Is DSL the one?
Forum: User Feedback
Topic: Is DSL the one?
started by: lagerratrobe
Posted by lagerratrobe on Dec. 28 2005,17:25
I've had DSL 2.0 installed to the HD of my Dell Inspiron 3200 laptop for a little over 6 weeks and I think I'm finally able to verbalize my feelings about the distro. Is DSL the final answer in my quest for a small, fast Linux distro? The answer unfortunately is no, but a qualified "no". DSL *will* be the first distro I turn to when I need a capable Linux installation up and running immediately. It just won't be the one that I run for a long time on my personal workstation.The distro is amazingly small and performs well, especially on older hardware which becomes sluggish with large, full-featured distros that use traditional window managers like Gnome and KDE. All of the applications which come with DSL work quickly and efficiently and in my opinion are some of the best apps I've used. Hats off to using Sylpheed, for example. It's the best email client I've seen in a long time. Beaver is another application that I'll continue to use when I'm looking for a WYSIWYG editor. Where DSL falls flat on its arse though, is in the installation of new applications, particularly applications compiled and installed from source code.
Although 3 mechanisms exist for installing new apps; mydsl, apt-get, and source code compilation/install; none of them work particularly well imho, especially when DSL is run in a HD install. I'll give a brief rundown of my experiences with each below, starting with mydsl.
The mydsl package manager is a good idea in general, but feels unfinished. The need to be logged in as user "dsl" to install new apps makes it particularly frustrating to use in a multiuser environment. Although the tool can be invoked from the command line, allowing you to "su dsl" and install extensions from any user account on the system, this feature is trumped by the need to manually copy desktop icons and program links from the "dsl" account into yours after the installation is complete before being able to use them. It seems that mydsl is intended to those that run DSL from CD or other removable media, but it's a shame that it can't be a bit more flexible. Gripes about its administrative qualities aside though, the applications available via mydsl have all worked well, and are all recent enough versions to be useful additions to my system. Too bad there aren't more applications which have been ported to the mydsl repository, but it's easy to see how that will always be a moving target.
Moving on to apt-get, the traditional Debian package manager, my results with it have been mixed as well. First and foremost, the DSL specification of "oldstable" as the default release version is ludicrous. Using apt-get in that mode *will and does* cause problems rapidly, as apt-get will lower the versions of your libraries. Users of apt-get are well advised to update the release version to "stable", after which it seems to work as one would generally expect. As the makers of DSL say though, DSL is not pure Debian, and you can expect some things installed via apt-get not to work.
Finally we're to the thorn in my side. The straw that will get me to replace my DSL installation sometime this week. I speak of course of the joys inherent to compiling and installing from source code. Never something that is truly pleasant, even after close to 10 years of using Linux, in DSL it is a truly miserable experience. As SaidinUnleashed states so succinctly in his 'Compiling Problems and DSL' post, "DSL, being a minimalist distro is not exactly a friendly environment for compiling programs."
Amen Brother!
In most of the other distros I've used, like say Slackware for example, there are "Development" options available that can be loaded to provide support for compilation of source code. In DSL, although there are some utilities, like gcc and gtk2+ available, my experience has been that they are incomplete and that one rapidly enters dependency hell nightmares. Don't believe me? Just try installing the latest version of Audacity from source and you'll see what I mean. Even with the mydsl extensions loaded that are supposed to meet the requirements, you end up trying to make up shortcomings with either apt-get, or by downloading and trying to install more source code. I believe the final straw for me came when I could not get a perl module with compiled C code, XML::Parser, installed properly due to problems with gcc and make This after even using apt-get to install a new version of perl, and perl-modules, make, and gcc, and then manually building expat. Pffft! No thanks, enough is enough.
To sum up what has become somewhat of a rant. Do I like DSL? You bet, it's the easiest Linux distro I have ever installed, and it works pretty damn well right out of the CD. Linux fortunately or unfortunately is still an OS that requires one to hunt out and find the software that one needs or wants to use. That's the devil-headed beauty of it. Bill Gates isn't deciding what applications we should use, and because of the availability of open source software, just about any conceivable application is available for a Linux user to try. Not being able to dip into that resource while running DSL is a bit of a disappointment.
