This is why I use Vector Linux
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Mar 07, 2009 1:50 PM EDT |
Ubuntu works reasonably well at 512MB. I still find it more than a bit slow on my old Toshiba Satellite 1805-S204, which appears to be roughly from the same era as Steve's Toshibas. Vector Linux on the same laptop with the same memory is fast and operates smoothly. At 256MB Vector is still perfectly happy where Ubuntu, as Steve reports, simply isn't. |
| herzeleid Mar 07, 2009 1:57 PM EDT |
Well.. there's always xubuntu, if you wanted to keep it "in the family" so to speak, on a low spec machine. |
| caitlyn Mar 07, 2009 2:26 PM EDT |
Xubuntu is also slow compared to Vector Linux. The difference between the two is, well... huge... on a low spec machine. The only distro I've tried which just about equals VL is Wolvix. Vanilla Slackware and Zenwalk aren't quite as fast but they still leave any *buntu in the dust. The only way to make Ubuntu fast on a low spec machine is to do a minimal install and add what you need. The metapackages for the various Ubuntu desktops install just too much cruft. |
| azerthoth Mar 07, 2009 2:32 PM EDT |
There is also their kernel, those guys really need to explore how to load modules on demand. Last time I had my hands on an Ubuntu box I printed out the lsmod, stock it was 3 pages long. |
| Steven_Rosenber Mar 07, 2009 11:31 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, I agree. I've run Vector, ZenWalk and Wolvix, all derived from Slackware (and all with Xfce), and I concur that all, plus Slackware itself, run quicker than Ubuntu and Xubuntu. |
| herzeleid Mar 07, 2009 11:36 PM EDT |
I wonder why that is? Is slackware optimized for low spec machines? I wonder how it would compare on a modern 64 bit dual core machine with gobs of RAM... |
| caitlyn Mar 08, 2009 12:19 AM EDT |
herzeleid: Slackware is 32-bit only so for CPU intensive tasks that take full advantage of a 64-bit processor Slackware will not fare well. Vector Linux 64 (still in alpha) might, so might Slamd64 and BlueWhite64, but not vanilla Slack. azeroth has already mentioned differences in kernel build. Some distro developers go to great lengths to tune and optimize their kernel and may also do filesystem optimization. Some don't. Vector Linux has some very smart developers who optimize the heck out of everything they can to produce a very fast desktop. They even rewrote the init scripts to speed booting a little bit. The way packages are built matters. Vector Linux builds for i586 and tunes for i686. It won't run on i486 hardware including AMD K5 based systems that might still be able to run a current build of Slackware. Other compiler flags/options do matter in some cases. Some distros (think Ubuntu) load a lot of things by default that may not be needed. Yes, you can shut them off if you know what you're doing. How many users really don't know how to disable services and daemons they don't need? Slackware has a "keep it simple" philosophy. In Slackware things are left out that other distros generally include. Did you know, for example, that Slackware doesn't implement PAM? Neither does Vector Linux. Zenwalk, OTOH, does. Could the extra layer of security required for authentication make a difference, particularly on older hardware? Sure it could. I certainly don't care about having PAM on an old laptop. For enterprise server security, IMNSHO, it's a must. That's another reason I do not consider Slackware appropriate for the enterprise server room. OTOH, if you're optimizing for speed not having PAM may actually be helpful. Speaking of security Slackware also doesn't have SELinux. Unless you work for a government agency or a security paranoid company/organization you probably don't care about this. It also adds overhead. In Fedora it's enabled by default. Ditto Red Hat/Centos. It's a trade off between functionality and speed. Which is more important? It really depends on your what you're trying to do, doesn't it? Some will argue that the Slackware keep it simple approach helps in terms of stability and reliability. I actually agree in principle though I'd say the folks at Red Hat have done a wonderful job with creating a stable OS witha whole lot of extra tools. It isn't particularly fast, though. Quite the contrary. The bottom line is that there are many variables in how a distribution is built. Slackware starts out simple and fast without much cruft. The derivative distros can add on, tweak for a specific niche, etc... and get somewhat different results. |
| herzeleid Mar 08, 2009 3:43 AM EDT |
@ caitlyn - good points, thanks for the analysis, it makes sense. |
