Win ME revisited?!!
Forum: User Feedback
Topic: Win ME revisited?!!
started by: poppe
Posted by Guest on Feb. 12 2006,00:46
I love DSL! It is a super system! However, version 2.2 just puts me off; here's why...(1): Regression in kernel version: Even though it keeps DSL under 50 MB, the older kernel kills some functionality.
(2): There are some applications that really could go instead of kernel 2.4.31... Beaver, Jwm, Firefox (I love Firefox, but it could be made into a myDSL extension).
(3): Kernel regression, and a few tweaks such as background color pickers, etc. don't justify an upgrade for most folks... remember Windows ME week of shame?
Overall, I think that DSL is awesome. However, it is the removal of functionality that I feel is a large mistake... I do however understand that the higher the kernel version goes, the fatter the OS becomes. Perhaps, we might be able to see some extra myDSL apps, that can replace what gets lost from kernel regression.
Posted by daacosta on Feb. 13 2006,10:00
You really scared me with the title of your post as I was one of the many unfortunate people that purchased a computer with Win ME on it... Thankfully now it has Ubuntu Breezy Badger and, of course my Live DSL CD as well as my DSL stick. 
I agree with you regarding the kernel and would have preferred to see Beaver go (vi is quite enough...), jwm is also redundant and not even the big a$$ distros have an alternative windows manager (to the best of my knowledge) At most you can either use Gnome or KDE but for DSL one windows manager sufices and I happen to love fluxbox... Somehow Xpdf is also redundant...
Rgds,
Posted by torp on Feb. 13 2006,12:57
i think DSL is headed in the right direction. john and robert have a firm vision for DSL, and buying into the MS doctrine of percieved obselence is not included. unwarranted kernel upgrades falls directly into the trap the MS victims have suffered from for years. my old machines are productive again for the first time in years, and i for one am thrilled. for those who feel a need to upgrade at every kernel tweak, there are several distros out there just for you.torp
Posted by doobit on Feb. 13 2006,14:21
I agree with torp. DSL is exactly what it is designed to be with the 2.4.26 kernel - a light, fast live CD with a nearly complete desktop that runs older equipment extremely well. The 2.4.31 kernel lost many of the modules that were compiled into the 2.4.26 kernel, while getting larger at the same time, so in a way, it lost functionality on the kernel upgrade. Having said that, I use 2.1b frugal hard drive install on my laptop because the newer madwifi module package that Robert put together works great with my AT&T wireless card. However, for a live CD, DSL-2.2 just works better because everything is already there on bootup. I like choices. I was against JWM at first because it looked too much like Win$. However, it turns out to be more memory efficient than Fluxbox, so it's a better choice on my low memory machines. Mandriva gives you a whole list of desktop choices on it's boot splash screen. Ubuntu gives you either KDE or Gnome, if you have them both installed, I don't know about the others, but it's part of the concept of freedom to have choices.
Posted by mikshaw on Feb. 13 2006,16:17
I think "nightmare" is a bit extreme. As was said, the main purpose of DSL is being more appropriately served by keeping the older kernel. The previous upgrade apparently caused trouble for some older hardware that DSL had been designed to support, so if anything this is a fix for a prior mistake.Personally I continue to use 2.1b simply because the newer kernel provides me with an abundance of cloop devices, but if my machine was among those older boxes that DSL is primarily meant for i'd be happy for the return to the older kernel.
Posted by cbagger01 on Feb. 13 2006,19:32
I disagree with the premise of this argument.Kernel version 2.4.31 is not "bloated" in any context other than if you compare it to version 2.4.26 and it's lack of hardware support for SATA disk controllers and other hardware.
There are definitely hardware issues related to DSL + vanilla 2.4.31 kernel + latest ndiswrapper that don't exist with knoppix3.4/DSL 2.4.26
However, it is unproven that these issues are related to the size of the kernel+modules and more likely due to some other cause like errors created during the backporting of kernel drivers or optimization of some code for multiprocessing.
