Request for Comments: LiteMEPIS 6.0 Kernel
Posts: 1186
Support will be a lot easier if we have only one kernel for Lite, and if it's a kernel we are already supporting.
The obvious choice therefore would be 2.6.15 from SimplyMEPIS.
Does anyone see a major problem with this choice? Any suggestions?
Please limit this thread to this specific subject. We can talk about other topics in other threads.
UPDATE 2006-10-20
A great discussion so far! Please consider the following:
1. Let's assume that we will need to use a 2.4 kernel for Lite, so it will work with older hardware.
2. If Simply 6.0 works on your hardware, let's not consider that hardware in the Lite discussion.
3. On the remaining older machines, does the current Lite do the job? If not, in what areas does it have shortcomings? Can we use the current Lite, as the starting point for setting the specs for a new Lite?
UPDATE 2006-11-20
I think these are the main issues:
1. Some of you want Lite to be different, for example use xfce or offer only a very small core for initial installation. And some of you want Lite to run on even older and smaller hardware.
That would be a different product and not really Lite. It's unlikely I would ever have time to create an ultra-Lite.
2. Some of you can't run 6.0 due to hardware support issues.
That's not really a problem with Lite. That's a problem with 6.0 and with technology marching on. But I'll do what I can to improve the older hardware support in 6.0. I'm working on the kernel right now. I'll see if I can enable any options that might help.
3. Some of you run Lite, but you would like an updated version.
Lite is a balance of old core software that works with old hardware and the newest apps that will run on low powered hardware. It would be difficult to improve on the current mix of old and new.
Bottom line:
I don't see a simple way to satisfy your collective--and conflicting--desires. Please feel free to keep the discussion going and let me know if you can reach a consensus.
It seems to make sense, but
Posts: 4077
It seems to make sense, but forgive my lack of knowlege, why does MEPIS ship a 386 kernel as default? I would think that 99.99% of the people would be able to use either 686 or the K7 kernel, isn't it possible to detect that at boot time?
Also, are there specific patches for old machines (or patches that are not compatible with the old machines)? If not then it's obvious that it would be better to use the same kernel.
--
Check out Mepis wiki: www.mepis.org/docs
Community site: www.mepislovers.com/forums
2.6.15 has been a solid
Posts: 1634
2.6.15 has been a solid performer, so far. I see no reason to depart from that at all.
"You have two labs?"
"Each has its place. At the university, I try to please the Federal Government. Here, I negotiate with God."
The point of a "Lite"
Posts: 20
The point of a "Lite" version is to run on OLD hardware, yes?
I have an old box, an AMD K6III/400 that will not boot the 2.6 kernel, whether Mepis, or any other distro that I have tried.
It does boot the earlier versions of MEPIS, and is currently running an installation of MEPIS Lite 3.3.2., with the 2.4 kernel.
Is this unique to my old machine, or is it common that older hardware won't run the 2.6?
If the point of the Lite version is to work with old hardware, is 2.6 the best choice?
The "point" of Lite
Posts: 275
The point of a "Lite" version is to run on OLD hardware, yes?
I think it's a good idea to keep reminding ourselves what the *point* of LiteMepis is. That way, we'll be aware if some of us are operating on very different assumptions.
I think happypappy is partly right: to run old hardware is *a* point, but not the only one. I've thought it's also for those who want a "minimalist" distribution (light and fast, ready for modification) even with the newest hardware. I hope having to choose one kernel over the other doesn't divide the user base for the Lite version (?).
The current discussion then
Posts: 1634
The current discussion then logically implies that the following should be clearly defined:
What is the minimum hardware configuration target for the LiteMEPIS release?
Pardon my ignorance; but, I'm certain somebody has this definition in mind, although I haven't been directly exposed to it.
I'm sure we can count-out the TRS-80 Model 1, the IBM PC-5150, and its 16-bit cousins.
Are we talking about 32MB, 64MB machines? What minimum processor type?
I'm simply asking because I've never seen a minimum target platform discussed.
"You have two labs?"
"Each has its place. At the university, I try to please the Federal Government. Here, I negotiate with God."
386 as default is just fine
Posts: 1
It seems to make sense, but forgive my lack of knowlege, why does MEPIS ship a 386 kernel as default? I would think that 99.99% of the people would be able to use either 686 or the K7 kernel, isn't it possible to detect that at boot time?
Yes, 99.99% of people will know the type of kernel they ultimately need, but it is best to start with a safe one. It also is best to run one that is compatible to both K7 & 686 without seperate downloads needing to be available.
