Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

VectorLinux 4.3 - Rocket Fueled Slackware 174

Posted by michael from the vroom-vroom dept.
SilentBob4 writes "Mad Penguin has the first review of the latest VectorLinux release. Vector is based on Slackware Linux, but is built on a newer 2.6.7 kernel (Slackware 10 was still built on a 2.4 kernel with the option of using 2.6) and is optimized to run well on older hardware. Even old Pentium PCs run well on this distro. Complete review with screenshots."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VectorLinux 4.3 - Rocket Fueled Slackware More

VectorLinux 4.3 - Rocket Fueled Slackware

Comments Filter:

  • VL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k31bang ( 672440 ) * on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:06PM (#10673978) Homepage
    I've been using VectorLinux(3.2) on my 760 series thinkpad for about a 8 months or so. Installing it was made easier by first installing Smart Boot Manager [sourceforge.net], which allows booting from a cd when the BIOS is too old to know how. Then, just to be a wiseass, I setup ICEwm to look exactly like windows XP(wall paper and all). Nothing like running xp on a 166. ;-)

    • Re:VL (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm getting tired of these "performance" comparisons for linux reviews, unless you havnt noticed, we're all using the same software, we all have access to the same compiler, we all have the same kernel.

      so your distribution includes some awesome patchset? newsflash, thanks to the gpl we can all patch our kernels/apps/whatever and use it.

      so your distribution uses prelink [freshmeat.net]? Newsflash, prelink is free software.

      So your software is Hyper-super optimised for i686? well guess what, i'll grab the srpm or whatever

      • Re:VL (Score:4, Informative)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @05:03PM (#10674697)
        RTA. VectorLinux isn't about patchsets or compile options:
        Whenever possible (which is most of the time) in cases where there are two or three
        good applications to perform a specific chore, they would choose to include the most lightweight one out of the bunch for inclusion into the final release. This is what makes VectorLinux what it is, and always has been.
        Can you take any linux distro and hand-pick all the lightweight software for an old box yourself? Sure, with enough elbow grease. Or you can use VectorLinux, because they already did it for you.

        • Re:VL (Score:2)

          by Ziviyr ( 95582 )
          Can you take any linux distro and hand-pick all the lightweight software for an old box yourself? Sure, with enough elbow grease. Or you can use VectorLinux, because they already did it for you.

          Or you could just refer to a list of the programs they use...

      • Re:VL (Score:4, Insightful)

        by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @05:07PM (#10674708)
        It's always interesting to see an AC comment modded up when it bears no correlation at all to the parent post. BTW in case you haven't noticed, distros vary on which supported features and optimizations are enabled when compiling binaries and some distribute custom kernel patches. Saying you can replicate any of them given enough time is at best a non sequitur.
    • On 120mhz system with 64mb of RAM, NT 4.0 is very snappy. And it's a lot more like XP than any version of Linux. Try running MS-Office-97 on your 166mhz VectorLinux System.

  • Not in the FAQ (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:10PM (#10674011)
    Does VectorLinux still follow the right-hand-rule?

  • SOHO (Score:5, Informative)

    by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:13PM (#10674030)
    I've used Vector Linux 4.0 (SOHO version) for a while, and I have to say a couple of things.

    1. Judging it by the same apps (firefox, for instance), it was STUNNINGLY fast compared to XP Pro and all other Linux distros I've tried (Fedora, Mandrake, Arch, even Gentoo).

    2. It sorely lacks a good dependency-handling package manager. Two exist that I'm aware of (Swaret and Slapt-get), and unfortunately they both just aren't that good. If this was remedied, well... just... wow.
    • No dependencies was actually the whole reason I switched to Slackware in the first place, but more importantly does Vector have PAM by default or did they follow Slacks lead on this too and not include PAM?

    • Re:SOHO (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:38PM (#10674201)
      I agree completely.