| tuxtom Mar 10, 2009 4:42 AM EDT |
If you are smart enough to run Linux then you are smart enough to make enough money to be to afford not to have to nitpick about running Linuxes on archaic hardware. Seriously, why bother? (Unless it is a hobby, but in that case, why complain?) Why not buy a new box and move on with your life...and take on much more important problems? You aren't commuting in a Pinto, are you? Why compute with one? |
| jacog Mar 10, 2009 5:18 AM EDT |
Dunno, I think my decrepit laptop might possibly explode on impact like a Pinto. |
| caitlyn Mar 10, 2009 8:16 AM EDT |
@tuxtom: I'm glad you are made of money. I am not and in the current economic crisis (depression?) a lot of people are cash strapped. A lot of businesses are keeping older equipment around too to keep costs down. Oh, and no, it's not a Pinto. It's a 1997 Geo Metro. I still commute in it because it runs well and isn't giving me any grief, just like my older computers. |
| jdixon Mar 10, 2009 9:36 AM EDT |
> If you are smart enough to run Linux then you are smart enough to make enough money to be to afford not to have to nitpick about running Linuxes on archaic hardware. The positive correlation between intelligence and income, while definitely present, is neither complete nor infallible, and is relative to your starting conditions. Or, to simplify the point, don't assume that everyone who's smart is rich. :) There are many reasons an intelligent person might not have a lot of disposable income at any given time. Illness, legal problems, natural disaster (Katrina, for example), and the current depression (I think we've passed the point where we can reasonably call it a simple recession), are all valid examples. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 10, 2009 10:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you are smart enough to run Linux then you are smart enough to make enough money to be to afford not to have to nitpick about running Linuxes on archaic hardware Nonsense. Geeks are *always* strapped for cash. I have 3 desktops and 3 servers here and it's still not enough. I want a 15" laptop, a 10" netbook, an OpenMoko phone, a home automation system, etcetera, etcetera. It doesn't matter how much disposable income you have you will always find a way to spend it all on geek stuff and still need more (unless you really start raking in the millions). |
| techiem2 Mar 10, 2009 3:53 PM EDT |
AMEN Sander! There are always more toys...er...tools...to be bought. :) |
| gus3 Mar 10, 2009 4:04 PM EDT |
You find yourself with an extra $100. Do you... A. pay a little extra on your credit card B. take your significant other out for a nice dinner C. max out the memory in your laptop system |
| techiem2 Mar 10, 2009 4:33 PM EDT |
A is irrelevant since I always pay it off. B is irrelevant since I don't have one. Therefore C (or some variant thereof) wins. :) |
| NoDough Mar 10, 2009 5:00 PM EDT |
I choose A. max out the memory in your laptop system. Why didn't you provide more than one option? Edit: Clarified for Sander. :^) |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 10, 2009 5:34 PM EDT |
@NoDough: That's C. A is irrelevant to me. I actually do have enough memory at the moment (two years of dismantling discarded computers at various companies has left me with ample spare parts) so I guess my girlfriend would get lucky :-) Now, if you had said $400 spare then I would have bought a netbook or OpenMoko instead... |
| jdixon Mar 10, 2009 8:31 PM EDT |
> Do you... If you expect to have a significant other for the forseeable future, the possible answers had better be B or C. max out the memory on "her" laptop system. :) |
| tuxtom Mar 11, 2009 4:47 AM EDT |
@cailin: As far as your old computers not giving you grief, I call dual-booting grief. It's a real PITA when it comes down to it. You obviously have time to spend on LXer and time to spend gaming on a Windows machine (which I assume is Pentium class...or is it as old as your Geo?), yet you are using the cop-out that there is a current "economic crisis" (as a lot of people are these days) to justify using archaic equipment, which is fine if you are happy with that (I used to do that, too, but I have grown old and lazy and wise), but that doesn't mean that dual-boot isn't a "legacy" feature in this day and age. Maybe I'm just a forward thinker. As far as economy goes, there is no crisis...maybe a (deserved) financial reality check, but our opportunity costs are still the same and the shelves are still full at the grocery store, so it is a media event more that it is a "crisis". I drive a 1995 Volvo 850 with 150K on the odo that I paid $2K for, yet I don't own a computer that doesn't have multiple cores...and I haven't bought a computer for several years now. I did upgrade the RAM on my laptop to 2GB for $29 last year. Computer hardware is dirt cheap...or maybe I'm just made of money (I wish...). Argue for you limitations and sure enough they're yours. |
