Baslinux mailing list

[James Miller <jamtat AT mailsnare.net>]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, David Lane wrote:

>   Second reason;I wanted to approximate a "normal" system install,like you
> would do when installing DOS,Windows or whatever.The fact that Basic Linux
> or Linux period can be installed and ran so many ways is great and fine as
> far as it goes but at the end of the day,I simply wanted to install
> Linux,learn to configure it and operate it in as "normal" (Windows/Dos) a
> manner as possible.When learning something completely new I've found it's
> better to keep the variables to a minimum.

You'll find that installing BL1 is nothing at all like a "normal system
install" - if by "normal system install" we're talking about installing
one of the current major distros (with the possible exception of Debian).
The major distros all try to make installation as automated as possible,
with nice gui's, hardware autodetection and all the bells and whistles
that other OS installations offer.  That goes for system configuration
once you're done installing as well.  You'll probably learn more about
some fundamentals of Linux by installing BL1, but I think you'll find it a
completely different experience to install one of the major distros on
your better machine.

>   The one thing I DIDN'T want to do,is take a good,high-end system,get
> whatever the popular,trendy version of Linux is,and load that ton of crap on
> it.I'm sorry,but I remember when Red Hat 6.0 was one CD (the OS) and it came
> with a CD of applications.Now,you have versions of Linux on THREE CDs.What's
> up with that?Windows XP is only on one CD and it comes with more crud than
> you'll ever use.I can't imagine why any OS needs three CDs.Along with that
> growth in size,Linux seems to be striving to "be like Windows".Why?There
> already is such a thing.I like and use Windows,but if I wanted to install
> and use that yet again I'd have already done it.I appreciate Windows for
> what it is (and isn't),I like Macintosh for the same reasons.I wanted to
> learn,and appreciate what Linux is on it's own merits,not for what it can be
> made to look like or run on.
>    Sorry for the speech,but an honest question deserves an honest answer.

Linux is following in M$'s footsteps - let's face it.  It exists in a
world where certain basic system resources are taken for granted (20GB+
hard drives, 128MB+ RAM, ca 1Ghz processors), and these resources are, in
turn, a product of the symbiosis between M$ and the hardware manufacturers
(M$ is constantly upping min system requirements in order to help hardware
manufacturers sell more hardware which enables M$ to develop and sell new
software - etc., etc).  With those sorts of resources, you have resources
"to burn," so to speak.  So, many Linuces give you the kitchen sink plus.
I'm not defending this, mind you.  I'd like to see Linux developers be
alot more frugal and try to develop applications to run on far less
powerful hardware: I think this can be done, and I think the world would
benefit from it in many ways (like, by not having to fill our landfills
with so many toxic by products of computer manufacturing).  But the trend
in Linux seems to be to chase after Windows and even try to best it, so
concern for conservative use of system resources is very secondary.  But
keep in mind that for many Win users, the system is not complete until one
or more 3rd party apps are added: WordPerfect - another CD; Adobe
Photoshop - another CD; game(s) - other CD's; etc.  With Linux, the "3rd
party apps" are often included along with the OS - thus the other CD's.

Anyway, you've stumbled onto the Luddite camp of the Linux movement with
BL.  Folks here value something that uses system resources conservatively,
is written to be as compact as possible, and that runs well on outdated
hardware.  So, we too are against code-bloat and object to some of the
ways Linux seems to be emulating Windows.

James