      When I started with linux, I used mandrake, just because of its rep as a newbie distro. I found unusable slow. I was disappointed. People had told me online that "linux was faster than windows". I felt like I had been lied to. (I was upgrading from win98, they were comparing to XP)

      I switched to vector for speed alone. I was impressed. Even KDE was snappy! But, I wasn't able to install a single package.

      I've switched to debian based distros exclusively, just so I can get stuff installed. However, I still miss vectors speed. I wish someone would make a distro compatible with the debian archive that had vector caliber speed, if that's possible.

      • Re:SOHO (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheKidWho ( 705796 )
        You could always try out gentoo, it happens to be very easy to install apps with portage, and it is very speedy too.
        • (and pre-compiled packages generally exist)

          I worry that Gentoo needs more harddrive than the average distro though...

  • No package system... (Score:5, Informative)

    by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:17PM (#10674082) Homepage

    no dependency control, no thanks.

    • "no dependency control, no thanks."

      I see this a lot. I'm a Slackware user, so I don't have dependency control in a packaging system. And, I've never had a problem. Occasionally, when I build something from source, it complains something is missing, I download it, build it as well, then continue. This takes almost no time (sometimes the build takes time, but that is unavoidable if there are not binaries, regardless of the system).

      So, my question is, is this dependency control thing actually a problem, or i

      • Actually a *big* problem (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:46PM (#10674239) Homepage
        Occasionally, when I build something from source, it complains something is missing, I download it, build it as well, then continue. This takes almost no time (sometimes the build takes time, but that is unavoidable if there are not binaries, regardless of the system).

        And then you end up with a system fully loaded with files you don't know the source, what are they needed for, if they are still needed, if they have any kind of security hole etc.

        That the real problem, it's not getting stuff to work, is getting rid of it when it's not needed anymore.

        • I've been a Slackware user since the mid-to-late 90's and I would not trade it for anything else. I tried Debian once, maybe twice. Didn't like it. dselect and tasksel were horrible... Then someone on Undernet #Linux said "Don't use dselect, then. :)" and a lightbulb switched on... I hadn't realized that the base system is all you need to get going. You can completely customize the thing after doing that. I was amazed, it was the distribution I had been dreaming about. It's similar enough to Slackware to sa

          • Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:5, Informative)

            by 13Echo ( 209846 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @04:20PM (#10674452) Homepage Journal
            Why's it too much work to simply download updated packages from Slackware-Current and run "upgradepkg"?

            Pat keeps the thing up to date at all times, and all critical exploits are practically always fixed in current. He updates practically every few days.

            http://www.slackware.com/changelog/current.php?c pu =i386
            • That's all nice... *if* you're using Slackware packages all the way. The fundamental problem doesn't really lie in Slackware's package management. It even has an 'apt' now, named 'slackpkg'. The problem for me lies in the poor availability of packages for Slackware compared to other distributions like RedHat and Debian.
          • Can I somehow install Debian on that box via SSH?

            Sure - there is a script, called debootstrap, that will take a debian mirror and the set you want (stable, testing, etc), and install a minimal debian system in a directory of your choice.

            This means that you can mount a new partition somewhere, fill it with a minimal debian, chroot to it, apt-get what you want, customize it, and set up a boot loader. Then, cross your fingers, and reboot.

            Here's a good page to read [burgettsys.com] that walks through the steps.

        • That the real problem, it's not getting stuff to work, is getting rid of it when it's not needed anymore.

          Then use Checkinstall [izto.org] to build packages from source for your distribution.

          I know it can build .deb, .rpm, and .tgz files. The process is simple on slackware:

          • ./configure
          • make
          • checkinstall --newslack

          I imagine the process is almost identical on other systems. Afterwards, you can just use your package manager to remove unwanted packages. No one has to chuck files all over their systems anymore. ;)

      • So, basically, you condemn RPM hell on one hand, yet think it's perfectly fine when it's with TGZs.

        Sorry, that makes no sense.

        -Erwos

  • Um.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by StickMang ( 568987 ) * on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:18PM (#10674086)
    Apparently he was running his mysql server on dinosaur hardware!

