

VectorLinux 4.3 - Rocket Fueled Slackware 174
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."
VL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:VL (Score:1, Interesting)
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)
Re:VL (Score:2)
Or you could just refer to a list of the programs they use...
Re:VL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:VL (Score:4, Insightful)
Try NT 4.0 (Score:2)
Not in the FAQ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not in the FAQ (Score:1)
Re:Not in the FAQ (Score:2, Funny)
SOHO (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:SOHO (Score:2)
Re:SOHO (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:SOHO (Score:2)
I worry that Gentoo needs more harddrive than the average distro though...
No package system... (Score:5, Informative)
no dependency control, no thanks.
Re:No package system... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:1)
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:2)
Remote Debian Installs (Score:2)
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.
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:1)
you just do a
and you're go
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:1)
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:1)
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:1)
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:1)
Re:Actually a *big* problem (Score:2)
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:
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. ;)
Re:No package system... (Score:2)
Sorry, that makes no sense.
-Erwos
Um.... (Score:4, Funny)
Vector is the shizzle (Score:5, Informative)
Linux and Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:1)
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!
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:2)
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:2)
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:1)
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)
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:2)
The newer computers can do more computes per unit power / energy but if it is wasted, then more energy is being wasted.
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:2)
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.
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Linux and Environmentalism (Score:2)
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
NT 4.0 works on everything from 486 on up (Score:2)
I like linux, but it's not linux is the only OS that will run on older hardware.
Environmentalism is about more than just the box. (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Runs well on Pentium PC (== P1) with KDE 3.3? (Score:1)
Re:Runs well on Pentium PC (== P1) with KDE 3.3? (Score:1)
Do the good thing and switch to FreeBSD then
eh? (Score:2)
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.
/proc/cpuinfo |grep name
Specs:
$ cat
model name : Pentium
Page 2 is down (Score:1, Redundant)
Sounds great to me. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sounds great to me. (Score:1)
Re:Sounds great to me. (Score:1)
From the VL site referenced... (Score:1)
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
Slackware Is WYSIWYG (Score:2)
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
Don't worry about old hardware (Score:2)
Also, Slackware is a good base for tweaking your own distro, because it is so pleasant to configure
Re:Don't worry about old hardware (Score:2)
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)
Re:Good find (Score:1)
Re:Good find (Score:1)
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.
VectorLin**no carrier** (Score:1)
It'll even run on old Pentiums! Woo hoo! (Score:3, Funny)
RIGHT ON (Score:1)
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.
-SteveComplete text mirror (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:Complete text mirror (Score:1)
RULE (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re:What to run? (Score:2)
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
If anyone has tried them both... (Score:1)
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
minimum Debian or OpenBSD might work (Score:2)
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.
Vector for a PVR (Score:1)
Just a data point (Score:2)
grib.
It goes to 11 (Score:2, Funny)
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?
Re:It goes to 11 (Score:2)
Re:It goes to 11 (Score:2)
Fair enough. My comment was on the /. story, not TFA. I consider comments on the submitted story to be fair game, but it is fine that some don't feel this way.
This is somewhat fair, but all distros (and especially community-based distros)
Old Pentiums... (Score:2)
Rocket fueled Debian (Score:2)
Portland State Aerospace Society [pdx.edu]
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:1)
What does that make a Pentium, or 486, or even a 386?
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:2)
Would that be the the 386dx with the 32bit bus or the SX with a 16bit bus?
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:2)
I switch between my XP1800 and PIII 800 all the time. I don't notice that I'm sacrificing any features or functionality. Sure I can encode oggs faster on the athlon, but for day to day usage a PIII is plenty. You don't really need that much power for browsing the web, reading PDFs, writi
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:2)
Why would I want to waste $150 upgrading the hardware and who knows how many hours configuring a resource hog version of linux just to get it to do exactly what it does now?
Download the WiredCD: wiredcd.itallconnects.com [itallconnects.com]
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming you have the cash, skill, time, and a desktop then yes. $150 could easily get you into an amd 1700+ cpu, motherboard, and 256megs of memory.
But then you have this old dinosaur PIII motherboard laying about. What happens to it esp after you decide to upgrade the hard drive and video?
A more Eco-friendly solution would be to slap your spare parts in a case and sell / donate / give it to someone else, and now we are back to square one, still having an old clunker in need of an operating system.
Re:Why bother with old hardware? (Score:1)
What about a laptop? (Score:1)
Also, you call a PIII a dinosaur!? If all I need my computer to do is office applications and web browsing, a PIII is probably even overkill! A good P-Pro system can still handle those tasks.
Re:What about a laptop? (Score:2)
OK, if the P3 laptop didn't have much RAM or a tiny hard drive, I'd upgrade those, but a P3 is still DAMN powerful for most things - I had a friend that even gamed heavily on a Celeron 533 laptop (I THINK it was a Coppermine, but it might have been a Mendocino). Granted, it had a decent (for the time, and for a laptop - it was an ATI Rage Mobility) GPU, but still - he could play stuff like UT:GOTY (damn fun, just finished running up to people and blowing their heads off with a sniper rifle
PIII dinosaur? (Score:3, Insightful)
My 'dinosaur machines' are a 133 laptop, a P2/400 IPCop firewall, and a P2/400 practice/test box.
Not everyone upgrades to the latest and greatest every month.
Use AMD (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Use AMD (Score:1)
That might well be why these things usually highlight the old pentiums/celerons.
Re:How about a distro strictly optimized for... (Score:1)
Download a recent stable kernel of the flavor you prefer. 2.4, 2.6,
Configure for your hardware and needs.
Compile
Install
Here on the crunching crusoe laptop I'm running Fedora Core 2 with:
[localuser@localhost localuser]$ uname -a
Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.10-rc1 #1 Fri Oct 29 12:30:23 EDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Re:How about a distro strictly optimized for... (Score:3, Informative)
But all this isn't going to work straight out of the box. You'll have to compile the software yourself which will take hours to days, depending on speed and the amount of software you want to get a full system/window manager/browser/word processor going.
Re:How about a distro strictly optimized for... (Score:1)
Nothing Unique About Gentoo Optimizations (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, that is, lose 36 hours waiting for my machine to be usable again.
What's the value of waiting hours for the Gentoo build to optimize some app I will never use? I can do a complete Slackware install, download, config and compile kernel source in just about an hour. That makes a difference. Waiting for Gentoo to "optimize", say. 14 different text editors is a waste of my time.
Re:Nothing Unique About Gentoo Optimizations (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you know what you're talking about and are just spreading bs.
Why?
Re:Nothing Unique About Gentoo Optimizations (Score:2)
The base install of Gentoo is essentially useless, and is intended only to populate your drive with the minimum of software needed to do a real install.
If I wish, I can select or deselect each individual package available in a Slackware install. I.e., the only apps installed are the ones I ask for. That's the same choice Gentoo offers.
To repeat: Nothing happens during a G
Re:Nothing Unique About Gentoo Optimizations (Score:1)
Re:Nothing Unique About Gentoo Optimizations (Score:2)
Re:Nothing Unique About Gentoo Optimizations (Score:2)
No, I did not argue that compilations take too long or that optimizations don't really do much. I argued that there is nothing going on in Gentoo's scripted build process that can't be duplicated by simply compiling from source. I argued that there are no unique Gentoo optimizations. If that is not correct, please advise.
I also argued, correctly, that Slackware does not "force" me to install software I don't want to use. If I choose, I can make an install