Posted by roberts on Dec. 28 2005,18:02
Use the right tool for the right job.It has been stated so many times that DSL is not primarily designed to be installed "as your father's operatiing system" to the hard drive.. Read about this in the Blog.
If you choose to install this way, then use the proper tool, which is *not* dsl extensions. You may certainly then compile from sources. Many of the apps in DSL are compiled is just such a way. In fact, to answer your compiliing rant, DSL 2.0 kernel and modules, and other new packages were developed on DSL 1.5 with the gcc1.dsl. To complain about oldstable means that you buy into the software bloat that is occuring everywhere. If a tool work for you then why the constant upgrade bloat cycle.
The dsl extensions are designed for liveCD, frugal, embedded and other compressed read-only cloop environment. Which implies that there is a user dsl. We don't run as root. Using root would change permissions and make the system unuseable.
Running in compressed read-only base environment are the type of installs that interest the developers of DSL.
To post complaints about the *old* way of doing things or buying into the software bloat means that you were correct to deinstall DSL and move on.
Posted by lagerratrobe on Dec. 28 2005,18:11
*old way* You betcha. Very constructive, thanks. ;) This IS the section of the forum where users are told to provide their feedback about DSL, right? My response to you is as follows:1 - If you don't want feedback about how the distro performs in an HD installation, don't include the option to install it to HD. Calling an HD install "the Old way" of doing things is like advocating one religion over another. I happen to prefer a HD installation on my laptop, it uses less battery power, among other reasons, which I shouldn't have to give you as justification since the distro gives me the option of running it that way.
2 - Regarding "oldstable" vs "stable". It's fine to say that apps were smaller in the past, and therefore better. In fact it puts a tear in my eye and makes me yearn for the "good old days". Too bad that we all know some things in the "good old days" weren't all that good. This is true with applications as well. vi does a fantastic job, it's been around since the 70's, and I love it. I also like MS Word and all of its features, depending on the circumstance. My complaint about having "oldstable" set as the release has NOTHING to do with the application size and version. My complaint with it is that if you use apt-get to install software with it set this way, you will soon start to have conflicts with your default DSL system. Since apt-get is recommended for use with HD systems, and HD systems tend to be larger than 50MB these days, the application size argument is lame imho.
As far as using the gcc1+ dsl extension, to compile code... rotfl. Want I should send you the t-shirt? It sorta works, some of the time.
Here's a constructive suggestion to you. Make a separate mydsl repository section called "Development". Then split out all of the libs and other development tools currently in "System" and put them in there. Also add back in ALL of the libs and development tools that you've stripped out of the base version and put them in the new section. Basically put all of the tools in a place where they can be optionally installed by someone.
Providing the means for someone to work with DSL in a way that doesn't suit someone else's narrow world view won't affect the existing user base in any way. The only harm that could come out of it is that people will find new ways of using the distro.
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 28 2005,18:52
I agree with both of you here. As you (lagerratrobe) have, I've also found that DSL is not, and may never be, my distro of choice for day-to-day computing needs, particularly since i am into frequently messing around with new software (or new-to-me software) on a whim...this means needing a great mass of libs and includes on hand. So my primary distro(s) are the father-type full-featured things (suse and slackware, mostly).However, I greatly appreciate the flexibility offered with DSL....the ability to install on a number of media types in minutes, the tiny size, the mountable extensions. While i very seldom use DSL for any serious work (simply because i already have two fully-stocked linux systems), I think it's the most enjoyable distro to play with from a developer's point of view. The frugal install provides a user with a bulletproof system which can be quickly reverted to its original state with a simple reboot. DSL-specific tasks are 100% script, which means that an interested user can see exactly what is happening and make whatever changes desired to make it more personalized, without needing to obtain separate source code packages and recompile applications. UCI mydsl extensions are probably the coolest way to handle packages that I've ever seen...I like it so much that I'm considering incorporating it or something very similar into my other systems.
EDIT: While i agree that the myDSL system might be slightly more useful if it could be used properly by other users (or even just root), acomplishing this without requiring a messy hack (copying files from /home/dsl and setting proper file ownership) would mean having to rebuild nearly every package and breaking compatability with previous versions of DSL. MyDSL has been evolving constantly, and some minor issues just don't seem to be worth that kind of effort.