Minimum hardware should be 686
Posts: 37
Colleagues,
I agree with those who:
1. Want to see a minimum hardware "system requirement", and
2. Believe a 686 kernel should be the default for Mepis desktops (of any flavor).
My reference is an average Web page. Web pages these days are graphics and script heavy. If the machine cannot render a typical web page within a reasonable time, there's no point using the machine for that purpose. Rendering typical web pages within a reasonable time requires, IMHO, a PII architecture at a minimum.
Anything less than a Pentium just won't give acceptable performance for desktop users. You can buy a running Pentium class computer for $30 on eBay, so the cost/benefit trade-off clearly argues for a Pentium class desktop. The 686 kernel covers anything in the Pentium class.
Sub-Pentium boxes can be useful, but they are best reserved for special use appliances such as email servers, routers, etc. That's an appropriate use for the 386 kernel on a 386 or 486 chip.
Mepis is desktop-focused. The distro doesn't do anyone a favor if it suggests that the user can expect to be able to use Mepis in the sub-Pentium space. KDE in particular is resource-intensive enough to require a Pentium. (I'd actually recommend not using anything less than a P4 for KDE, but it will work on a PIII.)
All of this makes me believe that it is not only safe, but a minimum requirement, to install a 686 kernel on a Pentium class computer.
Is it possible for the install routine to probe the CPU and install the appropriate kernel without the user's involvement at all?
Speaking of low-power machines, I'd recommend that KDE not be installed on a sub-P4 computer. I have run several PIII boxes with KDE in various configurations, and I'm not happy with it. But when I switched to using a Xfce/gtk2 based applications, the performance was much better. (I'm not talking about GNOME, either. Although it's gtk-based, it too needs more resources than a PIII can deliver.) Xubuntu has developed a decent mix of applications for resource constrained boxes and would be a good reference for development of MepisLite.
Loye Young
Central Maintenance Corporation
http://www.CMCMaintenance.com
I Agree About The Target Hardware Issue
Posts: 499
I think I am correct in stating the following:
The goal of SimplyMepis is to replace the Windows Desktop. The goal of a "Lite" version is to replace Windows on "older hardware".
I think it is obvious that support for TRS-80s is out (my first computer in my home), but Enigma makes a very valid point and is correct in pointing out that there should be some clear supported hardware specifications.
"Older hardware" at this point is subjective and should be clearly defined. The use of nebulous and abstract terminology of this nature can be problematic. Consider the following:
Minimum Processor Supported (PIII am assuming, but what speed)
Minimum Video (There are some crappy video cards out there on older machines, so what will be supported)
Minimum Hard Drive Space (there are still some 1GB drives in use for sure)
Minimum RAM (A buddy of mine is still running Win98 with 32 MB RAM, S3 Virge Video, and a 4GB drive. Why? To be politically correct, he is fruggle. All he does is read email, surfs the net, and plays poker. Does he really need more?)
At minimum, all of these things should be listed. I have several machines here at home that will not run using the 2.6 kernel. They run great on the 2.4 kernel.
Since Microsomething just dropped support of its 98 OS, this is a prime time for Mepis to jump in and say "We can replace your OS, and you will have continued support." For example, I know many school districts in my area are just out of luck. They have many systems that just will not run 2000 or XP. Plus, they have to go through all the MS hassles of trying to obtain licenses and support. By the way, support is nill, especially on an MS server technology in schools.
There is one problem with this philosophy of keeping the older kernel. Can legacy devices continue to be supported forever? Is using the older kernel forward thinking and best for the future of Mepis? This is something that has brought up many heated discussions and valid points about security, Maintenance, etc. I think there should be some serious discussion about this. I myself would love to see the older kernel used, but then again is this going to create problems for those who want to run the "Lite" version on newer hardware. I guess it is important to ask, "Who is the prime target client for this product?"
Joe Pearce
The student is not above the teacher
The servant is not above the master
The student shares the teacher's fate
The servant shares the master's
Want both
Posts: 19
The extras in the 2.6 kernel are nice.
However, the stability and compatibility of the 2.4 kernel are most appropriate for a "Lite" version. "Lite" should at least run on Pentiums.
I know it does not follow answer the question as desired, but, to support older hardware and stay with the times, it would be nice to have both kernels, even if 2.4 does not get as much support.
Warren, will the 2.6 kernel
Posts: 516
Warren, will the 2.6 kernel support a Pentium One 100MHz with 32MB of RAM?
Will the 2.4 kernel support a Pentium Four 3.0GHz with a Gig of RAM?
