James Miller wrote: > > I've got an old 486 DX2 with 20 MB RAM I could use as a > test machine for BL 2.0 development.
That would be perfect. > I think I'm also going to put Vectorlinux 1.8 on it, which > seems already quite close to what you're aiming for in BL 2.0 > (except it will be a much larger install - 175 MB) since it > has the 2.2 kernel and Icewm What browser does it use? > Browser-wise, I'm guessing the best recommendation might be > Opera. I've got Opera running right next to me on a 486DX-66 with 16mb RAM (plus 16mb swap -- it's only a 128mb HD). It takes more than a minute to boot (from icewm menu) and is a touch sluggish. However, it is usable. I don't much like the advertisements, especially if Opera automatically fetches new ones when online. It certainly is a possibility, but I hope we can do better. > As I understand it, both Galeon and Konqueror rely on the > Gnome and KDE desktop environments, Konqueror does seem to be integrated into KDE, but I am hoping that somebody can tell us how to use it stand-alone (with the necessary KDE libraries). I believe there is an embedded KDE environment with Konqueror that may be compact enough for us to use. It would be great to hear from someone who knows the insides of KDE. Gnome is a lot looser than KDE (and therefore more immediately attractive). Most of the Gnome applications can be run stand- alone using glib and gtk. Since the best wordprocessor for BasicLinux is probably AbiWord (which needs glib and gtk), we will probably be installing glib/gtk anyway. In that case, we we shouldn't include glib/gtk in the Galeon size. However, I suppose it might be possible to run Kword standalone (instead of AbiWord). No glib/gtk. In which case Galeon would have a relatively larger size. It seems to me that we will end up going one way or the other: Abiword/Galeon or Kword/Konqueror. Which does Vector use? It really all comes down to size and speed. Which combination is smaller and faster? > For me, at least, it would be a big headache trying to determine > what exactly from Gnome or KDE would need to be installed in > order for the browser to run. This is precisely the headache I am trying to avoid. My first month or two will be spent in getting the BL2 platform working. Only then will I be able to turn to X. It will take many months of trial & error to determine which X applications run best on an old PC and what is the most effective way to run them. BL1 was a lot easier in this respect (ironically) because there were far fewer options available for libc5. > But then, that will surely not pose a big problem for you. It's just trial and error. Install, uninstall, reinstall. I can spend an entire day without finding anything useful. Some days I find a gem. I consider links a gem, and icewm. Netscape 3.04 was a gem too because it slotted so nicely into the libc5 Slackware environment. Unfortunately I never found a gem wordprocessor -- I spend a lot of time looking and trying. > And, once discovered, couldn't that expand the installation > of the related browser files to unacceptable levels? That's what needs to be determined by trial and error. > Opera, on the other hand, is a sort of self-contained > package, as I understand it. It comes in a Qt "statically > linked" form That's the one I am using. The binary is 12mb in size (plus some other files were installed in various places). > which, as I understand it, can install and run pretty much > as is (without additional files/libraries). I think I had to install one additional library, but that was probably because I was starting from a very slim X. It certainly does not need a big library like gtk. > Maybe the decision should be based largely on size: size *and* speed > if the install of Konqueror or Gnome with related files greatly > exceeds that of Opera, then Opera should be recommended. Certainly, if they *greatly* exceed the size, that will probably eliminate them. However, we shouldn't lose sight of the big picture. Many applications use gtk -- perhaps we should consider gtk a basic library and not count it against the browser. Or, I suppose, the same argument could be made for Qt (in which case we could use a smaller, dynamic version of Opera). In the end I suspect that BasicLinux will go one way or the other and embrace the applications in that branch. However, the big question remains: which branch is more appropriate for old hardware? > Something like dillo would be ideal It needs glib/gtk I think. > if it were more capable. Last I heard: no javascript. Perhaps in the future? > But of the more stable and really useful graphical > browsers, the ones you mention are probably the only > real candidates. At least we now have a choice. There weren't a lot of options with libc5 -- even Arachne wouldn't run. :-) Cheers, Steven To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
