You are correct. DSL hasn't had an update in 4 years. If I had any skill with
this stuff (I don't) I would be tempted to take the last version of DSL and
update it as far as is possible. I wouldn't hold myself to the 50 meg limit
though I would try to keep it under 100 meg. I agree that DSL-N has never
worked right. As I recall the browser included with Slitaz 3.0-xvesa could not
handle Javascript so it would not work on the websites I use the most. Other
Linux implementations that are using Xorg can be made to give me a 1024x768
screen on my Toshiba laptop and have browsers (Seamonkey, Firefox or Opera)
that handle Javascript perfectly. They are very slow however.
--- On Wed, 5/9/12, tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: tom <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Slitaz vs DSL
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 9:07 AM
> its really redicolous to compare DSL
> with slitaz - sorry, dsl-n is from
> 2006 and the last dsl 4.0 from November 2008
>
> take slitaz 3.0 xvesa and it will boot on your hardware and
> be happy -
> its still much more up to date than dsl 4.0
>
> and by the way dsl-n was always a catastrophy
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> Am Wed, 9 May 2012 15:45:06 +0700
> schrieb AjiNalo <[email protected]>:
>
> > none of DSL version work on my machine (old Pentium IV
> 1,6 GHz)...
> >
> > 2012/5/9, Terry Maiden <[email protected]>:
> > > Was going thru a bunch of old CDs I made some time
> ago. Found
> > > several that had Damn Small Linux on them.
> The last "3" version
> > > and the last "4" version. I was shocked how
> quick and easy they
> > > were to load and run. Much faster than the
> latest versions of
> > > Puppy and faster than Slitaz (sorry). Both had
> good versions of
> > > Firefox and both came up 1024x768 without my
> having to do anything
> > > to get that.
> > >
> > > --
> > > SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/
>
>
--
SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/
