[RULE] Hi everybody

[James Miller]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, DervishD wrote:
>
>  * M. Fioretti <m.fioretti at inwind.it> dixit:
> > One important thing is to note that the fact that Raul builds his
> > own linux stuff, rather than relying on Red Hat or any other
> > pre-made thing
>
>     The advantage is that I fully control my Linux box, and I can
> optimize compilation to my likings. The cons are that I don't have a
> package system, but this is not an issue for me, since I have my
> installation scripts, so the only time I must make an effort to
> install a program is the first time. Upgrading for me is as easy as
> doing something like 'zsh /var/packages/nmap.install', for example.
>
This would be a huge issue for me.  I have no such scripts, and it would
take me several months to figure out how they work and how to put one
together - assuming I could find several months' time to devote to it (I
can't).  Not to mention that, were I to be using such a Linux on the sort
of hardware RULE aims to run best on, I would not have adequate system
resources - or time - to build it.  It's an interesting aside, but I don't
see how it addresses RULE issues: can someone help me understand?

>     Since I don't use a distro, I've learned that the first source of
> bloatware is userspace. Since I have my own init, my own mixer,
> etc... my system runs faster and I have more spare memory for caching
> and the like. If we manage to substitute bloated userspace programs,
> we have won a lot: see kdrive, for example.
>
Wonderful.  I have a 486 DX2 66 with 20MB RAM (30 pin simms) on which I'd
like to install Linux.  What can you do for me?

>     My system, currently, fits in an 80min CD, complete, including
> sources, software, documentation, etc... A complete image. That means
> that, if I need to, I can run my box with just a 1Gb hard disk drive
> (in fact, my 40Gb drive is occupied mostly by my mirror...), and I
> think that it will run with 16-32 Mb of RAM.
>
Very laudable.  What processor speed would be required?  Would it work on
a 486?  Do you have such hardware there on which to test it?

>     I currently have 512Mb of RAM,

Gulp.

> work with a desktop environment instead of my 5 virtual consoles, but
> it's all about resources. With all that RAM and virtual consoles I
> can run lots of GCC's, edit sources, play music while I do things

I try to use virtual consoles on my 486's as much as possible and not fire
up X apps.  GCC is sort of out of the question though, since I have
limited disk space and even more limited system resources (say, on a 486
DX4 100 [Cyrix] laptop I have).

> automatically, run my email and other 100 processes and still have
> plenty of free RAM for caching. In fact, I rarely hit the 300Mb used,
> with my system running at high loads. That gives me more than 200 Mb
> for caching.

No comment, for reasons that should be obvious.

> My system, and three years old Duron, is fast as light.

Mine does pretty good too - for a 486 with only 20Mb RAM.

> But if I used KDE or GNOME, and Mozilla instead my good eLinks,
> surely I will have a prettier system, no doubt, but then I no longer
> could make an image to a 80min CD and my 512M RAM will be the minimum

I don't have any CD burner in any of my 486's.  The less HD space the OS
takes up the better, but the capacity of a CD is sort of irrelevant for
me.

>     But I don't want to blame X of being bloat, this is not true.
> What I mean is that, compiling all by hand and carefully choosing
> what kind of software you *really* need for your everyday use, you
> can have a fast system without the need of much CPU power and RAM.
>
I compiled Naim once on my 486 DX2 66 with 20MB RAM.  I think the finished
binary is somewhere around 600KB.  It took about 45 minutes or an hour, as
I recall.  Anything much bigger would probably have taken the better part
of a day.  I don't think I'll try much more compiling on that machine . .
.

> if I can choose, I choose the less bloated if possible. And I
> consider carefully the limit between 'full-featured' and 'bloated'.
> Things like 'mutt' are full-featured. Things like 'emacs' are
> bloated. Just my opinion, of course ;))
>
Let's imagine you're more of a computer user (like me) than a programmer:
how do you differentiate between the full-featured and the bloated?  Are
there lists somewhere that distinguish programs accordingly?  Would be
nice if there were, wouldn't it?

>     And please excuse this long message, but I wanted to make clear
> what you can accomplish just by carefully choosing userspace and
> avoiding userspace bloat. Doing this you almost don't feel bloat in
> the kernel ;))
>
What does "userspace" mean?

>     BTW, since I'm new in this list, could anybody tell me what the
> current bloat-points in the kernel are, as far as RULE is concerned?
> I have a tight kernel in my box (tight in the sense of tailored to my
> needs without any unneeded burden in it), and I don't notice any
> bloat in it, but I must confess that there are parts of the kernel I
> have never used, like the framebuffer, etc... so I would like to know
> where the work needs to be started. Thanks a lot in advance :))
>
You're fortunate in having adequate system resources (and adequate
knowledge about how to tweak them) to compile your own kernel.  Now - back
to my old 486's!

James

PS Your English is great, btw.  I speak Russian, being a native English
speaker, and I know how difficult it can be to communicate even simple
things in a non-native language.  I wish my Russian were as good as your
English.


_______________________________________________
Original home page of the RULE project: www.rule-project.org
Original Rule Development Site http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/rule/
Original RULE mailing list: Rule-list at nongnu.org, hosted at http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rule-list