Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] xvesa arguments found

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] xvesa arguments found
  • Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:18:04 +1300

James Miller wrote:
>
> So BL3 will be a move back to the 2.0.x kernel?

Perhaps. The size savings are considerable. I really want
BL3 to boot in 4mb RAM. There's no point doing anything new
for systems with 8mb-16mb RAM -- that ground is well covered
with who-knows-how-many new mini-distributions. And then
there's all those bootable CD distributions. However, I
see very, very few distributions that boot on 4mb RAM.

I've been ignoring 4mb RAM because I assumed those systems
would soon be replaced by slightly better (throwaway) systems
or upgraded with (throwaway) SIMMs. However, I forgot about
the laptops. There are still plenty of 4mb laptops around.
I'm surprised how many 486DX laptops came with only 4mb RAM.
Upgrading the memory is difficult because the proprietary
memory modules are hard to find (and sometimes still expensive).
And the portability factor keeps laptops alive long after their
big brothers are in the rubbish tip.

So BL3 will unzip and boot directly with 4mb RAM. And it will
have *more* functionality than BL2 (so it should be worthwhile
for bigger systems too). The main difference will be the
libraries (when is the last time you looked at your libraries?)
and the kernel. 2.0.40 is a brand new version, with some back-
porting of capabilities from later kernels. At the moment, it
appears to be the best option, but I am also investigating doing
some surgery on the latest 2.2 kernel to see if I can get it
smaller than the BL2 kernel. I'm also considering the -tiny
patch for 2.6.1, but I would be uncomfortable using such an
early kernel (and it's a 32mb download). I wish such a patch
were available for a 2.4 or 2.2 kernel.

> Of course the problem with libc5 is that not many up-to-date
> apps work with it, right?

Ditto uClibc. In fact libc5 is miles ahead of uClibc when it
comes to apps (although most of them are from five years ago).

> Wasn't that largely the reason for going with a 2.2.x kernel
> and glibc2?

Yeah, but now up-to-date apps no longer work on glibc2.1.
They need 2.2 or 2.3. We will soom be in the same situation
we were with BL1, when fewer and fewer apps could be found to
work with libc5. The incompatibilities between 2.1 and 2.3
are nearly that bad (which really annoys me).

So, BasicLinux needs to move. Either it moves up to a bigger
library and a bigger kernel (at the expense of low-end hardware)
or refocuses on those low-end systems. It's not a difficult
choice. There are plenty of distributions offering up-to-date
libraries and up-to-date kernels. But there are few that provide
ongoing support for old hardware.

> uClibc seems definitely a better direction

It's definitely better for compiling from sourcecode. uClibc
handles sourcecode written for glibc2 pretty well. The problem
with compiling on lib5 was that it kept tripping over all the
new stuff in glibc2.

> if there's alot of application development going on for that
> set of libraries.

There's lots of application development for uClibc, but most
of it is for non-Intel devices. There won't be a lot of useful
pre-compiled binaries for us.

> Breaking binary compatibility soon with a new release does
> sound rather ominous, though.

<grumble> Who can blame them. libc keeps breaking binary
compatibility so why not uClibc? </grumble>

> Slowly surfacing after the move; hope to get back to that
> 386 project soon

No rush. BL3 should boot on that machine, no worries. In
fact it was your interest in getting Xvesa running on that
machine that tipped me over the edge.

Cheers,
Steven




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page