Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 08/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The last version of winders where loadlin works is 95 or 98. So you can expect it to not get much attention anymore. Wots wrong with PXE? see http://www.rom-o-matic.net/ My lappie F12 = boot menu, option PXE. Loadlin may not even work anymore. YMMV You must have missed the beginning of this thread - the machine is a Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT circa 1998 with Windows 98 on it, and I don't dare to try to touch its ancient BIOS to try to teach it PXE booting (or is there a way to start PXE boot without changing the BIOS?). So loadlin is all I'm left with. I managed to make it load the kernel and initrd image from inside win98 but apparently the initrd image I created missed the right network drivers. I think I figured out how to overcome this but now I'm busy with another (temporary?) way to achieve the goals of this project so it will take time to get back to trying my fix. BTW - XFCE is indeed much much lighter on my existing desktop, and I should try to test E17 at some stage... Cheers, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On Friday 09 February 2007 06:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The last version of winders where loadlin works is 95 or 98. So you can expect it to not get much attention anymore. Wots wrong with PXE? see http://www.rom-o-matic.net/ My lappie F12 = boot menu, option PXE. Loadlin may not even work anymore. YMMV You must have missed the beginning of this thread - the machine is a Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT circa 1998 with Windows 98 on it, and I don't dare to try to touch its ancient BIOS to try to teach it PXE booting (or is there a way to start PXE boot without changing the BIOS?). So loadlin is all I'm left with. I managed to make it load the kernel and initrd image from inside win98 but apparently the initrd image I created missed the right network drivers. I think I figured out how to overcome this but now I'm busy with another (temporary?) way to achieve the goals of this project so it will take time to get back to trying my fix. BTW - XFCE is indeed much much lighter on my existing desktop, and I should try to test E17 at some stage... Sorry, the reason I pointed you at rom-o-matic was their wealth of options eg grub: boot windows boot pxe or CDROM pxe boot or CDROM network boot (tagged image) or HD versions of above etc Point of LTSP is that your stately lappie will work at server performance. 192M is quite adequate and even my ebox-2300 (128M + 200MHz) works brilliantly James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 09/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, the reason I pointed you at rom-o-matic was their wealth of options eg grub: boot windows boot pxe or CDROM pxe boot or CDROM network boot (tagged image) or HD versions of above etc Point of LTSP is that your stately lappie will work at server performance. 192M is quite adequate and even my ebox-2300 (128M + 200MHz) works brilliantly Thanks. I now see http://www.etherboot.org/wiki/eb_imagetypes#dos_executable_.com which I missed before. Will give it a try. Cheers, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] What do you mean by that? All these live CD's are mostly a an easy way to get the right Debian packages configured easily for newbies or when the situation fits the prescription (LTSP). Debian has a super-set of all these tools so I expect that once I get the loadlin+kernel+initrd+X11 matter solved I'll be clear to do what I plan. As much as I like tinkering with this stuff, I don't have time and would prefer to use some apt-get install solution but the closest one (LTSP) didn't work so far. LTSP is easy, but you need to do it right. I can get LTSP up-n-running in 30 min. The apt-get solution is experimental and mostly does not work. Do not go for ltsp-5 (experimental, read about muekow for more info) 1) get the ltsp-utils package http://wiki.ltsp.org/twiki/bin/view/Ltsp/DownLoads I've only done the tgz, I'm sure the ltsp-utils_0.25_all.deb works too. 2) Run ltspadmin See http://ltsp.mirrors.tds.net/pub/ltsp/docs/ltsp-4.1-en.html#AEN320 It works, its easy and it's good n fast. I guess the hardest part is configuring DHCP. Since you've already done stuff this is more-of-the-same. James PS I've done 100s (all sorts of machines) and never had a failure! -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 07/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LTSP is easy, but you need to do it right. I can get LTSP up-n-running in 30 min. The apt-get solution is experimental and mostly does not work. What apt-get solution? The LTSP package? Do not go for ltsp-5 (experimental, read about muekow for more info) Actually I followed the muekow page, maybe that's the source of my failure - I now see that indeed it's listed under the LTSP 5 section. 1) get the ltsp-utils package http://wiki.ltsp.org/twiki/bin/view/Ltsp/DownLoads I've only done the tgz, I'm sure the ltsp-utils_0.25_all.deb works too. Already had it on my system. 2) Run ltspadmin See http://ltsp.mirrors.tds.net/pub/ltsp/docs/ltsp-4.1-en.html#AEN320 Already created a client instance for the laptop. It works, its easy and it's good n fast. I guess the hardest part is configuring DHCP. Since you've already done stuff this is more-of-the-same. James PS I've done 100s (all sorts of machines) and never had a failure! Including loadlin -based booting? It seems that LTSP only caters for Etherboot/PXE. Cheers, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 06/02/07, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 192Mb, which is the maximum it supports. Minimum? :) I happened to stumble on http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-memory.html a few days ago, which seems to tackle your original question regarding xubuntu vs ubuntu. It suggests that you will be better off with Xubuntu, but you're still going to have problems if you start using OOo + firefox + -- There is nothing more worthy of contempt than a man who quotes himself - Zhasper, 2004 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On Thursday 08 February 2007 14:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LTSP is easy, but you need to do it right. I can get LTSP up-n-running in 30 min. The apt-get solution is experimental and mostly does not work. What apt-get solution? The LTSP package? Do not go for ltsp-5 (experimental, read about muekow for more info) Actually I followed the muekow page, maybe that's the source of my failure - I now see that indeed it's listed under the LTSP 5 section. 