Posted by doobit on Dec. 28 2005,19:04
I would second that idea of using the right tool for the job. I love DSL for speed and stability, because it allows me to experiment with a lot of Linux software without spending a lot of time to do it, and if it fails to work, a reboot will bring it back to life with no damage. I have other, full installs of large Linux distos too - Mandriva, and Ubuntu. Those have their place, but my old laptop won't even boot either of them past the first install page. DSL will do everything that I need to do when I'm on the road, and do it fast and well without taking much, or any, hard drive space. I'm also not afraid to recommend DSL or install DSL for new users, because it just works without any fuss. People who have never used a M$ product can use DSL without a problem because they aren't confused by the convention that has been established by that crowd.<edit> I would like to add that I don't think there is yet a single OS that does everything that everybody would like to do equally well. There probably should never be.
Posted by lagerratrobe on Dec. 28 2005,19:39
Hey mikshaw, thanks for the reply. I agree with you that the mydsl extensions are a good idea. In fact, despite the admonitions not to, I use them in my HD install quite a bit, and have found them to work well. btw, what's the problem with using them on an HD install?One app I use this way is Grip, and to further prove the potential of the distro, I use it with an apt-get install of Bladeenc. Works great.
Posted by clivesay on Dec. 28 2005,19:43
| Quote (doobit @ Dec. 28 2005,13:04) |
| I would like to add that I don't think there is yet a single OS that does everything that everybody would like to do equally well. There probably should never be. |
That's why bootloaders can boot multiple OS's
Posted by cbagger01 on Dec. 28 2005,20:31
The main reasons to avoid mydsl extensions (excepting UCI extensions) on a hd installation is:The extensions, which at their core are just structured tarballs, can overwrite various library and other files and there is no "undo" or "uninstall" button once you have done this.
myDSL extensions are very similar to early Slackware packages in the sense that it is really a software delivery system and not a true advanced pacakge manager.
So dependencies are also not handled in mydsl extensions and the Debian apt "installed packages" list is not updated, either.
Finally, there is the whole "user must be DSL" requirement that is fine for single user livecd/usb/frugal installations but as you know can be problematic for mutiuser hd installations. Can this situation be improved? Sure, but who does it and when? The developers have a lot of other ideas in the mix meaning that it is unlikely that this issue (which is only an "issue" in certain situations) will be addressed in the foreseeable future. But then again, what do I know?
From your first post in this thread, it seems like a good fit for your needs would be either:
(1) A Debian netinstall with minimal additional software or bloated window managers
or
(2) A KNOPPIX "Debian Style" hd installation with a minimal window manager selected like fluxbox or icewm instead of KDE or GNOME.
I like the idea of a mydsl development section. It could be very helpful for people who wish to compile stuff from source.
However, like the other mydsl sections, it would also be a USER CONTRIBUTED area.
So if you would like to help out, please take some of the critical development libs/packages that you have installed and wrap them up into extensions and submit them to the testing area.
I'm sure that it will help people in the future who might be in the same boat as you.
Posted by lagerratrobe on Dec. 28 2005,20:50
Hey cbagger01,I wouldn't mind doing some of that work, but I need to A) figure out just what mydsl extensions are, and how to make them, and B) get to a point where I'm able to actually build software succesfully so I can put together the list of libs and stuff needed to get that far.
Hmm, looks like I'll dig out an old PC from the garage, set it up to do dev work, clean out the laptop (again) and start from scratch. It'll be the 4th time I load the distro in 2 months, which says something about how easy it is to load this.
Maybe it's time for me to put /home on a separate partition.
--
Posted by clivesay on Dec. 28 2005,21:14
Under the /current folder in the d/l mirrors look in the /pdfdocs folder I have tried to put together some screenshot howtos for different things in DSL. I am not fluent at compiling so no idea how difficult it is with DSL 2.0+. You could run DSL 1.5 and use Knoppix 3.4 as your compiling environment. That is popular for many. With DSL being so small there's no way to get around having to do some tweaking on many things. I use DSL as my daily distro with xfree and nvidia acceleration. There are alot of options. I encourage you to explore and we'll help all we can.