  • Vector is the shizzle (Score:5, Informative)

    by CestusGW ( 814880 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:18PM (#10674087)
    I've had the chance to use vector before, and I have to say it's the cleanest distro I've ever come across. No bloat, no extra features, no bizillion things starting at system boot.

  • Linux and Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumFTL ( 197300 ) * on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:22PM (#10674113)
    I believe that linux distributions like this that cater to older hardware encourage responsible environmental behavior among computer users. Honestly, for many purposes a 6 year old machine is just fine. I find it really convenient to have access to an always on, personally reconfigurable server that I can use for everything from a database to a small dynamic website. Most things that we do with computers nowadays don't really push our CPUs.

    I also think it's fantastic that they are using new the new kernel - cutting edge software is a great way to reinvigorate older hardware. I really hope that this leads to more computer reuse by geeks and maybe eventually nongeeks.

    A lesson people seem to have forgotten since the great depression survivors have moved on is "waste not want not". I for one think this world would be a better place with a little more of that attitude.

    Besides, it's fun to think that our "favorite" OS could be helping keep the world a safe, clean place for our children.

    Cheers,
    Justin
    • I believe that linux distributions like this that cater to older hardware encourage responsible environmental behavior among computer users.

      Wait, you mean like this ??

      I find it really convenient to have access to an always on, personally reconfigurable server that I can use for everything from a database to a small dynamic website.

      Why yes. Nothing quite helps the environment like running all those old computers 24 hours a day!
      • All other things being equal, if you need to have a computer running 24/7, you'll use a lot less power with a typical old PII system than a typical modern P4 system. Not only does the processor consume more less power in an older system, but so do the HDDs and the video (unless you're old PII has a late Voodoo card in it!)
    • I really hope that this leads to more computer reuse by geeks and maybe eventually nongeeks.

      I think we have been doing just fine with old hardware. It's the mundanes who have no use for a 3 year old computer.

      LK

    • Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Older machines are not always more environmentally friendly than newer ones. I agree that needlessly discarding old machines is a bad thing. However, keep in mind that newer CPUs build on smaller manufacturing processes are, when taken at scale, are more energy efficient. If we could somehow convince manufacturers that we don't really need all that speed, then we could get cheaper, more energy efficient chips. (Some companies do this I suppose, like Transmeta and Via)
      • The thing is that the older computers exist already, so it is an effective "sunk" environmental cost in manufacture. Creating demand to build a new circuit when the old one still works is often unwise.

        The newer computers can do more computes per unit power / energy but if it is wasted, then more energy is being wasted.

    • This is very true. Sitting across the room from me, I have a 333 MHz Celeron (Pentium III version). It isn't really suited to using as a desktop system, so I have Apache [apache.org] and Music Player Daemon [musicpd.org] on it. With Apache I can serve up a small website or develop it from any computer on my network, and MPD lets me play music and control it from anywhere in the house. It's also just nice to be able to SSH home from school.

      Old computers rock.

    • One has to be careful in weighing economic balances.

      Does it make sense to use your old Sequent Symmetry box in the middle of the summer when it needs tons of airconditioning capacity?

      What about that old Compaq Deskpro 486 with the 5 1/4 drive? It eats a lot of juice and puts out a lot of heat.

      6 year old systems are pretty bad too. Combine one with a 17 or 19 inch monitor and you're pumping out 150-300 WATTS! This is at least doubled if you're running a cooling system for your 'environment'.

      IMO, the late
      • The energy cost of running an A/C system isn't that extreme. For an A/C unit to move 100W of heat from one side of the system to the other, it only neads 10W of energy to do so. Energy is still being conserved throught the thermodynamic cycle, 100W removed from the room + 10W to remove it means that 110W has been put outside.

        The energy cost of manufactuing an LCD panel is high too, don't leave that out of your equation. Using an existing used display is a sunk environmental cost, and I think the monetar
    • Runs practically all ms-windows programs.

