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] 5 6 ... 10

Author Topic: VL-Light?  (Read 43652 times)

nubcnubdo

  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2008, 11:49:44 am »

I was gonna favor an ISO size of 200 MB, but since uelsk8s says it's around 350 now, I suggest setting 300 MB as a goal. But I could live with 350 MB, which is half a full CD (700 MB). Not more than 350 MB.

Another thing to consider is that a smaller, more efficient VL version will likely be installed on very nice, even high-end boxes as well, for the extra speed and efficiency. We shouldn't shortchange that kind of user.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 11:12:02 pm by nubcnubdo »
Logged

M0E-lnx

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3217
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2008, 12:09:14 pm »

Icons on desktop is a must to me.... so even if you dont do it... I will...

lagagnon

  • Global Moderator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1922
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2008, 12:18:09 pm »

My suggestions for apps:

window manager: jwm
icons on desktop: no (put wbar in, to be loaded if wanted)
file manager: xfe (or xffm), mc
Cd burning: bashburn
browser: lynx, dillo, opera
editor: medit, vi
other internet stuff: transmission, gftp, pidgin, chestnut dialer
office: siag spreadsheet, abiword, xpdf, galculator
accessories: catfish, wbar, xscreensaver(?)
terminal: mrxvt
multimedia: xmms plus the smaller of xine or mplayer
games: 2D stuff and perhaps the "l" series (ltris, lbreakout2, etc.)

-remove "info" packages, all "include" files (???), no nvidia-ati drivers, sox and image-magick stuff, etc...
Logged
"As people become more intelligent they care less for preachers and more for teachers". Robert G. Ingersoll

nubcnubdo

  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2008, 12:20:33 pm »

Correct me if I am wrong: we are following the TinyME model rather than MiniME, since the latter is for advanced users who want to customize from a KDE base. The TinyME model is aimed at low-end machines and is a self-sufficient OS, more or less.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 12:30:15 pm by nubcnubdo »
Logged

uelsk8s

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 2504
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2008, 12:31:11 pm »

huh? whats tinyme/minime   :)
Logged

nightflier

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 4083
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #50 on: January 17, 2008, 12:36:10 pm »

Tiny/Mini: I don't think anyone was suggesting following either as a model. There was just some suggestions to see what apps were used in there. Both of those are remasters, based on a major, heavy distro and come as Live discs only.

I was looking at the file manager PCMan, but it looks like that is a one man show and not actively developed right now.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 02:04:20 pm by nightflier »
Logged

exeterdad

  • Packager
  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 2046
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2008, 12:46:31 pm »

Removing all include files is a bad idea I think.  There will be no way to replace them if a user needs to compile something.  Unless we somehow create a "include-bulk.tlz" and then rip them out.  The user can install the include bulk, build some stuff and then uninstall if needed.  We shouldn't leave so many people up the creek without a paddle.
Logged

nubcnubdo

  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2008, 12:51:18 pm »

I am biased in favor of xine. There was a time I was comparing the two media players, and I am certain that xine is lighter than mplayer. I favor xine. I'm also gonna put VLC on a machine, redundant or not.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 10:49:40 pm by nubcnubdo »
Logged

easuter

  • Global Moderator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 2160
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2008, 01:32:52 pm »

if we remove include files, then we may as well remove GCC and other dev tools as well, as they go hand in hand....
Why does everyone hate the headers?  :)
Logged

Witek Mozga

  • Vectorite
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • Witek Mozga`s Webpages
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2008, 02:41:40 pm »

To tell the truth, everybody imagine VL-light in a different way: some want icons, others do not, some want video drivers, others don`t, etc. Never mind... as in my opinion VL-light already exists. It is called Slackware. When installing it you can select what packages you need and you can install as much stripped version as suited for your needs. Can you do better than that?

The field where you already did much better than Slackware is desktop use for home and office. Follow this road.

Joe1962

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 2499
    • Joe1962's Website
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2008, 03:04:46 pm »

I am prejudiced in favor of xine. There was a time I was comparing the two media players, and I am certain that xine is lighter than mplayer. I favor xine. I'm also gonna put VLC on a machine, redundant or not.
Actually gmplayer is heavier than xine, but try "mplayer path_to_video_file" from a terminal and prepare to be amazed... :o

I did some testing a couple of years ago on my previous P4 laptop with intel video and people were amazed when they saw 9 mplayers running 9 different videos, without visible frame dropping or slowdowns, all while throtled down to 700 MHz with vcpufreq. I was showing off to a couple of colleagues today and got 12 mplayers comfortably working on my current laptop with ATI video, while throttled down to about 1 GHz.
Logged
O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."
http://joe1962.bigbox.info
Running: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10

newt

  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2008, 03:45:55 pm »