Chris
Posted by roberts on Dec. 28 2005,21:26
| Quote |
| I like the idea of a mydsl development section. It could be very helpful for people who wish to compile stuff from source. However, like the other mydsl sections, it would also be a USER CONTRIBUTED area. |
In the system section of the repository there are already user contributed development extensions, including:
libncurses5-dev
libc6-dev
XFree86-devel
And posts in the mydsl community section of the forum from other users who have successfully used them.
I don't think there is enough volume to warrant a new separate section.
Posted by crusadingknight on Dec. 28 2005,22:09
Never had problems with APT myself - DSL has quickly become my primary OS (after I ripped maybe an extra ~35MB from the core of Ubuntu via apt-cdrom to install development stuff.) Not that I'd recommend it (yet), but DSL is capable. I only use myDSL packages to cut through dependancy hell (Abiword), so I've never experienced any of that.In fact, I've recompiled almost everything (kernel included, of course), and replaced some stuff (installed mpd/mpc instead of xmms, vim-ncurses over nvi and vi, openbox-2.2.3 over fluxbox and jwm, etc.) As I said, it takes a few hours to track everything down, but after that, it's fairly smooth sailing. Just as smooth as with Ubuntu-5.04, in fact.
That said, I've done so much that I think I need to rebuild my system from scratch to cut out all of the bloat - then I'll see how well DSL serves as a platform for Linux From Scratch.
BTW, I think myDSL behaves just as well as pacman (crux), pup-get & dotpup (PuppyLinux), etc., so, combined with dpkg, I'd say we're quite well off.
Posted by lagerratrobe on Dec. 28 2005,23:00
Can you point out some of the stuff you installed from Ubuntu with apt-cdrom? I think that's similar to what I need to do.Thanks.
Posted by cbagger01 on Dec. 29 2005,20:19
For stuff like development libs, the *.dsl mydsl extension is basically a gzipped tarball full of files where the filename suffix is renamed from the original *.tar.gz into *.dslFor applications, it is slightly more difficult because you need to create a file that is used to add your program to the fluxbox main menu.
Here are some links with more information:
< http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin....5;st=15 >
< http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub....ion.pdf >
< http://damnsmalllinux.org/wiki...._Source >
< http://damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Allpages >
Posted by JeffElkins on Dec. 30 2005,05:34
I must have missed something...I'm a long-time *nix user who has just stumbled across DSL. Currently, I'm evaluating DSL alongside VMWare on a WinXP platform. However, in no way,shape or form am I considering DSL as my primary Linux distro. It's a demo/rescue/light use Linux/ tool.
Honestly, with no insult towards the developers, can DSL compete with straight Debian or (K)unbuntu? It's pretty much a miracle as it is. A Linux distro that is only 50Mb! Kudos to the developers!
Posted by roberts on Dec. 30 2005,05:45
Bravo well said.And as I said at the beginning The right tool for the right job
With 300+ Linux distros out there to install to your hard drive
why would we, the developers of DSL, want to offer only the same thing.
DSL as a liveCD, embedded, frugal or applicance type application is a more interesting and far less crowded space.
DSL is not only a small distro but offers so many type of installs that work great on very minimal hardware.
How many Knoppix deriviatives under 50MB have 2.4.31 kernel offering 64 cloops and so many interesting way to deploy it?
So to compare DSL, as only a hard drive installed system and to compare it to the full sized traditional Linux distros, is to not know what DSL is all about.
Posted by lagerratrobe on Dec. 30 2005,20:17
| Quote |
| I must have missed something... Honestly, with no insult towards the developers, can DSL compete with straight Debian or (K)unbuntu? It's pretty much a miracle as it is. A Linux distro that is only 50Mb! Kudos to the developers! |
Depending on what your needs are for a day-to-day system, yes I think DSL can compete pretty effectively with most of the major distros in a HD install. I use it at work everyday to analyze and work with GIS map data, on a machine that's been retired for almost 5 years. Aside from the difficulties I've encountered in compiling source code, most of the Linux binaries and Debian apt-get packages that I've installed have worked fine. The source that I haven't been able to compile is mostly fluff, and not missed at work at all. I tend to agree with the DSL dev community that most of the large Linux distros today come with far more applications than are needed.
