Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> Samual Acorn wrote:
> > > I run Firebird on BL2.  And Gnumeric.
> > > Anything else I'm missing?
> >
> > standard set of gnu tools (rather than busybox)
>
> I've already installed those from Slackware 7.1.
>
> > xmms
>
> mplayer works fine for me.
>
> > --gimp--
>
> I'm not into graphics, but I could install that from
> Slackware if I wanted it.

I did once and deleted it.  Big and not needed.

> > xchat
>
> Opera (which I run on BL2) has chat.
>
> > fvwm2
>
> I installed that from Slackware once, didn't like it.
> icewm is *much* better IMHO.
>
> > perl
>
> Available from Slackware.
I installed it to compile something, works fine with BL2.

> > cdparanoia
>
> I don't have a CD writer, but other users have been
> able to burn CDs from BasicLinux.
cdrtools to write, cdda2wav to rip music from CD.  Use the SW81 version of 
the latter on copy-protected CDs.


> > lame
>
> I've got name.
>
> > licq,
>
> Is that some sort of messaging (see above).
>
> > firefox (firebird is... old...),
>
> And I've got old hardware.  Firebird/phoenix has less bloat.
> But I'm pretty sure I could install the latest-and-greatest
> Firefox on BL2 if I wanted to.  Probably BL3 as well.
>
> > shockwave flash
>
> I've already added that to my Firebird and Opera.

What version and where did you find it?  Version 7 precompiled claims to 
need Redhat 9.


> > java
>
> Yes, that too is running on BL2 (both as a Firebird plugin
> and standalone).
>
> > nmap
>
> I ran that on BL1.  Don't remember if I bothered upgrading
> it to BL2.

> > telnet that works properly (for using BL as an X terminal),
>
> Why bother with telnet?  Use ssh (which runs on BL1, BL2, BL3).
> But if you insist on telnet, what's wrong with the Slackware
> version?  Anyway, you don't need telnet to use BL as an X
> terminal -- simply export DISPLAY from the main computer or
> run xdm (or similar).
>
> > --minicom--
>
> Get it from Slackware.  That's what the BL pkg command is for.
>
> > microcom is way too finiky...
>
> And it's only a tiny fraction the size of minicom.  If it were
> bigger (i.e. more features, more user-friendly) I wouldn't have
> put it in BL3 at all.
>
> > never used gnumeric.... then again.. ive never understood the
> > need for spreadsheets....
>
> You will when your boss gives you an xls file to work on.
> That's why I installed gnumeric.  Until then I always used
> my old Lotus123 (running on DOS).

Is there an xltohtml for Linux?  I have one for DOS.

> > and yes... i know all of that wont fit on floppy...
>
> The 2-floppy BasicLinux is just the starting point.  It gives
> you the foundation for lots of other stuff.
>
> > but if someone is going to do a full install
>
> What's a full install these days?  2 gigabytes?  3 gigabytes?
>
> > on somewhat new hardware
>
> New hardware???  BasicLinux is not designed for new hardware.
> It's not even designed for good secondhand hardware.  BL3 is
> designed for junk, for throw-away hardware.

Curbside finds.  Friends' discards.  Yardsale leftovers.  Free.

> > IMO they should use a full distro....
>
> Yeah, newbies with new hardware should use a full distro:
> user-friendly, point-and-click, kitchen-sink, no worries.
> "Hey Mom, I'm a Linux user.  Watch me click on the eye-candy."

Someone gave us a Redhat 6 installation once and it turned me off linux 
for several years, looked too much like Windows and ran slow.  Five 
minutes to load, five more for X, with 12MB RAM.

> > as far as old comps go tho basiclinux does get the job done
> > quicker... perfect for ancient laptops...

> That's all I've got here: ancient hardware.  BasicLinux is
> designed for my hardware.  By using a BasicLinux foundation
> and appropriate add-ons, my browser/mail/etc  performs
> significantly faster than my inlaws Windows computer (with
> 4 times the RAM and 8 times the CPU).

And saves a few minutes booting time.

> The fact is your user-friendly, point-and-click distribution
> (whether it comes from Bill Gates or Red Hat) eats resources.
> I'm now seeing reports on a Linux discussion group that a
> certain 2.6 kernel requires 32mb to boot.  That's just the
Ubuntu live CD requires 128MB to boot.  One of the other live CDs (SW91 or 
DSL?) required 32MB to boot.

> kernel (not the filesystem).  I have five laptops -- none of
> them would be able to boot that kernel.  Nevertheless I used
> the slowest of those laptaps (when it was my only laptop)
> to give a very successful MagicPoint presentation to my local
> council.  That's why MagicPoint is in BL3.  It turns a junk
> laptop into an extremely valuable tool.
>
> A note for those of you making submissions to council hearings:
> a submission presented via MagicPoint usually trumps a submission
> made via charts/chalk/whatever.  Your well-funded opponents will
> always have a fancy PowerPoint presentation.  You don't have a
> chance unless you have something similar.
>
> > but too small for desktops...
>
> Too small?  I run BasicLinux on my desktops, and it works fine.
> I simply add the packages I want from Slackware (and elsewhere)
> or compile my own (using the compiler package from Slackware).

Sometimes the busybox programs don't work properly with the compiler.

> > even a 486DX2-66 with 32mb of ram can handle more...
>
> OK, tell me what current distribution works well on that hardware?
> Don't forget X.

A friend whose cpu fan died has just switched his Gentoo (current) from 
one with 128MB and 233Mhz to the other computer we made him, 120MHz with 
32MB RAM.  He has tried to keep things pared down.  He says it boots a 
little slower, especially X, but works. He does not do much with X, just 
needs it to read his school webmail.  He also insists on using OpenOffice 
because it will import Wordperfect files.

> > and to get that 'more' when starting from BL
>
> "starting" is the key word.  BasicLinux is a starting point,
> a lean foundation upon which to add just the packages you need.
>
> > most of BL would have to be replaced...
>
> Most?  I don't think so.  Sure, some of the included binaries
> have limited functionality and you might want to install the
> full versions from Slackware.  However, BasicLinux is not
> defined by its binaries.  The most important thing (to me) is
> that BasicLinux provides a simple skeleton, stripped of bloat.
> Yes, I have stuck some binaries on that skeleton but you are
> free to add or subtract them as you wish.

I upgraded libc6 to 2.2.25 (to support precompiled xpdf, and Opera) and 
replaced a small number of the busybox programs.  Had to upgrade ncurses 
to use precompiled 'screen'.

> > including the broken telnet client....
>
> Broken how?  I tested it on a few things (eg matanza) and
> it worked OK.  Anyway, most people needing that kind of
> functionality will install the ssh package.

Telnet worked for me.

> Cheers,
> Steven
>
> ____________________________
> http://www.basiclinux.com.ru
> _______________________________________________
> BasLinux mailing list
> BasLinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux

keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org