I ran a test using SM 3.3.1 and the 2.4.29 kernel, it will boot everything up to and including the Pentium Four with HT Technology, but will not support the Duel Core and kernel 2.6.10 will not support Duel Core.
Most people with Duel Core will be looking to install a 64bit Linux system, so if you want to use only one kernel, I vote for a 2.4 kernel, with the option to upgrade from the MEPIS pool.
From what I read in the Linux Support Forums that I visit, most people are looking for a Lite Linux to install on an older Laptop with 32MB RAM and I have one of those Laptops and it now runs Puppy Linux, I sure do wish it was running MEPIS.
If you would like me to do some testing on my old laptop, let me know, as I will need to build a boot floppy.
regards, Jimmy Johnson aka, Bad Dog.
------------------------------------------------------------
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way: www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id274601
MEPIS Help Files: www.mepis.org/docs/index.php/Main_Page
Minimum Hardware Requirements
Posts: 5513
Yes, I agree that we should get a very clear understanding of what we mean by "older hardware". Hey malanrich, care to share the specs on some of your "older hardware" (at least the boxes that you would choose to run Mepis on)?
Borrowing from a good friend's design goals when he was in college, before we had Petabytes of video ram in our cellphones (grin), he always kept in mind that writing tightly and efficiently would allow the applications to run better. Many of us, myself included, have gotten "sloppy" because we do not always have to think about every little "bit".
But if we aim at supporting 64+ MB RAM, PII- or PIII-grade computers, that don't have super-duper graphics that still need dial-up then anyone who has a newer system will be happy too. If someone is running a very new system, or who wants lots of toys, then they will not be satisfied by "Lite", but "Lite" should not be designed for them.
I recommend thinking along the minimalist lines as malanrich suggests. Consider all of the goodies that exist in DamnSmallLinux and Puppy Linux!
A thought just occurred to me. What about the "packaging" of the software? What I mean is this. To support the dial-up folks, if LiteMepis were shipped on two or more CDs then the Live/Install CD could be #1. But "extras" could be on disk 2 (or three; don't want to get carried away). That way, Lite could be set up with some of the smaller apps (AbiWord) while putting the bigger ones (OpenOffice) on the "extras" CD. You get the idea.
Why CD instead of DVD? Because "older hardware" probably does not have a DVD drive and probably cannot boot from any external USB drive. Those boxes that cannot boot from a CD might also be a problem, but if it were possible to package rawrite.exe and a boot floppy image on the CD, then we would be able to accommodate them too.
Jon
Jon, have you used "DSL",
Posts: 516
Jon, have you used "DSL", there are a lot of computers that "DSL" will not run on, while "Puppy" will run on most any computer you have. My point is "DSL" is bad example to use. One other thing, as I said in my above post, most people wanting a Lite Linux can't run any thing else, including MEPISLite, so far MEPIS has not built a "real" Lite Linux and that is what we need.
------------------------------------------------------------
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way: www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id274601
MEPIS Help Files: www.mepis.org/docs/index.php/Main_Page
Defining "old"
Posts: 275
Hey malanrich, care to share the specs on some of your "older hardware" (at least the boxes that you would choose to run Mepis on)?
The term "older hardware" will always be elastic as new stuff comes out. I used to think it meant 32/64MB PI or II systems (which I have and would like to resurrect). Now it seems to mean 256MB PIII or IV (which is what I mainly use now). The "o.k. standard" seems to be 512MB PIV.
Jimmy's question to Warren about what kernel will run on what box should clarify the decisions that need to be made. Meanwhile, I'm hoping the "older old" hardware will be respected but am resigned to the probability of "old" denoting that 256MB range.
3 years computers are
Posts: 4077
3 years computers are considered old and are replaced in some companies: that means Pentium IV. I think that if MEPISLite would work fine on a PIII, 128MB it would be great working to get it work anything older is probably not worth the effort. (Actually I tried SimplyMEPIS on PIII, 256MB and it worked without problems)
--
Check out Mepis wiki: www.mepis.org/docs
Community site: www.mepislovers.com/forums
Ok, here's another question,
Posts: 516
Ok, here's another question, are we talking about a "Small" Linux distro or a "Lite" Linux distro?
I think a "Lite" Linux should run on 32MB of RAM and as I said above, the 2.4 kernel will run anything but Duel Core.
------------------------------------------------------------
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way: www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id274601
MEPIS Help Files: www.mepis.org/docs/index.php/Main_Page
Clarification on Distros
Posts: 5513
Jimmy, yes, I have used DSL on a couple computers. And yes, It also doesn't run on my old Dell Laptop. I didn't bring up DSL as a good example to emulate for running but rather as an example of a small distribution that has a fair amount of applications. Puppy and DSL seem to be the two distros mentioned when someone wants a "small" distribution with "many" applications.