1) get the ltsp-utils package http://wiki.ltsp.org/twiki/bin/view/Ltsp/DownLoads I've only done the tgz, I'm sure the ltsp-utils_0.25_all.deb works too. Already had it on my system. 2) Run ltspadmin See http://ltsp.mirrors.tds.net/pub/ltsp/docs/ltsp-4.1-en.html#AEN320 Already created a client instance for the laptop. It works, its easy and it's good n fast. I guess the hardest part is configuring DHCP. Since you've already done stuff this is more-of-the-same. James PS I've done 100s (all sorts of machines) and never had a failure! Including loadlin -based booting? It seems that LTSP only caters for Etherboot/PXE. The last version of winders where loadlin works is 95 or 98. So you can expect it to not get much attention anymore. Wots wrong with PXE? see http://www.rom-o-matic.net/ My lappie F12 = boot menu, option PXE. Loadlin may not even work anymore. YMMV James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
avoid ooo, try abiword - it may do the job Dean Zhasper wrote: On 06/02/07, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 192Mb, which is the maximum it supports. Minimum? :) I happened to stumble on http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-memory.html a few days ago, which seems to tackle your original question regarding xubuntu vs ubuntu. It suggests that you will be better off with Xubuntu, but you're still going to have problems if you start using OOo + firefox + -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
Hi, Ubuntu 6.06 live CD boots up fine on our Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT but is very heavy on the machine. Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? The box is a Pentium II with 192 Mb RAM (Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT). I can't install it on the machine's disk (wife still wants the assurance of having Windows around). I need it only for temporary use while trying to make the machine actually boot over NFS from my Debian Etch desktop. Thanks, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
quote who=Amos Shapira Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? Not significantly so... particularly if you actually want to *do* something (which to my mind, implies running an application, and that usually ends up being Firefox or OpenOffice.org). - Jeff -- Open CeBIT 2007: Sydney, Australia http://www.opencebit.com.au/ I've been thinking: I get way too many pieces of e-mail, about 60 a day. - Microserfs -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends Dean Amos Shapira wrote: Hi, Ubuntu 6.06 live CD boots up fine on our Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT but is very heavy on the machine. Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? The box is a Pentium II with 192 Mb RAM (Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT). I can't install it on the machine's disk (wife still wants the assurance of having Windows around). I need it only for temporary use while trying to make the machine actually boot over NFS from my Debian Etch desktop. Thanks, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's setup it will boot with NFS root from my desktop. Thanks, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
quote who=Amos Shapira On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's setup it will boot with NFS root from my desktop. When you say configuring, do you mean installing? If that's the case, just use the 'server' or 'alternative' install CDs. Then you won't have to run any of the desktop environments to do the installation. What you use day to day is really a question of comfort and requirements. If you want slim, use a very basic window manager on its own. If you need a few of life's pleasures, use a 'desktop shell', such as Enlightenment. If you need all the mod cons and comfort of a complete desktop environment, use GNOME or KDE. - Jeff -- Open CeBIT 2007: Sydney, Australia http://www.opencebit.com.au/ I wanted to be Superman, but all I got were these special powers of self-deprecation. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
i cant say i have used it, i run debian with enlightenment. i just know it exists. Dean Amos Shapira wrote: On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's setup it will boot with NFS root from my desktop. Thanks, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 06/02/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Amos Shapira On 06/02/07, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's setup it will boot with NFS root from my desktop. When you say configuring, do you mean installing? If that's the case, just use the 'server' or 'alternative' install CDs. Then you won't have to run any of the desktop environments to do the installation. Well, maybe I wasn't clear about my intentions because I tried to avoid tiring you with details, so here is the deal: We have this Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT ( http://linux.toshiba-dme.co.jp/linux/eng/spec.php3?model=PAS403U) which runs Windows 98 and which behaves worse and worse every day. My wife won't let me install Linux alone on it and it doesn't have enough disk to keep both Windows and Linux. So what I did is to install an NFS root environment (actually already created something basic with debootstrap) on my Debian Etch desktop, put the right kernel image and initrd on the windows disk and create a loadlin batch file which will start linux from inside windows and use the nfs root. I'm struggling with building the kernel and initrd image properly (e.g. missed the right ethernet driver) and having Ubuntu's excellent auto-configuration around is a great help in finding out what's wrong. But the GNOME environment is too heavy on the poor fellow (it's even getting too heavy on my desktop machine, which is also not so new, though not as old as the laptop) so I'm looking for something lighter which will still give me a convenient environment to poke around the laptop. Once the kernel boots from the NFS root successfully I'll have to decide whether I want it to ovver login to the other