When you consider the speed with which the system deploys, and the fact that X, USB, sound, and most network functions are available 5 to 10 minutes after launch (in a worst-case scenario where one has to actually do some setup tweaking), I actually consider DSL to be a step ahead of Debian and other full distros in many ways.
Yes, DSL works fantastically well as a rescue system, I've used it 3 times already in this fashion since discovering it. It also works better than Cygwin as a means of using Posix tools temporarily on a Windows machine, since it seamlessly mounts NTFS and has a richer toolset out-of-the box than Cygwin. But it seems to me that saying the distro is "supposed" to be used this way is unnecessarily limiting.
| Quote |
| DSL as a liveCD, embedded, frugal or applicance type application is a more interesting and far less crowded space. |
This may be so for you as a developper, but from the number of posts that exist in this forum that come from people using DSL in HD installs, I also suspect the distro is the seed of a true Linux revolution. One where anyone can get a good Linux OS running in a traditional HD installation without needing huge distro-specific bibles to get the soundcard to work, or an MTA setup, or stuff lke that.
*THAT* was the intent behind my post originally. To point out that as a HD installation used to replace other traditional Linux distros, it fell short due to the source compilation limitations. I don't understand the response I've gotten from roberts on this matter. It seems to me that he discounts HD installs as being old-school, ridiculous ways of using the distro. Funny thing is that nowhere in this post, or in any others, have I said that liveCD installs are lame, or that having a small embedded linux distro to use on dedicated appliances is a bad thing. <shrug> I find this attitude puzzling, especially given that the HD install option exists, AND the large number of people who seem to use it in this fashion.
Maybe a survey of how people use the distro would be informative?
Posted by lagerratrobe on Dec. 30 2005,20:35
Hmm, looks like user "green" has a survey going, and wouldn't you know it, the poll has HD installs in the lead.41% for HD installs, with the next closest being 14% for live CD installs.
Interesting....
Posted by doobit on Dec. 30 2005,20:44
That poll doesn't separate Frugal HD from normal HD installs.
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 30 2005,21:23
It's also a relatively old poll, started nearly a year ago. Many people (myself included) have since begun using DSL in other ways. I've seen more than a handful of users who have moved from a traditional hd install to frugal during that time, which doesn't account for others outside of my limited experience. As far as users going from frugal to traditional, I haven't seen any.
Posted by roberts on Dec. 30 2005,21:33
One both the Wiki and the Main Site promote DSL as a liveCD.In fact the history of DSL is a live boot business card cd. That is even on our logo.
Two, I would consider the poll to be skewed towards the obvious, which is the prevailing mindset of "I got a cd, now I need to install it to the hard drive."
My colloquial use of the term "Not your Father's Operating System' is not meant to offend. Unix systems have as most other OS since the 1960's have run that way. My use of this term is to make people think of alternate ways that deploy newer technologies And promote what DSL does have to offer. Yes, there is a learning curve. Yes it absolutely bucks the prevailing mindset. We wouldn't have this thread if it weren't so.
It indeed may be time to remove this feature from DSL. As it is, it just happened to work from the then version of Knoppix. It has not been touched much at all over three years. It still trys to detect all the hardware upon each boot up, rebuilds fstab, etc. It is acknowledged that is is very dated. But it is also acknowledged that is it not the focus of DSL. Given all the heat about this library and that library, about oldstable, etc., it may not be worth the hassle.
In fact, I and others will often direct a user looking a small Debian installler to use the one from Debian group.
The libraries needed to run the application that come with DSL are the only ones needed. We will not grow this distro with extra libraries for may be needed future apps. We will not update and bloat grow either when not necessary.
We have a mechanism in place called MyDSL just for that sort of thing.
If you have an old machine uncapable of running the large full size distros and happen to like DSL and just what it offers and if you wish to have a traditional hard drive install of a static system with possibly the use of UCI myDSL extensions, then that would be the only suitable situation that I would personally recommend. Maybe I should pop up a huge warning with just such a message?
Promotion of DSL to change course and become a Debain Installer is not going to happen. There is one already out there.
