Baslinux mailing list

[baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> Message from Steven
> ===================
> Sindi wrote:
> > Add these to the list of things that need 2.4 kernel -
> > the newer busybox (uclibc based),
>
> We don't need it.  Our current busybox works just fine.

I am not saying you need it, just that it requires 2.4.

> > most USB storage devices and probably other hardware.
>
> BL3 is designed for old computers.  There are plenty
> of more up-to-date distributions that provide full
> support for USB and other new hardware.  BL3 is not
> competing with them.

DOS supports most USB storage devices too.
Not the one for my camera.  The 1-floppy linux David Moberg
compiled does support everything we own.

> > To use links in BL3, you need a 2.4 kernel, but not
> > glibc.

> That is not correct.  links works fine with a 2.2 kernel.
> In fact, I have recently uploaded two nice links packages
> for the 2.2 kernel (and libc5).

I meant 'elinks' - sorry.  Your two packages work well.

> > at 2.4MB it is smaller than Opera or links2 (but nongraphical).
>
> Any non-graphical browser should be much smaller than
> the graphical browsers.  2.4 mb is way too big for a
> non-graphical browser.

It is a LOT smaller than opera.  I am looking for some nongraphical 
javascript browser. The links2 javascript support is not very good and 
won't work at any of the sites I want it for.

Opera 9.26 is 16.6MB and needs 5MB of glibc = 22MB disk space.
(Older versions are smaller but not up to date on the javascript).
It uses 2.2% of my RAM, plus .4% for Xvesa and xinit = 13MB RAM

When viewing a 1.5MB image, at 640x480x16M, opera uses 9.8%, Xvesa 0.7%, 
xinit 0.1% of my RAM - 54MB.  (Can this be right?!).

This makes Opera not the best browser for a low-RAM BL3, even though it 
will work with 2.2 kernel.

Elinks without javascript is 1.6MB plus 5MB glibc=7MB, or 2.4MB 
uclibc-static.  The static libjs is 4MB so the uclibc java might use
6.5MB disk space.

It uses .3% of my RAM (no X needed) = 1.5MB RAM

If you use zgv to display a 1.5MB jpg with elinks, add 1.5% memory for 
zgv and another .3% for elinks = 9MB, total 10.5MB RAM.

elinks crashes if I use zgv and switch vts to use top.  I hope it will 
work better with xli or xv under X.  I know it does NOT display inline 
images.  links2 is nicer except the javascript is not usable at most 
sites.


Add in the extra memory used by a larger kernel:
600K for a 2.4 kernel (my smallest without scsi or sound or USB support) 
vs 400K for a 2.2 kernel.  How much more RAM would this larger kernel use?
My biggest kernel appears to be using 7.5MB RAM.  A BL3 kernel uses about 
2MB RAM.  So let's say 5MB extra RAM for a 2.4 kernel, at most.
(I am surprised it used that much more - good reason to avoid 2.4 in a 
RAMDISK linux).

Opera with 2.2 kernel - 13-54MB RAM
Elinks with 2.4 kernel - 1.5-10.5MB plus 5MB for kernel - 6.5-16.5MB RAM

If a system can run Opera, it can run Elinks/javascript with 2.4 kernel,
probably a lot faster.

> > Perhaps Steven would like to offer us a minimal 2.4
> > kernel for BL3 with support for USB storage,
>
> No, Steven has no interest in 2.4 kernels.  He uses
> the 2.2.26 kernel on all eight of his old computers
> (none of which has USB).  2.4 (and 2.6) kernels have
> significantly bigger footprints, and Steven does not
> want to burden his systems.

Opera is a larger burden than elinks with 2.4 kernel, on both hard disk 
space and RAM.  I know it does more, but it does it more slowly and most 
of the time I only want to read the text at a site with javascript.

Is there some way to invoke other browsers from within links or links2, 
like you can with w3m or lynx?  If so, I would use links2 graphical with 
ssl, and switch to elinks if I hit javascript.

> > also usable with elinks?
>
> I don't see the benefit of elinks.  We already have
> a small non-graphical browser in BL3 (links95) and
> an add-on package for enhanced links (links123).
> Add to that the graphical links2 package and the
> possibility of installing Opera.  It seems to me
> that our browser options are pretty well covered.
> Surely there are more useful add-ons to consider
> than yet another browser?

How long does it take you to load Opera on a computer with 16MB RAM?
How long to display a large image?

On my fast system, with Opera in cache, at 640x480, it takes 3 seconds to 
load Opera a second time, maybe 20 sec the first time.  Elinks .5 sec or 
so from cache.  Can I clear cache somehow to test?

'enhanced links' is what they are calling elinks.
Your links123 is something different.

Sindi

> Cheers,
> Steven