| caitlyn Mar 11, 2009 5:00 PM EDT |
@tuxtom: Well. I'm about to spend between $850-$1175 on surgery for one of my ferrets. To me that's more important than a new computer. Any pet owner knows exactly what I mean. Let me put it this way: the netbook I'm typing on (bought new in January) does everything I need and want from a computer. I don't run Windows at all, I'm not a gamer, and the couple of Linux games I do rarely play run fine on this machine. My six year old Toshiba only does 90% of what I want so yes, I bought new hardware. I prefer dual booting because it maximizes the resources I have for each system. You don't and that's fine. I wouldn't call you forward thinking. The term I would use is myopic. It seems that its your "way or the highway". Other people have different preferences. I'm one of them. Finally, the economic crisis is not a cop-out. In case you haven't noticed we're in a depression. Yes, there are people who do well in a depression. Some people did fabulously in the 1930s. My housemate still has her government job but with large state budget cuts looming she is concerned she could lose it. My business had its best month in December but has done less well since. I know that finding customers is much tougher now than it was a year ago and my income is anything but stable. If my housemate is laid off my income is the only income left for paying the mortgage and the bills. So... saving money makes sense. Cutting back on unnecessary spending makes sense. Buying more computer equipment is a luxury item, not a necessity most of the time. Cop-out? No. Good common sense? Yes! I find your post to be obnoxious, condescending, and yes, lacking in common sense. |
| herzeleid Mar 11, 2009 5:47 PM EDT |
> Any pet owner knows exactly what I mean. I lost my little chihuahua baby in November, and I'm still missing her. I'd have sold my computers and mortgaged the house to the hilt, if it would have saved her. So, I know what you mean about priorities... |
| NoDough Mar 11, 2009 9:22 PM EDT |
>> In case you haven't noticed we're in a depression. Well, although that may be correct in spirit, technically a depression is 2 or more years of negative GDP growth. We had positive GDP growth of 0.52% (squeaked it out) in 2008. So we couldn't possibly be in a depression until the end of 2010." Edit: Check that. Should've said, "We couldn't possibly confirm that we are in a depression until the end of 2010. Of course, telling someone who's lost their job that we aren't technically in a depression doesn't help them much. |
| jdixon Mar 11, 2009 9:42 PM EDT |
> I lost my little chihuahua baby in November, and I'm still missing her. My wife and I lost our first cat almost a year and a half ago. I still miss him. > So we couldn't possibly be in a depression until the end of 2010. I don't think it has to go by calendar year. I think you can count by quarter, and I believe we'll find that the official recession started in the third quarter of 2008. So we should be able to tell by summer of 2010. Though I've never heard that definition before. Where did you find it? > Of course, telling someone who's lost their job that we aren't technically in a depression doesn't help them much. Classical definitions: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. :) |
| NoDough Mar 11, 2009 10:27 PM EDT |
>> I don't think it has to go by calendar year. I think you can count by quarter, and I believe we'll find that the official recession started in the third quarter of 2008. So we should be able to tell by summer of 2010. Though I've never heard that definition before. Where did you find it? Good point on the quarters. I didn't find it. I've known it for years, not even sure when I learned it. This page seems to support it. http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/Depress... Quoting:A depression is a severe economic downturn that lasts several years....and... Quoting:The GDP growth rates were of a magnitude not seen since: |
| tuxtom Mar 12, 2009 4:10 AM EDT |
