Baslinux mailing list

[3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org]

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