----- Original Message ----- From: "mike ledoux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Interesting Article
[snip] > > As far as the hardware demands of recent Linux systems, the reason they are > > so big is because there are: > > > > a) Driver Modules for EVERY piece of hardware under the sun. I am playing > > with the 2.4.14 kernel. I did my menuconfig, and burned my kernel. Took like > > 5 minutes to compile, and another 5 minutes for the modules. Well, I didn't > > get everything I wanted in there, so I used the default .config file from > > /usr/src/linux (mandrake 8.1 system.) The dang thing took almost an hour to > > build the modules!! When I looked at the .config file more closely, there > > were modules for EVERY disk controller, sound chip, ethernet chip, video > > chip, and peripheral device there is (well, almost.) > > This shouldn't impact the performance of the system at all--the whole > point of using modules is that you aren't wasting resources to support > hardware that isn't being used. Yes, it will take longer to build the > kernel and modules, as you're building a lot of stuff that you don't > need, but it shouldn't impact runtime performance, which is what is > really important. No, but having all these on the disk sure adds to the space requirements. It was more of a recent observation of mine while building a variation of a "stock" kernel as opposed to one I configured from scratch. > > At any rate, my comment was more the demands of the recent distributions, > not the kernel itself. If you take the time to build your own Linux > system from the ground up, you can still make it run well on a 386 or 486. > > > b) Scores of different programs that do the same thing. This is not > > necessarily a bad thing, but when you've got Gnome, KDE, Sawmill, Sawfish, > > WindowMaker, IceWM, and FVWM(2) for desktops and Netscape, Opera, Konqueror, > > Mozilla, and Galeon for browsers (I know I've forgotten all the text > > browsers and probably a half a dozen others, but my point has been made, I > > think) you're going to have a darn big distribution. > > This is where I thought the interesting discussion could come in. > It used to be that you could take a RedHat distribution and install it > on a low-spec machine (think 486, 8MB RAM, <500MB disk) with no problems. > Try that with RH 6.x or 7.x--good luck. The sad part about all of this > (to me, anyway) is that the big stumbling block here isn't the actual > software, so much as the installation routines. But Red Hat and Mandrake and Debian too, as I recall, have options for standard text installs, like the old days. It's not the default, but you can do it. Same with the Init scripts. You don't HAVE to run Aurora (Mandrake) if you don't want to. > > > And I think that the whole VMM issue with the lower 2.4.x kernels has > > contributed to the perception that Linux is becoming bloated and slow. > > I'll agree with that. > > > I disagree. If you take the above into consideration, and build a > > streamlined kernel that has only what you need (and SOME of what you MIGHT > > need) and strip away all the programs you don't use, you can have a small > > fast operating system that puts MS to shame. Still. > > Right, but this is *way* beyond a new Linux user, who was probably told > that Linux would make their old hardware useful again. Hell, this is > probably beyond most people that have been using Linux for years. > Good point. The new distros are solving the problems that new Linux users have traditionally had with Linux: it was just too foreign to them as it was. They are making 1) user-friendly point-and-click installation programs while AT THE SAME TIME doing 2) the automation tasks like hardware probing and auto configuration that are REALLY useful. So if I understand you right, you are saying that what we need for older systems is something that does #2 without necessarily doing #1? Rich Cloutier President, C*O SYSTEM SUPPORT SERVICES www.sysupport.com ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