      I like linux, but it's not linux is the only OS that will run on older hardware.
    • Agreed, keeping old boxes as production-not-pollution is environment-friendly. The lower power consumption of those older boxes is environment-friendly too, though.

      Pull open an older box with a Socket-5 Pentium (say, 75 MHz) in it and look at the thermal components -- heatsinks, fans, etc. There's very little there: in a unit on-hand here, there's just one fan for PS and one for chassis, the CPU only has a heatsink, and it's the only mobo component (other than voltage regulators) that has one.

      Compare that

  • Runs well on Pentium PC (== P1) with KDE 3.3? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lonesometrainer ( 138112 ) <vanlil AT yahoo DOT com> on Saturday October 30, 2004 @03:22PM (#10674115)
    I have not tested Vector yet, but my experiences with KDE 3.3 on Gentoo and SuSE on my Homebox (a PIII-866 with 384MB) haven't been too well.

    It looks nice, offers plenty of features. But EVEN if you turn off all eyecandy, care for running kde services (plug-ins, snap-ins whatever) 3.3 still feels sluggish.

    I just don't want to test that on a P1-166 with 128MB RAM, should feel like running OSX on PearPC on a Centris.

    • I compiled KDE 3.3 on my 466MHz Celeron laptop with 192MB ram running gentoo, a week ago. The compile took two days (with xorg), but it did not feel sluggish compared to Windows XP on the same machine. Sure, it took a while to open Konqueror, but nothing dramatic. I have to confess that I unemerged it and emerged openbox though..
    • I just don't want to test that on a P1-166 with 128MB RAM, should feel like running OSX on PearPC on a Centris.

      Do the good thing and switch to FreeBSD then

    • I have not tested Vector yet, but my experiences with KDE 3.3 on Gentoo and SuSE on my Homebox (a PIII-866 with 384MB) haven't been too well.

      Really? Methinks you need to optimize your compile settings or something, or use a better vid card. Perhaps you're running a ton of services that you needn't? The Debian Sid Laptop (HP Omnibook 6000) that I'm typing this on runs KDE more than splendidly. The only major tweaking I've done is a custom kernel.

      Specs:
      $ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep name
      model name : Pentium

  • Looks like someone needs a rocket fueled webserver...

  • Sounds great to me. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Hinhule ( 811436 )
    I think this may be what gets me into Linux, I have an old 266MHz computer that isn't doing anything.
    • I run collegeLinux (another slackware based distro) on PII 233MHz. Runs reasonably well. Firefox/thunderbird are apparently not as optimized as on win98.
    • I had picked up several PII 266 Mhz, about 5-6 of them with only 32-64 MB of EDO RAM. After trying Mandrake, Slackware, and Gentoo with them, I came across Vector 4.3. It works very well on these systems. I set them up with ICEWM as the default window manager and they are very snappy. Even installed Firefox and gnumeric using swaret and had no problems with dependencies. Great choice for old hardware.
  • "Slackware has been traditionally known to be about as user friendly as a coiled rattlesnake"

    I always thought Debian was the coiled rattlesnake.

    [localuser@localhost localuser]$ uname -a
    Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.10-rc1 #1 Fri Oct 29 12:30:23 EDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
    • The thing about Slackware is that it is essentially WYSIWYG. Wanna change your configuration? OK, edit something. Sure, it's got a rudimentary config tool in "pkgtool', but that's just a simple front end to tasks that can be done just as easily by hand. E.g., don't want to start some service at boot? Just flip the executable flag on the init script in /etc/rc.d.

      The thing about Debian, or Fedora, or whatever, is that you need to spend time learning how to do things the Debian way, or the Fedora way, or t
  • Slackware is definitely good with old hardware. In our student computer lab, we have a number of 100 MHz-ish ancient desktops running Slackware 10 with X.org.

