Baslinux mailing list

[Ian <info AT freedomnet.org.uk>]

> > is it because it was intended to be more "low-resource" 
> 
> Yes, libc5 is much smaller than glibc2.  BL3 is designed
> for 386/486 laptops (or desktops) with as little as 4mb RAM.  
> The minimum for BL2 is 486DX with 8mb RAM.

This would seem to suggest that there is some advantage
of using glibc2 over using libc5?
Is that perhaps that newer programs are unlikely to
work properly if compiled to use libc5?

Theres this newer library, uclibc, which Ive seen mentioned.
Ive heard its very small. If newer programs are compilied
to work with this, might they not be more likely to work
properly than if compiled to work with libc5?

If that were so, would not uclibc be a better choice for
BL than libc5?
(I have in mind mutt in particular)

I can see this would probably involve a lot of work
recompiling all these programs.



My interest is in these older computers 386/486. I installed
SW10 on a PII and it seems to work ok so computers that fast
dont actually *need* a stripped down distro like BL.

-- 
Bye now,
        Ian.