User Feedback :: Win ME revisited?!!



my guess is that most of us use DSL on older machines. For those that want to demo linux on newer machines there are dozens, nay, hundreds of liveCD's out there that would probably do a better job displaying the latest, greatest linux wizardy on a new, fast, loaded with memory PC. i'm guessing 90% of the DSL users on this board are using PIII's or older. i have no statistical data to back that up, just seems to be the drift of the new posts here on the forum. long live DSL and my PII-400mhz machine!

torp
If you want a slightly better guess, go here:

http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin....nd+poll

As you can see, about 30% of DSL users polled are using it for  computers that are definitely faster than Pentium-III class, but if you spend your efforts focused on the numbers, you are missing the point.

It seems to me that you are trying to define DSL as "the OS for older computers" and anything-else-but-DSL as "the OS for newer computers".

DSL is first and foremost a SMALL linux distro, and this philosophy allows for innovative uses for the OS that are not possible with other distros.

1) It's small size, lightweight apps and xserver make it a great choice for older hardware.

2) It's small size makes it a great choice for people who can't tie up a dialup phone line for 48 hours to download a bigger distro.  This is true of people who own newer hardware.

3) It's small size makes it possible to burn the iso to a 50MB "business card" CD-R disk and is convenient as a computer rescue disk or portable livecd.

4) It's small size and MyDSL functions and repository makes it possible to create custom CD-R disks that contain the base DSL OS + your own programs and settings, and without the need for a full KNOPPIX-style remaster.

5) It's small size makes it possible to load the entire OS into RAM on a 128MB+ computer (including new ones) and get blinding speed improvement and also frees up the CDROM drive to play music CDs or other uses.

6) It's small size makes it possible to frugally install the OS to Compact Flash media (read only compressed filesystem) and is perfect for super-quiet low-power usage systems.  Your new  laptop will be silent and maybe even double the battery life.  Also good for small "embedded like" PCs like the DSM.

7) It's small size and backup/restore process makes it ideal for installation to make a "bootable" USB pendrive that also lets you store your files and settings.  This gives the user a "portable OS" that can be plugged into most existing computers encountered in your travels (friends house, home, work, etc) instead of lugging around a laptop computer as your "portable OS".

8) It's small size, lightweight apps and xserver make it an ideal choice for "virtual computing".  This allows most modern computers (1.0GHz and newer) to run DSL from inside a "virtual PC" like VMWARE or QEMU and still get decent performance.  Combined with QEMU and a USB pendrive, it creates DSL-Embedded, which can be a "portable OS" that can be run from a computer that is already running MSWindows or Linux.

And I am not even beginning to describe the advantages that a DSL frugal installation to a hard drive can do for people, IE: bulletproof OS on an older or newer computer.

And of course, I am sure that I am missing some other examples of the benefits of D.S.L.  (Note the name D.S.L. and not ALDFROCH  "Another Linux Distro For Really Old Computer Hardware").

As I said before, I understand and appreciate why the developers went back to the 2.4.26 kernel.  In the short term some people with newer hardware will be inconvenienced by this move.  This is unfortunate, but understandable because there is no easy answer that can make everyone happy.

For example, most of these people will not be happy by switching to one of the dozens of livecds out there that supposedly do a better job displaying the latest, geatest linux wizardry on a new, fast, loaded with memory PC.

Until the first 2.6 kernel DSL-like release candidate appears, their best bet is to use DSL version 2.1b instead of someone else's bloatware.  But that's just my opinion.
~touche

lol....ALDFROCH

torp
Quote (John @ Feb. 14 2006,01:33)
Re adding JWM:
Our version (personally hacked my Robert) is has a very small fingerprint, sitting at only  100k, or about 1/6th the size of Fluxbox.

My apologies regarding the Win ME analogy. Also regarding the kernel rollback, I do see some improvements over 2.1b.

One question I have for John is: In 2.1b I noticed that when I used the wallpaper app to install a new wallpaper, on reboot my system (using 2.1b) came up with an extremely dumbed down display (I ended up having to reinstall DSL). Was that an issue that you folks corrected in 2.2?

Also, what are the chances of you folks possibly rolling out a cluster version using an Open Mosix kernel? I personally hink that a DSL special clustering edition would be neat :)

Also...

Quote

Re adding JWM:
Our version (personally hacked my Robert) is has a very small fingerprint, sitting at only  100k, or about 1/6th the size of Fluxbox.


I've noticed that JWM seems to run my processor at a constant 1% on the resource monitor. Whereas Fluxbox runs my processor at 0% (This is with a frugal lilo install on a Fuhitsu Lifebook, Intel Celeron 477 mHZ CPU, 92MB of RAM).

Perhaps this WM difference may be something that you and Robert might want to look into (just thought you'd like to know).
Poppe, ME M$ totally sucks... DSL kicks butt over it.

I am curious though to find out what version is your favorite.  I am running 2.2B and I have 2.1 on CD to, but what is the favorite around here from you true LINUX guys...

I am will to "down-grade" to a older version if someone can give me a reason to.

Thanks
Next Page...
original here.