    Also, Slackware is a good base for tweaking your own distro, because it is so pleasant to configure :)
    • Also, Slackware is a good base for tweaking your own distro, because it is so pleasant to configure :)

      With Slackware, tweaking isn't just a nice option, it's a must.

      I have installed Slackware 7.1 and 9.(something), both of which required heavy configuring afterwards before it would work the way I wanted it to.

      LK

  • Good find (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kujila ( 826706 )
    It's good to see a modern-day Linux distro that can run properly (and quickly) on older machines... Some of the newer distros seem suited for today's PC market rather than yesterday's PC market. ;)
    • Yes, but unfortunately it won't be done downloading untill today's PC's are last year's PC's. When will this be available on BitTorrent? I am currently getting a maximum speed of 20KB/s.
      • When their servers chill-out a bit, and there's a decent DL speed, I'll probably snag it. I really like these 1-CD distros...I'm sick of spending three-hours downloading multiple CD's :(

        Another notable 1-CD Distro is Xandros [xandros.com]...it lacked the expandability I wanted, so I dumped it, but it's still a rather nice little Linux Distro, especially for beginners and Windows-converts. :)
  • VectorLinux, petrol fueled servers. Bleh.

  • It'll even run on old Pentiums! Woo hoo! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Not_Wiggins ( 686627 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @04:16PM (#10674434) Journal
    FINALLY, I can stop using my old P75 as a very efficient doorstop, install this distro and crunch one SETI packet every 2 years!

  • I love it. Slackware has always been my favorite distro, despite the fact that I'm not a Linux guy. Seeing the ISO is just over 300MB definitely catch- es my eye. I'm thinking, "this is exactly what I'm looking for."

    Downloading the ISO right now -- I'm optimistic.

    -Steve
  • The server appears to be up and down so heres a complete mirror I grabbed a few minutes ago:

    As time pushes onward, the computer word grows exponentially in size, accomplishments, features, advances, and of course... system requirements. The latter is more a burden than a benefit if you ask most people who have the pleasure of working with computers day in and day out, but the Linux community has a decided advantage over most: They have the ability to control their destiny and the hardware it will run on.

    S

  • RULE (Score:3, Informative)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @04:48PM (#10674606) Homepage
    There is also the RULE project: Run Up-to-date Linux Everywhere.

    http://www.rule-project.org/ [rule-project.org]

    But this seems to mostly be a labor of love for a small group of developers... in other words, it's not progressing quickly.

    At the moment you can make a RULE install of Red Hat Linux 8 or 9. What's cool is that they made an installer that can run in 12 MB of RAM!

    They said they are working on Fedora Core 2, but I don't know when they will be done.

    I am a Debian fan so I found the Red Hat-ness of RULE a bit uncomfortable. But if you like Red Hat then by all means check this out.

    steveha

  • Strange quote (Score:3, Insightful)

    by r3m0t ( 626466 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @04:59PM (#10674674)
    "As time pushes onward, the computer word grows exponentially in size, accomplishments, features, advances, and of course... system requirements."

    It's always fit into a char[8] for me. I've been able to take advantage of the computer word for a long, long time.

  • How to set up a lean Debian system (Score:3, Informative)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @05:01PM (#10674686) Homepage
    First, get a Debian installer [debian.org]. Install a Debian base system.

    When the installer offers you the chance to install additional software, say no.

    When the install is finished, you will have a minimal system, with a kernel and the most needed utilities. Most importantly, you will have Debian's APT tools (apt-get, etc.) with which to get more software.

    Login as root, and run this command:

    apt-get install aptitude

    This will install a tool called aptitude, which is a friendly character-based (ncurses) package manager. You can search through packages, drill down through the hierarchy, see what depends on what, etc. aptitude is way, way better than dselect!

    With Debian, you can install just enough stuff to run. For example, using apt-get or aptitude, you can ask for Gnumeric (the GNU spreadsheet for GNOME) and the system will install just enough of GNOME for Gnumeric to run. (Libraries and such.) If you manually install something like Xfce or IceWM, you can then run GNOME applications without a full-blown GNOME environment. The same goes for KDE.

