Baslinux mailing list

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

James Miller wrote:
>
> It strikes me that this is really almost a different 
> project than BL, 

There are two main differences:  it is targetted specifically
at old PCs, and X is built-in.

> and should maybe be named according.

I realize that it is a bit strange going from libc5 (BL1)
to glibc2 (BL2) and then back to libc5 (BL3).  However,
BasicLinux has always been a mini-distribution and BL3
will squeeze more into the basic zip file than any previous
version.  So it really is an advancement.  BL3 also uses a 
more up-to-date version of busybox and a more up-to-date 
version of X.  The the fact that the libraries are older 
doesn't really matter.

> one was running the Xwindows system, and the other the 
> applications: sharing the load between the two made them
> act, in concert, like a more up-to-date machine.  Is 
> something similar in view with BL3?  

That is an option.  However, BL3 also comes with a stand-alone
X capability (including wm, fonts and applications).  A system 
with 8mb RAM can run X stand-alone.  

> setting up a little lab that could do alot of things most 
> would be amazed at given the limited resources of each 
> machine separately.  Do you envision that sort of thing?

That is certainly possible.  Setting up an Xterminal is not 
very complicated:  unzip, boot, insmod NIC, ifconfig eth0, 
startxt.  

An Xterminal may be the most attractive option for systems 
with less than 8mb RAM, but with more RAM there are other 
possibilities.

Cheers,
Steven