machine via XDMCP or locally to the laptop (I'm leaning towards the former). BTW - Dean's pointer to elbuntu made me dig around and find fluxbuntu and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_LiveDistros but almost all the light distros seem to be in development stage so I'd try to stick to something which was already released. What you use day to day is really a question of comfort and requirements. If you want slim, use a very basic window manager on its own. If you need a few of life's pleasures, use a 'desktop shell', such as Enlightenment. If you need all the mod cons and comfort of a complete desktop environment, use GNOME or KDE. There is also the consideration of convincing my wife that just because I type a lot in terminal windows that doesn't mean she can't have her GUI-based interfaces. Debian makes it easy to just pick and install any alternative on the server and let her try, once I get that kernel an X server running on her laptop. BTW - I just had an idea this morning - would it work to just copy the kernel/initrd image from the Ubuntu live CD to the hard disk and run it from loadlin with root=/dev/nfs and all that jazz? Cheers, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's setup it will boot with NFS root from my desktop. As long as you have enough RAM! See http://www.ltsp.org for lots of info on RAM/NetWork SWAP/Firefox's memory usage etc etc. If you just want a no-touch-the-existing and have minimum of 256M ram KNOPPIX works better than the ubuntu-live CDs. Better yet, steal 512M from the existing disk and set it up as swap. The linux CDs will work much better. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Well, maybe I wasn't clear about my intentions because I tried to avoid tiring you with details, so here is the deal: We have this Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT ( http://linux.toshiba-dme.co.jp/linux/eng/spec.php3?model=PAS403U) which runs Windows 98 and which behaves worse and worse every day. My wife won't let me install Linux alone on it and it doesn't have enough disk to keep both Windows and Linux. [snip] * You REALLY need to re-install windows every year or so * LTSP does a very good job of using old HW * KNOPPIX and say icewm is a good low-power-machine solution (and nice!) * VNC is a workable solution * sticking to your 'invented here' solution is cute, satisfing and probably has the worst performance James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Xubuntu really lighter than Ubuntu's GNOME? Not significantly so... particularly if you actually want to *do* something (which to my mind, implies running an application, and that usually ends up being Firefox or OpenOffice.org). Are you confusing light/heavy with time? Running from CD IS s...l...o...w Even worse with no swap (file system unchanged) and low mem (say less than 500M) James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 06/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could try ebuntu (enlightenment w/ ubuntu), enlightenment is much less bloated than gnome and friends How does it compare to Xfce (xubuntu)? As for Jeff's comments - I only need this while configuring that laptop, once it's setup it will boot with NFS root from my desktop. As long as you have enough RAM! See http://www.ltsp.org for lots of info on RAM/NetWork SWAP/Firefox's memory usage etc etc. If you just want a no-touch-the-existing and have minimum of 256M ram KNOPPIX works better than the ubuntu-live CDs. I have 192Mb, which is the maximum it supports. Better yet, steal 512M from the existing disk and set it up as swap. The linux CDs will work much better. That's my plan once the machine is configured, though you gave me an idea for the interim live-cd phase. Thanks, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 06/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Well, maybe I wasn't clear about my intentions because I tried to avoid tiring you with details, so here is the deal: We have this Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT ( http://linux.toshiba-dme.co.jp/linux/eng/spec.php3?model=PAS403U) which runs Windows 98 and which behaves worse and worse every day. My wife won't let me install Linux alone on it and it doesn't have enough disk to keep both Windows and Linux. [snip] * You REALLY need to re-install windows every year or so * LTSP does a very good job of using old HW That was my first choice but so far I didn't manage to get the client-side working and google'ing around finds that many people think its setup procedure is not exactly easy to follow. * KNOPPIX and say icewm is a good low-power-machine solution (and nice!) The live-cd phase is just a tool to get the nfs-root configuration right, once I have nfs-root I prefer it to be Etch. * VNC is a workable solution * sticking to your 'invented here' solution is cute, satisfing and probably has the worst performance What do you mean by that? All these live CD's are mostly a an easy way to get the right Debian packages configured easily for newbies or when the situation fits the prescription (LTSP). Debian has a super-set of all these tools so I expect that once I get the loadlin+kernel+initrd+X11 matter solved I'll be clear to do what I plan. As much as I like tinkering with this stuff, I don't have time and would prefer to use some apt-get install solution but the closest one (LTSP) didn't work so far. Cheers, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
Amos == Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Amos On 06/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amos The live-cd phase is just a tool to get the nfs-root Amos configuration right, once I have nfs-root I prefer it to be Amos Etch. Try PuppyLinux. It's ultra-light-weight but fairly full featured, and runs reasonably fast even on old hardware with relatively limited memory (it *does* need 128M RAM) Also check out damn small linux -- it has a mode that'll boot from a zip archive on a windows partition. -- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Xubuntu really light-weight?
On 06/02/07, Peter Chubb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also check out damn small linux -- it has a mode that'll boot from a zip archive on a windows partition. Now THAT's cool, and I wasn't aware of. Will check. Thanks. --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
