Baslinux mailing list

[baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org]

> The target notebook is a 233MHz w/ 64MB ram & 4GB HD, pcmcia x 2, usb
> 1.0 x 1, swapable CD/FD.
>
> Purpose for installing BL is that it's tight, light, and it works...FAST!
>
> My question is, am I on the correct path with BL 2.1 or should I be
> using BL 3.5 as a base?

BL 2.1 has a later X that lets you use precompiled versions of add-ons 
which may not be available or compilable for 3.5.  If you are not going to 
use X, it does not matter.  At least one version of xpdf would not work 
with BL3.  It would be complicated to upgrade Steven's neat little X setup 
to a later X.  But you can upgrade kernel and libc easily.

I use BL2 on most computers, with Steven's Xvesa and rxvt.

> BL 2.1 uses slackware 7.1 packages, BL 3.5 uses slackware 4.0 packages.

If you upgrade to glibc, use the one from Slackware 9.0 or 8.1, and then 
you can add Slackware 9.0 or 8.1 or 7.1 packages (that don't use X).

> I am not intimately familiar with the differences in the kernel and
> glibc versions used, but simply based on the versions used, it seems
> to me that there should not be a great deal of difference.

You can change kernel and glibc.  I upgraded to kernel 2.4.31 because 
someone sent me a Slackware 10.2 CD with the source code.  I upgraded to 
glibc 2.2.5 from Slackware 8.1 because they sent that too.   The 2.4 
kernel is needed to use USB-storage devices such as flash drives, cameras, 
external hard disks, SATA-USB adaptors.  It is needed to compile a few 
modules (2.6 is needed for others) because nobody bothered backporting.
2.2 would not work with one wireless network card, where 2.4 did.

> This is an invitation for Steven to jump in and enlighten me. I could
> dig through the archives, but I hope this is faster and simpler
> solution. :-)
>
>
> Second item, the poll...
>
> If it isn't too far off topic, I would like to inquire about the
> systems on which BL is being used, specifically, what is your most
> MINIMAL system that you are using to run BL, and what is your
> application (and which version of BL)?

I first installed BL1 on a 486 with 16MB memory, and ran Opera 6. The 
later Operas prefer more memory, but will work with a swap partition or 
file. (And they need glibc 2.2.5 or later).  I also installed the files 
needed to compile (10MB?) and compiled kermit on it.  The Slackware 4.0 
compiler (gcc) and libc5 won't compile a lot of newer software but you can 
upgrade them (and then you need 100MB to compile with).

BL3 will run in 3MB memory on a 386 laptop, but it is a bit slow to draw 
images, partly because of the slow older LCD screen.  DOS works better in 
3MB (smaller kernel).  This is in the archives.

Your laptop has more memory than anything we are using to run BL3.5 or 
BL2.1, and is as fast as our best laptop.  A 100MHz laptop with 24MB and 
an 85MB HD works fine for BL3 (if you won't be compiling kernels on it, 
for which it helps to have more speed, and probably more space and 
memory).  BL does not fill up the memory with unneeded logging daemons, 
and Xvesa/rxvt is low-RAM.

So what you have is overkill.

What were you planning to use the laptop for?

Sindi

> This is simply for curiosity. Inquiring minds wanna know! :-)
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Regards,
> srporter
>
> -----------------------
> BasicLinux mailing list
> -----------------------
> http://www.basiclinux.com.ru
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/baslinux/
> ------------------------------------
> To exit, send subject=unsubscribe to
> baslinux-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

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