera?) mail client (Sylpheed?), newsreader (Pan?)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10