But yes, if it were possible to make LiteMepis so that it could run on hardware that causes DSL and its ilk difficulty, I think it would be a great thing. No, I don't believe that LiteMepis is intended to be a copy, replacement, or competition for DSL or Puppy. I'm guessing that the aim here is to get some more life out of older systems.
As AdrianTM points out, 3 years is considered "old" by company standards, but as malanrich noted, there are folks out there who have stuff older than 3 years. Windows 98 (and 95; respectfully ignore ME) are still running strong in some households. But then, those households may not be the market for a different OS. After all, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" If a person hasn't bought a new computer and they're running everything on a "95-er", then I doubt that they would want to potentially sacrifice (lose) their data to a "new os".
Oh, that just brought up a new question (then I'll sit down and shut up). Any idea how big (small) of a hard drive is recommended? Many of the older 98 boxes had hard drives that were no larger than 8-10 GB, due to hardware technology, price, and Microsoft partition addressing limitations. So I know that SimplyMepis will fit within an 8 GB area (with not much breathing room), but a single drive of that size would not easily accomodate any "dual-boot" scheme.
Jon
Newer Kernel = Better Wireless support, right?
Posts: 1109
Thinking out loud...
Even though someone may be using an older laptop, sometimes you see people that want to use a newer wireless card with one.
Ditto for a newer monitor or other hardware (sometimes a desktop monitor is preferred and they tend to get replaced from time to time).
Is there going to be a SimplyMEPIS 6.10 to coincide with the just released Ubuntu 6.10?
If so, then it would seem that the kernel used by the newest versions might be a better option.
I don't know much about Linux, so my thoughts may be way "off base". It looks like the latest Ubuntu 6.10 release is using Linux Kernel Version 2.6.17.10 (judging from the packages list at distrowatch.com).
Jim C.
{snicker} According to my
Posts: 1634
{snicker} According to my daughter, 6.0-Final does pretty well on a P2, 384MB machine; although she *is* hinting that the "domestic trickle-down timeline" should be moved along a bit.
Kids, these days!
"You have two labs?"
"Each has its place. At the university, I try to please the Federal Government. Here, I negotiate with God."
Lite is to run on old hardware, 386 not 686
Posts: 32
I think it would be nice for a Lite version to run on a 200mhz Pentuim 1 cpu with 64mb min. These should be about the absolute lowest minimum spec's. No point in a 686 kernel, as this distro is intended for old old computers. A 2.4 kernel as an additional choice would also be a nice addition. That being said, I like the idea of using the same kernel as in Mepis 6 for many reasons. One, it makes it possible to just remaster Mepis 6 as Anticapitalistia has done. And a very good effort that was too. I am for saving Warren's time so he can apply himself on Mepis 7 as much as possible. Also, for those who can't live without the 686 kernel, if the Lite uses the same kernel as Mepis 6 you will be able to synaptic the 686 kernel into it. Fluxbox and IceWM should be included and one should be the default windows manager. Abiword, Siag office, or possibly Koffice, whould be included, and Openoffice left out. I would include all the apps that make it newbie friendly, synaptic, kpackage, ark, konsole, konqueror. Dillo and Seamonkey should be included too.
Why is this going in this manner?
Posts: 40
I'm ready for Lite now! I posted listings in the forum on upgrading Lite.
Just to clarify>
When I first used Linux I fell in love with it,,,Why?
It found my hardware
Played my media
Easy to load
Fast
User friendly once installed
Stated it would work on a computer that used win98 or 95, not sure which but,
found my dialup card
And did I say fast? anyway
Everything worked as advertised
Being new to Linux it was the best over all, after trying around 30 different linux versions. All i'm asking for is, more of the same, No need to re-invent the wheel it's not broken, it just needs updated. That kernel did it's job, and that kernel is not done. 6.0 has newer apps and features. Lite should have newer apps and features, but If it will slow Mepislite down, we don't need it's That Simple. I would like XFCE used as default, XFCE has come along way since the last lite release, example (Dreamlinux) it's even faster. Lite should be a speed demon and nothing less. If it's not, Warren and others will be wasting time. Mepis has a full version and so do other Linux distro's.
Don't make Mepislite,,,lite,,,, make it (lite-er) and fast-er!
puppy/damm small and others are not even close to what Lite is, I tried them all.
This should not take long, so I expect to have my updated Lite,,,as a Christmas gift.
