VectorLinux
November 24, 2014, 05:49:50 am *
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] 4 5 ... 10
  Print  
Author Topic: VL-Light?  (Read 41168 times)
M-ake
Member
*
Posts: 92


« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2008, 05:59:53 am »

Regarding the login manager have you thought about slim ? http://slim.berlios.de/
Logged

Jumalauta!!
--
Fish go m00!
M0E-lnx
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 3192



« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2008, 06:22:00 am »

Regarding the login manager have you thought about slim ? http://slim.berlios.de/
Looks like a good option. From what I see it looks better than XDM
Logged

Colonel Panic
Vectorian
****
Posts: 526


« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2008, 06:48:51 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.


I use Deli sometimes and like it, and I think it fills its particular niche very well, but to get a distro to work within the limits Haary sets (he doesn't assume even 32 MB or a Pentium II processor) is pretty much a full time operation for one developer and requires relentless selection and paring down of libraries. You can't run Opera in Deli for instance because Deli is built with uclibc.

I basically agree with M0E here. What I'd suggest for Vector Lite is a sort of desktop Puppy; JWM, Seamonkey and rox or something similar for file management. You could even have siag instead of Abiword and Gnumeric.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 06:52:57 am by Colonel Panic » Logged
alec
Member
*
Posts: 63


« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2008, 07:01:45 am »

Quote
Seamonkey (takes care of the need for browser, mail reader, chat client, etc)
Seamonkey in a system optimized for slower hardware  Huh
I`d rather split its usability among browser (Opera?) mail client (Sylpheed?), newsreader (Pan?)
Agree, Seamonkey is quite heavy even if its versatile.
And if you go Opera way, it DOES have a mail and newsreader (not to mention RSS, IRC, download manager and torrent), and I use those (all of them  Grin) as my main options. Yet its not for everyone.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 07:08:39 am by alec » Logged
M0E-lnx
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 3192



« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2008, 07:20:20 am »

Seems that opera is a better choice. I stand corrected.
However, It seems it does not do IRC after all. I dont see that listed in the features
But something else (ie pidgin) could do that. We need pidgin anyway
Logged

nightflier
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 4029



« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2008, 07:59:47 am »

I have not actually used it, but I do see an IRC option in Opera Chat.

It's an acquired taste, but Opera is a great suite. Much more than just a browser.
Logged
M0E-lnx
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 3192



« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2008, 08:11:00 am »

then I change my vote to opera then
Logged

lagagnon
Global Moderator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 1922



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2008, 11:52:20 am »

Seems that opera is a better choice. I stand corrected.
However, It seems it does not do IRC after all. I dont see that listed in the features
Yes it does do IRC, under the Chat menu heading. That's why I use Opera: browser, email, IRC chat, feeds, newsgroups, notes - all rolled into one reasonably fast application.
Logged

"As people become more intelligent they care less for preachers and more for teachers". Robert G. Ingersoll
M0E-lnx
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 3192



« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2008, 12:46:15 pm »

The only thing I have against opera is that every time I start using it... after a while it segfaults on me and I can't use it anymore after that... so I come back to FF
BTW, I found the chat feature... I think I even like it better than xchat Wink
Logged

nightflier
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 4029



« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2008, 02:04:27 pm »

This morning I was testing the recently released "TinyMe" LiveCD from PCLinuxOS. I couldn't help but think about this thread. It uses Opera and a light WM (Openbox). The file manager PCMan looks good.

Trying it out may be good for brainstorming. Right now I don't have a slow computer to test it on, maybe someone with a P2 or 3 could give it a spin?
Logged
M0E-lnx
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 3192



« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2008, 02:07:23 pm »

WoW!... PCMan does look awesome
Logged

nubcnubdo
Vectorian
****
Posts: 675


« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2008, 04:58:56 pm »

apps:

vlc
xine
xmms
abiword
grafburn*
xpdf
dillo
geany
JWM/IceWM
xarchiver
wget

These are apps that I would put on a small OS. How would this go? I would install VL-Lite and then use Gslapt or slapt-get to obtain these apps, or would some or most apps be included in the basic install?

Has anyone done a tally on just how big is the ISO for VL-Lite with no apps? If 200 MB is the target size for the ISO how much space is available beyond the bare minimum?

We should decide on a target size, even if it's only a temporary goal? What's it gonna be, 200 MB or 300 MB?


* TinyMe uses grafburn
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 05:06:36 am by nubcnubdo » Logged
nightflier
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 4029



« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2008, 07:35:29 am »

Reality Check:

I liked the way the TinyMe live disc was working, but got to thinking of it, all testing was done on "Giga" class computers. I still have some boxes in the "Mega" class, but they are busy as headless servers. I dug around in my parts bin and found enough to cobble together a P3-600/64.

To get TinyMe to even load, I first had to create a swap partition on the hard drive. Then it took about 30 minutes for it to load up, launch the installer and fail without warning or explanation.

In about the same time, I installed VL 5.9 on this ancient box. Xfce runs, but that's about it. With Fluxbox or JWM however, the machine is usable for light duties.

This little trip down memory lane reminded me why I am using VL today. The text installer is fast and reliable. Easy access to the command line lets you troubleshoot and build up your system in steps, and see errors as they occur. This is great when you're working with old hardware of unproven reliability. And gives you a FAST end result.

I can see where VL-Light fits in. Same thing with SOHO/KDE. However, I'm having trouble getting comfortable with XFCE. It lies somewhere in between these two. Too heavy to be a speed demon, and too limited to satisfy my DE wants. If I was King, VL-Light would be the new VL Std.
Logged
Freeman
Tester
Vectorite
****
Posts: 323


Choice to the user!


« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2008, 11:30:44 am »

Have to agree with Nightflier here, Xfce is just in the middle. We need something lighter to keep the desktop up.

I think we all agree to the following apps:
- Opera
- Xfe
- Slim

Open for discussion/still not decided:
- JWM / IceWM / ...
- Icons on desktop
- Size of the cd
- Other apps

To raise the bar a little, so all noses point to the same direction, I think we need something like 'minimal specs for 100% stable/speedy usability'. Would I be to optimistic to say: Pentium 2 - 64 MB Ram, with 2 GB of HD ?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 11:33:36 am by Freeman » Logged

It's better to die 10 times, than never to have loved at all.
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2504



« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2008, 11:44:33 am »

- Slim Was very buggy last time  I tried it. I think we will start with Xdm

Open for discussion/still not decided:
- JWM / IceWM / ... the jwm package is 63kb so I think it will be in regardless
- Icons on desktop   I am not sure about this yet?Huh
- Size of the cd    I think we will be around 350mb to start
- Other apps       voice your opinions or better yet get the source and build some of them Siag office comes to mind
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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!