Baslinux mailing list

[qwms-avib AT dea.spamcon.org]

Krzysztof A. Suchecki wrote:
> 
> I updated BL 1.8 RAMDISK version to Slack 3.9,
> 1. df reports:
> 750 kb for original BL 1.8
> 410 kb for updated BL 1.8 :(

I'm not surprised.  The libraries/binaries in Slack39
are somewhat larger than those in Slack35.  Nevertheless, 
410kb is not too bad -- that's about the same as BL2.

> 2. gzipped BASLINUX file is 1.7MB large (a little larger 
> thab this from BL 2.02!), 

When you made the filesystem, did you use:
-----------------
mke2fs -i8192 -m0 
-----------------
This reduces the amount of space reserved for inodes
and for the root user.

You may also be able to reduced the size of the gzip 
by zero-ing bytes before creating the filesystem:
---------------------------------------------
dd if=/dev/zero of=baslinux bs=1k count=4096
mk2efs -i8192 -m0 baslinux 4096
---------------------------------------------
Note:  this creates a new baslinux file (which will
*destroy* an old baslinux file in the same directory).

You can then mount (-o loop) baslinux and untar the
distribution into it (tar is used for the transfer
because it does not include junk bytes).  Umount 
baslinux and gzip it.

> so you have to use 2m to fit it on a floppy :(

Yes, it looks like it will be too big to fit on a
normal floppy (unless you remove something).  Perhaps
we should be thinking about an ISO (rather than a
floppy version)?
 
> Another question has arisen:
> What machine is target for BL 1.x branch?

All machines without a copro.
All machines with less than 8mb RAM.
All machines with less than 16mb RAM wanting to run X.

> But if you have 8MB RAM, you should use Bl 2.x which 
> is much better than BL 1.x

Not necessarily.  BL1 performs better with 8mb RAM than
BL2. I use BL1 on all my machines with less than 16mb RAM.
The main advantage BL2 has over BL1 is compatibility with
current software.  For old PCs with limited RAM, that is
not so important (since a lot of current software is too
demanding for that hardware).

Cheers,
Steven