[Rule] Is Gnome/KDE the greatest bloat?

[C David Rigby]

On 9/27/07, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/09/2007, C David Rigby <c.david.rigby at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/27/07, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 27/09/2007, C David Rigby <c.david.rigby at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There is also fluxbuntu (http://fluxbuntu.org/, but site down for
> > > > migration). I took a quick look at the live CD. Not enough to really
> get
> > a
> > > > feel for it, but it seems to warrant further investigation. Like
> > > > Ubuntu-lite, it seems to be having the usual "growing pains" in
> terms of
> > a
> > > > stable web presence.
> > >
> > > May I suggest that you don't top-quote?
> >
> > Sorry - that was a bit sloppy of me.
> >
> > > Sure, there /is/ Fluxbuntu, but it seems to be mainly an effort to
> > > produce a version of Ubuntu for Fluxbox fans rather than anything more
> > > directed or focussed.
> > >
> > > But then, there are /many dozens/ of Ubuntu spinoffs now.
> > >
> > >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions
> > >
> > > Many don't have a particularly close or narrow focus, they're just
> > > Ubuntu for a particular perceived "market" or target audience.
> >
> > Point taken. Is it reasonable to consider starting from Debian as a base
> > rather than Ubuntu? Are there any minimalist distros based on Debian?
>
> Well, you could argue that Debian /is/ a minimalist distro, but I
> think that if you are targeting the desktop, Ubuntu is a better
> starting point.
>
> The problem soon will be kernel 2.6. I believe there is some older
> hardware it doesn't support, and neither Debian or Ubuntu supports 2.4
> any more.


Debian is rather minimal, but the standard installer's minimum base system
is still a rather complete "unix-like" system. This is fine with me, but
perhaps a single user, desktop system could do without some of the programs
that are considered necessary for a multi-user *nix. Could it do without the
mail server, for instance? The Debian base system checks in at just under
500 MB installed, and that is without X.org and various X-dependent desktop
apps. By doing a base installation, then adding X.org (deselecting the "all
drivers" option and including only the graphics and input drivers I actually
have) and then adding icewm and firefox, I get a system that is around 700
MB installed, IIRC.

I understand your point about the kernel. "Resource constrained" overlaps
quite a bit with "old" but it is inevitable that we eventually lose support
from the kernel for older hardware. Kernel 2.4.xx is still maintained,
though (see www.kernel.org - the current stable version is 2.4.35.3,
released 23 Sept 2007). So, somebody must still be using it.

--
> Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
> Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
> Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
> AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com • MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
> Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk • Skype: liamproven • ICQ: 73187508
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rule-list mailing list
> Rule-list at lists.hellug.gr
> http://lists.hellug.gr/mailman/listinfo/rule-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hellug.gr/pipermail/rule-list/attachments/20070928/e0c1eb90/attachment.htm>