Although a very popular use for DSL is reviving older computer systems, this is not the only way to use DSL.
For example, it is also popular to use DSL as a "portable OS" that is run from livecd or from a USB pendrive.
With nearly 100% of computer manufacturing since 2004 being computers with SATA hard drives and controllers, it is very difficult to use DSL/2.4.26 as a "portable OS" on modern hardware and have the ability to read/write to the hard drive.
So while I can understand the reasons why DSL was rolled back to the 2.4.26 kernel, I take issue with comparing the 2.4.31 kernel to bloatware.
In fact, I am sure that there will be some users who will continue to use DSL 2.1b until the next generation DSL-like 2.6 kernel OS is released for testing.
And none of them are doing it because they prefer bloatware.
Posted by Guest on Feb. 13 2006,20:03
I concur... While DSL is great for reviving old systems, PC component manufacturers aren't going to keep pumping out remakes of old hardware configurations. In addition, there are a few really good archive FTP sites that you can get older kernel versions from if hardware revival is needed. I can certainly agree with the need for older hardware revival, however as I mentioned earlier. More driver support will be needed rather than lose the ability to keep up with new hardware needs.
Posted by daacosta on Feb. 14 2006,04:52
| Quote (doobit @ Feb. 13 2006,09:21) |
| ... I like choices. I was against JWM at first because it looked too much like Win$. However, it turns out to be more memory efficient than Fluxbox, so it's a better choice on my low memory machines. Mandriva gives you a whole list of desktop choices on it's boot splash screen. Ubuntu gives you either KDE or Gnome, if you have them both installed, I don't know about the others, but it's part of the concept of freedom to have choices. |
Of course we all like choices but two window managers? Either JWM or Fluxbox but both of them are redundant... See, having two programs that do the same is inefficient in my opinion.
Compile a newer version of the kernel and optimize the rest...
Rgds,
Posted by John on Feb. 14 2006,06:33
The kernel roleback was not because of size but because we have overall more functionality with .26 than with .31. It was not a decision we took lightly. I don't think people realize how much work is put into each end every release.Poppe, our release schedule has worked very well for us over the last three years. Remember, this is free software, and having an aggressive release schedule helps the distribution's development and momentum.
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.
We have other redundancies too, but they are all justified.
Posted by brianw on Feb. 14 2006,14:35
Not sure if it is related or not but going to the newer kernel I seem to have lost fan control on my Armada 7800 (cpu was getting so hot it shut the machine down and now, due to the heat, I have a line down the left side of my screen anoying but my own fault). It worked fine under DSL1.5 but does not work with 2.0. I am going to use 2.2 and see what happens.No distro can be all things to all people and there are plenty of distros to choose from. DSL in my opinion is a great medium and serves it's purpose very well. I have older hardware and now rely on DSL for that hardware.
Posted by torp on Feb. 14 2006,19:07
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
Posted by cbagger01 on Feb. 15 2006,04:54
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.
Posted by torp on Feb. 15 2006,15:08
~touchelol....ALDFROCH
torp
Posted by Guest on Feb. 17 2006,16:34
| 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).
Posted by NewDude on Feb. 19 2006,08:25
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
Posted by cbagger01 on Feb. 19 2006,20:15
The only reason to downgrade is if you have a newer computer that has hardware that is unsupported by DSL version 2.2b with linux kernel version 2.4.26For example, SATA hard drives, newer LAN cards, etc will work better for DSL version 2.1b and linux kernel version 2.4.31
At least, this is my opinion.
Posted by NewDude on Feb. 19 2006,21:11
Thanks, that is good to know.I have had some problems get DSL, Puppy linux, and Ubuntu to work on my PIII machine.
UBuntu stops at 83% and when it is decting the CD-ROM. It gets stuck on the "Loading Module 'ide-disk' Linux ATA disk'...
Who knows... I will try DSL 2.1 on that system and see if it can boot up to the CD.