Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] BL distros, poll

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] BL distros, poll
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:02:51 +0000 (UTC)

The target notebook is a 233MHz w/ 64MB ram & 4GB HD, pcmcia x 2, usb
1.0 x 1, swapable CD/FD.

Purpose for installing BL is that it's tight, light, and it works...FAST!

My question is, am I on the correct path with BL 2.1 or should I be
using BL 3.5 as a base?

BL 2.1 has a later X that lets you use precompiled versions of add-ons which may not be available or compilable for 3.5. If you are not going to use X, it does not matter. At least one version of xpdf would not work with BL3. It would be complicated to upgrade Steven's neat little X setup to a later X. But you can upgrade kernel and libc easily.

I use BL2 on most computers, with Steven's Xvesa and rxvt.


BL 2.1 uses slackware 7.1 packages, BL 3.5 uses slackware 4.0 packages.

If you upgrade to glibc, use the one from Slackware 9.0 or 8.1, and then you can add Slackware 9.0 or 8.1 or 7.1 packages (that don't use X).

I am not intimately familiar with the differences in the kernel and
glibc versions used, but simply based on the versions used, it seems
to me that there should not be a great deal of difference.

You can change kernel and glibc. I upgraded to kernel 2.4.31 because someone sent me a Slackware 10.2 CD with the source code. I upgraded to glibc 2.2.5 from Slackware 8.1 because they sent that too. The 2.4 kernel is needed to use USB-storage devices such as flash drives, cameras, external hard disks, SATA-USB adaptors. It is needed to compile a few modules (2.6 is needed for others) because nobody bothered backporting.
2.2 would not work with one wireless network card, where 2.4 did.

This is an invitation for Steven to jump in and enlighten me. I could
dig through the archives, but I hope this is faster and simpler
solution. :-)


Second item, the poll...

If it isn't too far off topic, I would like to inquire about the
systems on which BL is being used, specifically, what is your most
MINIMAL system that you are using to run BL, and what is your
application (and which version of BL)?

I first installed BL1 on a 486 with 16MB memory, and ran Opera 6. The later Operas prefer more memory, but will work with a swap partition or file. (And they need glibc 2.2.5 or later). I also installed the files needed to compile (10MB?) and compiled kermit on it. The Slackware 4.0 compiler (gcc) and libc5 won't compile a lot of newer software but you can upgrade them (and then you need 100MB to compile with).

BL3 will run in 3MB memory on a 386 laptop, but it is a bit slow to draw images, partly because of the slow older LCD screen. DOS works better in 3MB (smaller kernel). This is in the archives.

Your laptop has more memory than anything we are using to run BL3.5 or BL2.1, and is as fast as our best laptop. A 100MHz laptop with 24MB and an 85MB HD works fine for BL3 (if you won't be compiling kernels on it, for which it helps to have more speed, and probably more space and memory). BL does not fill up the memory with unneeded logging daemons, and Xvesa/rxvt is low-RAM.

So what you have is overkill.

What were you planning to use the laptop for?

Sindi

This is simply for curiosity. Inquiring minds wanna know! :-)

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
srporter

-----------------------
BasicLinux mailing list
-----------------------
http://www.basiclinux.com.ru
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/baslinux/
------------------------------------
To exit, send subject=unsubscribe to
baslinux-request AT lists.ibiblio.org


keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page