Baslinux mailing list

[Sindi Keesan <keesan AT iamjlamb.com>]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> Sindi Keesan wrote:
> >
> > links2 graphical would be nice if someone wants to compile it 
> > for that library.  I forget what the advantage of Netscape is 
> 
> Netscape 3.04 is faster.
> Netscape 3.04 is prettier.
In what way?  I like not having the screen-top menu there all the time.  
Can you toggle it off in Netscape as you can in Opera?

> Netscape 3.04 has comprehensive mail/news capabilities.
BL3 now sends mail from links, too.  I can see how people using POP mail 
would like Netscape better.

> > Does it do more HTML and more javascript than links2 graphical 
> 
> Probably.
I may compare them some day.

> 
> > Can I just set up cardmgr in BL2 the same as in BL3 latest version?  
> 
> No.  I simplified it for BL3.  For BL2 you need to install the 
> pcmcia.tgz package from Slackware 7.1 and play with the config 
> files.
> 
> >do I have to add any library-dependent binaries?  
> 
> Everything you need is in the pcmcia.tgz package.

I will see what BL3 uses and just install the minimum files not the whole 
package.  Would the config file look like something in BL3?
I have only one PCMCIA device, the modem.  And no experience with PCMCIA 
other than BL3.

> 
> > What exactly happens when you try to use uClibc with 2.2 kernel?  
> 
> Most things compile just fine.  However, the occasional program
> (like nano) malfunctions when you run it on a 2.2 or earlier
> kernel.  All problems disappear when you run it on a 2.4 or
> later kernel.

> 
> > You said you got the BL2 2.2 kernel compiled smaller than the 
> > BL1 kernel.
> 
> By stripping out a lot of the functionality.  A 2.0 kernel with
> the same functionality would be smaller.
> 
> > Why can't the 2.4 kernel be compiled as small?  
> 
> Because kernel overhead increases as you go from 2.0 to 2.2 to 2.4.

Do you know why the overhead increases?  Does this refer to things that 
you cannot strip out, such as support for newer hardware?

> > Are there any advantages to using 2.4 on older hardware?
> 
> Most kernel developments have been targetted at improving performance
> benchmarks (based on top-end hardware). Any improvements for old 
> hardware are coincidental and are usually outweighed by the larger 
> kernel footprint.

Such as making better use of 1G RAM or 80G hard drives?

Is there still work going on to fix bugs in kernel 2.2?  It does not seem 
worth switching to a later version of it since the SW71 kernel modules 
won't match.  Or does some other distribution suppply kernel modules for 
the latest 2.2?  Which kernel does Debian  of that generation support?  
 
> > Have you finished unpacking?
> 
> Yes and no.  The important stuff has been unpacked, but there are 
> still a dozen boxes unopened (some of which will probably not be
> opened for months).
> 
> > Has anyone successfully used BL2 with USB, 
> 
> I'm not sure that a 2.2 kernel does USB.  You might need a 2.4.
> That's another reason for upgrading kernels -- to accommodate 
> new types of hardware.  However, that is not a problem for 

We were looking at upgrading the digital camera from .3 to 1.3  megapixels 
but there are used serial-cable models around.  I will research this a bit 
and report back of 2.2 will work with USB.  
Sindi