Trailboss
Thank You For Sharing Trailboss
Posts: 5513
This should not take long, so I expect to have my updated Lite,,,as a Christmas gift.
I do so hope that you meant this as a joke. Because if you did, then I'm sure that you may expect anything you like for Christmas. As long as you've been a good boy all year, I'm sure that Santa will consider it. But if you've been bad then all you're going to get from Santa is a Beta Version of Microsoft Windows Vista Upgrade Edition (complete with Internet Explorer 7)!
I'm guessing what Warren would like for Christmas is, oh, a vacation?.
Jon
i'm pretty much done with windows
Posts: 40
Jon,
I'm pretty much done with windows. I don't need it, since using Lite, I have no need for a windows Os ever. Lite has shown me the way. I think Warren pretty much knows what lite should do, and the path is the right one.
thanks for reading
Trailboss
Simply Mepis Lite edition
Posts: 1
I would like to see the Lite edition to be simple and small enough to fit in a 256mb memory stick and not use any of the host computer resources.
An Interesting Idea.
Posts: 57
What we should do is to have the Lite version initially built by community members.
Then have a "shootout" among all the Community Member Editions to determine which will be the Official Lite Version.
We could then put up the criteria on which the winner would be judged, etc. And just sit back and wait...
Preserving hardware detection
Posts: 275
Not sure how relevant this is, but: various postings have described frustrations with hardware that "used to" work with MepisLite (or other versions up to 3.4-3) and then "stopped" at 6.0. Would it be helpful to gather a list of such events?
In my case, I use MepisLite on a couple of machines--for various reasons, but one is that my modem works flawlessly with MepisLite (and other versions through 3.4-3) but not with 6.0. It would be great if whatever enables certain hardware in the current version of MepisLite could be preserved in the new LiteMepis.
I'm not working on the specified machine right now but can offer modem specs and behaviors later if relevant.
--Malanrich
hardware detection
Posts: 4864
Malanrich, hardware detection is our most valuable 'selling point'. Please maintain a list guys, because these are very important things.
Hardware that *used* to work
Posts: 275
Please maintain a list guys, because these are very important things.
Okay, for reference:
I have a Lucent/Agere Microelectronics WinModem that works fine with all versions of Mepis except with the 6.0 series. Mepis 6.0 and 6.0-1 find the modem fine and dial up, but after connection the modem hangs up with exit code 16. I've fiddled with configuration without success (yet).
I hope others will add to the list. I think Jim Cockfield made similar reports of hardware that conked out with 6.0.
Let me know if more system specs would be useful.
Lucent modems should work fine
Posts: 959
The default connection speed is where the fault lies.
Edit you rmodem under kppp, find the connection speed and lower it from 460800 to 115200
The speed is the rate it interacts with your motherboard (baud rate), not the speed at which it connects to the net.
On the Lite side, I totally agree with those that want to keep it light and snappy for older hardware, but my recommendations for the lowest entry point would be a 400Mhz CPU with 192Mb RAM and 800x600 display, with a suggested entry-point system starting at 700Mhz with 256 RAM and 1024x768 display.
Mike P
--------------------
Life may not be the party we thought, but while we're here, we may as well dance.
Break M$'s shackles from your feet and free yourself with Mepis
Lucent modems
Posts: 275
The default connection speed is where the fault lies.
Edit your modem under kppp, find the connection speed and lower it from 460800 to 115200The speed is the rate it interacts with your motherboard (baud rate), not the speed at which it connects to the net.
I'd always heard that Lucent modems were fine--but I've tried all the suggested configurations without success (many posters elsewhere complain of "exit 16" but no one seems able to do much about it). I've fiddled with Kppp, edited PPP and modem files. Still no soup. So far Mepis has been the *best* at modem support--and this same one has worked great and...almost...works now with 6.0. I can't give up now.
Thanks Mike, for today's little gem about connection speed being with the mother board. I had no idea that was the case. Now I'm going to go play with connection speed again. (I've tried before but maybe this time...).
--Malanrich
Edit:
Tried the lower connection speed, without success. One difference between 6.0 and Lite connection logs: 6.0 gives me a report of "no error correction." Not sure whether this matters or can be configured. The modem glitch is not a deal-breaker for me; I'm wondering if maybe it's a kernel issue (?).
Keep the kernels synched ? YES.
Posts: 690
Seems a good idea to use one kernel in Lite: the same kernel 2.6.15 that is already used in Mepis 6.0x. It is an obvious choice to make in view of support, reducing the number of development changes. As well as providing opportunities to you for synchronizing changes, patches, security updates.
Regards, Ko
Ko Bros