Just as there are hundreds of Linux distros designed to install to hard drive.
On the other hand, if want to learn, explore, and contribute to a community of Linux users exploring alternate ways to spread the revolution then by all means accept the challenge to learn of the many ways of DSL.
Posted by boondoggle on Dec. 31 2005,03:08
DSL works very good for me as is. Right now I am downloading an ISO, listening to classical music from an online radio station (In Peru) via XMMS (streaming mp3), and surfing a little bit before hitting the sack.I have a bare 1.2 GB Quantumm Fireball HD (how old is that one!?) that I mount via emelfm and download files to via Firefox.
Yes, I use other os software, but for net stuff I generally use DSL.
All being done on an old HP Kayak PII 166!
"I'll pass on the bloat and chase the goat" with slender and trim DSL live CD (it's also installed to another HD for backup).
Posted by melder215 on Dec. 31 2005,04:41
I am really loving this DSL thing.. i am currently tring to teach people about it.. i build an donate computers to poor people and i am gonna install it on all of them so that these people get thier first taste of computing with linux .. and DSL. I think it is great that you can customize your computer and then put it in your pocket and take it with you to someone elses box.. now i got to figure out how to get my lexmark to print.. ?? guess i'll post that elsewhere..
Posted by melder215 on Dec. 31 2005,05:03
i forgot to mention.. DSL automatically reconizes all the components on my fancy new motherboard (the ONLY new peice of computer equip this trashpicker has ever owned) .. AND WINDOWS DOES NOT!! no sound!, no eth! not even a decent res! and i works on all my old trash boxes. most of which can't really run other live cds.. like slax..
Posted by cbagger01 on Dec. 31 2005,06:51
I also think that if someone is looking for a "normal" hard drive install of a Debian OS, they should do what appears to be obvious common sense to me:Install Debian.
As in the installation CDs from the Debian project.
If they want a preconfigured Debian installation with good hardware detection, they should do a KNOPPIX "Debian Style" hd installation. They can even help cut out some of the runtime bloat if they specify Fluxbox or IceWM as the default window manager. For fairly recent computers (Pentium III and up, or maybe faster Pentium II's) it is a nice bloat-free traditional hard drive install option (although the bloat files are still downloaded inside the ISO and are also sitting on your hard drive after installation even if you are not using them).
However, I can think of a different type of situation where the old DSL hard drive installation can benefit someone:
When the user is looking for a non-standard (IE: Not full Debian) hard drive installation for very old hardware with decent performance.
For some older computers (Pre-Pentium2 or even 486), there is a performance penalty associated with transparent decompression as is done via livecd and frugal. In this situation, they will get a boost from an EXT2 hard drive install.
But all the same rules still apply:
As a minimalist distro, compiling projects from source that have development lib and other dependencies will be a difficult task.
As a Debian-like distro instead of a "standard" Debian distro, apt-get will sometimes do "bad things", for example when GNU utilities are not installed in advance from MYDSL and also when trying to install packages related to the X-Windows system.
C'est La Vie.
Posted by starcannon on Jan. 05 2006,21:36
DSL Frugal Install tar.gz and uci on old hardware FTWdebian HDD install great for getting your dsl feet wet but Frugal or LiveCD is the way to go(i like frugal it frees up my optical drive for other disks and my HDD is faster)
On my more up to date and powerful Desktops their is a variety of distro's with all the full on bells and whistles. One of the most cool things about dsl LiveCD or Frugal installs is that if you bork it up you just rm the backup.tar.gz or if you REALLY borked it up you just reinstall your frugal image to that little 60mb partition(takes a whole 10min including opening and drinking part of a beer)
Anyway the only thing i want to see happening to DSL is for it to continue down its current path. I love having an OS that rox my 366mhz box! am typing this from an old IBM thinkpad 366mhz(celeron)-256mb RAM-4gb HDD-rt2500based WiFi
This computer USED to run win98 great, but some of the M$ patches borked it up to the point of nastiness. DSL runs better on this than Winders ever did, and oh yeah theres an Open Office extension for dsl(3 flavors i think) so this little laptop never had it so good.
Anyway theres my 2cents.
Rob