To tell the truth, everybody imagine VL-light in a different way: some want icons, others do not, some want video drivers, others don`t, etc. Never mind... as in my opinion VL-light already exists. It is called Slackware.
Of course everybody imagines vl-light in a different way which is the reason why people have differing opinions of how VL-Light should turn out to be in the end and the packages that should be included.  No single person is going to end up with VL-Light EXACTLY how they invision; instead it will be _close_ to most folks representation of it in their heads.  It's exactly these things that this thread is trying to flush out of folks.... ideas, suggestions, direction, etc. In addition to that, Light aims to  be provided in a (relatively speaking) small package - get a fully-functioning, high-quality desktop distro with great speed (even on older hardware) in under XXX downloaded megabytes.

When installing it [slackware] you can select what packages you need and you can install as much stripped version as suited for your needs.
You can certainly custom install slackware to get a light distro - that's for sure - BUT you must first download ~650mb to get CD1.  I think the intentions of Light is to cut that size by around half.

When installing it [slackware] you can select what packages you need and you can install as much stripped version as suited for your needs.
Can you do better than that?
Yes, I DO believe so AND in nearly half the downloadable size ;) ;D
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 03:48:39 pm by newtor »
Logged

rbistolfi

  • Packager
  • Vectorian
  • ****
  • Posts: 2301
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2008, 04:38:51 pm »

To tell the truth, everybody imagine VL-light in a different way: some want icons, others do not, some want video drivers, others don`t, etc. Never mind... as in my opinion VL-light already exists. It is called Slackware. When installing it you can select what packages you need and you can install as much stripped version as suited for your needs. Can you do better than that?

The field where you already did much better than Slackware is desktop use for home and office. Follow this road.

WM, I think VL Light is already in the way, perhaps the time of "dont do it" is gone and is time to be constructive and help to define it ;)

I did some testing a couple of years ago on my previous P4 laptop with intel video and people were amazed when they saw 9 mplayers running 9 different videos, without visible frame dropping or slowdowns, all while throtled down to 700 MHz with vcpufreq. I was showing off to a couple of colleagues today and got 12 mplayers comfortably working on my current laptop with ATI video, while throttled down to about 1 GHz.

Not only that, the gui seems to not work very well, at least in my box. And I find it quite heavy or slow for a pretty small gui as it is.

high-quality desktop distro with great speed (even on older hardware) in under XXX downloaded megabytes.
he eh um he huh, Newtor said "XXX" ;D
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!!

saulgoode

  • Vectorite
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2008, 05:48:10 pm »

To tell the truth, everybody imagine VL-light in a different way: some want icons, others do not, some want video drivers, others don`t, etc. Never mind... as in my opinion VL-light already exists. It is called Slackware. When installing it you can select what packages you need and you can install as much stripped version as suited for your needs. Can you do better than that?

The short answer to your question is, "yes, we can do better" (or at least "different"). Slackware does not provide a minimal set of packages that would constitute a developed and tested installation. If you leave out packages when installing Slackware, you no longer have the full assurance of your system's integrity. Patryk expects users to do a full install (of at least the first two SW CDs) or you are pretty much left to your own devices as far as ensuring that your installation is complete enough and that all of your dependencies are satisfied. There are tagfile recommendations and packages flagged as "essential", but even those offer no assurance of the functionality of a less-than-complete Slackware installation. To Slackware's infinite credit, the reliability of such a subset installation is generally excellent -- but it is not a focus of the Slackware team.

A VL-Light could provide a developed, tested, and maintained minimal installation; something Slackware does not offer.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 05:51:52 pm by saulgoode »
Logged
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Joe1962

  • Administrator
  • Vectorian
  • *****
  • Posts: 2499
    • Joe1962's Website
Re: VL-Light?
« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2008, 09:04:02 pm »

I did some testing a couple of years ago on my previous P4 laptop with intel video and people were amazed when they saw 9 mplayers running 9 different videos, without visible frame dropping or slowdowns, all while throtled down to 700 MHz with vcpufreq. I was showing off to a couple of colleagues today and got 12 mplayers comfortably working on my current laptop with ATI video, while throttled down to about 1 GHz.

Not only that, the gui seems to not work very well, at least in my box. And I find it quite heavy or slow for a pretty small gui as it is.
Huh? I don't understand... Maybe you quoted the wrong bit?
Logged
O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."
http://joe1962.bigbox.info
Running: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10