    With Debian, it is possible to recompile all your packages for your computer, but the tools to do it aren't as convenient as the tools in Gentoo. But it is convenient to compile your own kernel, and that's most of the battle right there.

    If you want to set up a server, and know exactly what is installed and running on the server, Debian is ideal.

    steveha

  • What to run? (Score:4, Informative)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @05:12PM (#10674734) Homepage
    I already described [slashdot.org] how to set up a lean Debian system. But I would like suggestions on what would be the best system to run on a desktop computer with old hardware.

    Here is what I think I know about this. A while ago I tried several systems on a Pentium 233 with 64MB of RAM.

    GNOME -- if you can install enough memory (I recommend at least 256 MB) then this is actually a reasonable way to go, even on an older computer. But if you have a computer with limited RAM and no convenient way to upgrade it, stay away. (Maybe if you like GNOME 1.x, and can find it somewhere... no, I don't think so.)

    Xfce -- getting better. Smaller, faster than GNOME. But when I tried it, it was still slower than I wanted.

    IceWM -- actually, pretty nice! But IceWM itself is a window manager, and you need more than just that. So I suggest combining IceWM with ROX [sourceforge.net].
    I used ROX filer a few years ago, and I loved the speed. The whole ROX system looks pretty slick, and it's fast!

    ROX is complicated enough to install (only old packages for Debian; they want to you use a new system called ZeroInstall now) that I didn't do a full-on install test of it. But if I had an actual need to run a desktop system on old hardware, I'd definitely use ROX plus IceWM.

    But if you know something even better, please add a comment about it!

    steveha

    • My old laptop had simliar specs. I ran blackbox wm on it, which was nice and speedy. It's simple, fast and no frills. Blackbox+ half a dozen themes is about a 250k package,and you don't waste overhead on needless eyecandy.
      For file management, I discovered XFE (formerly XWC) - it's lean, fast, and as frilled as you need it to be, short of goofy html backgrounds and such. Opera for browsing all the way - low overhead and fast. Mutt for email.
      If I was still using that same machine, I'd try out Xfce4 on it. I
  • ..how does Vector compare to Feather Linux?

    Yes, I know Feather is a live Cd, it's hard drive installable though, and only 64 megs total size default. It runs well on my older machines, but I want something even better, something that will run with some sort of GUI with as little as 16 megs RAM, which some of my older pentium 1's have. I have found with various experimentation that total RAM is way more important than processor speed. I run a 200PP as my main machine, because it has the most RAM of my boxes
    • I've had some success with this.

      Install a base debian system. When the installer asks if you want to install extra packages only select the base X packages. Once the system is installed and booted up, then install Fluxbox or IceWM using apt-get. They are both lightweight windowing environments. I'm partial to fluxbox myself.

      You could also do the same with OpenBSD. I find a minimum OpenBSD to be *very* lean and fast. The package manager in OpenBSD is pkg_add.
  • I've decided to use this new version of Vector for my PVR project. Mostly because I want to keep the OS out of the way of the video stuff, and hopefully this will be low-cycle enough to handle it.
  • I'm running Vector Linux on a very old Toshiba laptop. Pentium 90, 16MB RAM. It's not blazingly fast, but it works, even running KDE =]

    grib.

  • It goes to 11 (Score:2, Funny)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 )
    Rocket Fueled Slackware

    Whenever I hear about some new performance-tuned distro (this, Lunar Linux, Gentoo (which I do actually run), etc.), I feel like I'm stuck in Spinal Tap with some braindedad rocker telling me "It goes to 11." Only this time beloved Nigel Tumfel is a pale, skinny nerd who can't blame the drugs and STDs for brainrot, and is only able to stammer an apology for sounding like a (bad) marketing weenie. Do phrases like "rocket powered" really sound good to anyone out there?
  • FreeBSD runs great on the 'old' hardware too..

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close