@caitlin: Money means different things to different people. To each their own. I hope your pet does well. Quoting:In case you haven't noticed we're in a depression.That seems to be the popular conception of those who watch (and believe) the media religiously, but like I said, the lines at Walmart are still long and rush-hour freeways are still packed. It's gonna take a lot more than a talking head and popular sentiment to convince me we are in anything like depression. The fact is our economy was on a wild binge that was unrealistic and now that the party's over everyone thinks it is gloom-and-doom when it is really just a hangover. This is a mindset that has been cultivated by the media for some time. If you didn't watch TV or read the news you would never notice anything had changed, really. Of course I don't live in the Rust Belt, but I do live in one of the most inflated housing markets in the country and there has certainly been a crash there...but it was completely unrealistic and only fools couldn't see that. People were milking it for all they could. I can tell you that the only people hurting around here are the Real Estate industry, which has been a windfall racket for quite some time so I don''t sympathize with them. Construction is also hit, but big builders slapping up disgusting track housing with immigrant labor don't really have my sympathy, either. |
| gus3 Mar 12, 2009 5:05 AM EDT |
@tuxtom: FWIW, I do live at the edge of the Rust Belt, and my county has the 4th highest unemployment in the state. Everyone here is affected by the unemployment rate; this Friday I'll be taking a "decorated" macaroni & cheese dish to my old boss for her last day on the job. Oh, and I might add, in January her husband was laid off as well, with zero advance notice. People need to eat; people need to put clothes on their kids; people need to change the oil in their cars. But people don't need to buy wide-screen HDTV's. The lines at Wal-Mart aren't as long as they were, at least not here. Most of the store employees are now working only 32 hours or less per week, which took effect immediately after the New Year. Yes, some people can afford to continue eating at Applebee's on a regular basis, but have you noticed that even Applebee's has cut their advertising budget? They're actively soliciting PR from their patrons, in the form of cell phone videos. I hesitate to cross that line and call the current situation a "depression." But I don't find the idea as repugnant as I did six months ago. |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2009 7:59 AM EDT |
> I hesitate to cross that line and call the current situation a "depression." The current downturn apparently started sometime in late 2007, though we didn't enter an official recession until sometime in 2008.. Since then, we've had a Bush tax rebate program, the Bush TARP program, and now the Obama stimulus package. None have had any significant long term effect. Unemployment is still accelerating, with over 4 million people out of work so far. If this is just a hangover, it's a doozy. Even the official government figures indicate this is the worst recession since the great depression, and as far as I can tell, neither political party has any idea how to handle it. I believe most economists are still calling for a recovery later this year. I personally don't expect a turnaround until sometime in 2010, and possibly not until 2012. I'd say calling it a depression may still be a bit early, but it's not completely unreasonable. |
| NoDough Mar 12, 2009 12:41 PM EDT |
JD: I agree with everything you said except.. >> None have had any significant long term effect. They've had a quite noticeable effect on the stock markets. |
| rijelkentaurus Mar 12, 2009 2:38 PM EDT |
@jdixon: Long term effect is relative, also. What's it mean? I don't think there has been enough time passed to say Obama's stimulus plan had no long term effect. |
| caitlyn Mar 12, 2009 2:54 PM EDT |
@jdixon & @NoDough: The two Bush administration economic measures you mentioned were not economic stimulus in any conventional sense. The Obama stimulus package was. Long term effect? None have been in place long enough to be considered long term. Heck, the stimulus package hasn't been in place long enough to have short term effects yet. Nothing happens overnight. If the number of job losses is still this high a year from now THEN I will agree with you about lack of long term effect. Even the Obama stimulus plan was too long on things that don't really stimulate the economy effectively, mainly tax cuts. In difficult economic times people save the money rather than spend it. The people who have lost their jobs are paying few if any taxes in any case. The most stimulation comes from infrastructure projects and direct aid to those who have no choice but to spend the money: those who are really hurting financially. If there was anything wrong with the stimulus bill is that it wasn't nearly large enough for an economy the size of the U.S. Even more importantly it wasn't targeted nearly narrowly enough at putting people back to work building and making things. That creates more demand for goods and services and allows those people who are employed by those projects to pay into the system to support those still out of work. We need new WPA and TVA type projects. We also need more oversight and regulation on the financial industry so that we stop throwing good money after bad into a bottomless pit. Can anyone tell me where the billions given to AIG have gone? How have they helped the economy? Taxpayers own 80% of the company now and yet the representatives of the taxpayers have little or no input on how it is run. The national unemployment rate is 8.1%. In my state it's 9.7%. Those numbers only count people receiving unemployment benefits. It doesn't count those who have exhausted those benefits, who have given up even looking and perhaps are focusing on retraining, or those who are seriously underemployed. The real national unemployment rate was, according to a new government estimate, sitting at 14.8% last month. It's only getting worse. If people can't work they can't pay their mortgages which deepens the housing crisis and they can't buy things which further reduces demand which further depresses the economy. Less demand equates to less need for workers which leads to yet more unemployment. It's a snowball effect. History teaches us the only way to slow that effect is to put people to work. If the private sector can't do it the public sector has to as it did during the New Deal. The depression of the 1930s didn't end until government hiring went way above even New Deal levels. Unfortunately those people had to be hired as soldiers and to support the military. |
| NoDough Mar 12, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, You state several things categorically which are in dispute. >> ...things that don't really stimulate the economy effectively, mainly tax cuts... >> The most stimulation comes from infrastructure projects... >> If there was anything wrong with the stimulus bill is that it wasn't nearly large enough for an economy the size of the U.S. >> We need new WPA and TVA type projects. An on it goes. These are all left-wing talking points which are disputed by right-wing talking points which are disputed by left-wing talking points, etc., etc. ad nauseum. To me the Bailouts and Stimulus are all BS. But I can't tell you why without provoking political debate (as your post does.) So, I'm outa here. |
| caitlyn Mar 12, 2009 3:36 PM EDT |
I personally find history more instructive that political "talking points". "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana Repeating the policies that Herbert Hoover's administration used in 1929-1932 is a great way to repeat the Great Depression. Is the tent city in Sacramento, CA the first new Hooverville in 70 years? Could be. |
| NoDough Mar 12, 2009 3:48 PM EDT |
Cheap shot. There are many, many unreliable historical sources out there. For every reference you find that says the New Deal saved us all, I can find one that says it did more damage than the depression itself. History means nothing when viewed through an ideological filter. |
| caitlyn Mar 12, 2009 4:12 PM EDT |
Not a cheap shot at all. There is one historical view of the Great Depression which is held by the vast majority of historians and economists and there is a relatively small minority view which you are espousing. Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course. I suspect there are points we could easily agree on, for example, that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a protectionist measure which sharply reduced international trade, made things worse. Yes, some of the hard left want a new protectionism. My quote applies equally to them as it does to those on the hard right. I don't think a purely left wing approach (which you have accused me of favoring) or a purely right wing approach can work. My view of the causes of the Depression were originally expressed by Marriner Eccles who served as Federal Reserve Chairman during FDR's administration. I do think the that Irving Fisher also explained some of the causes though his explanation was focused on the failures of 1920s monetary policy and the financial markets. The greatest proponent of Fisher's ideas today is Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Bush appointee. Yes, I do believe that, for the most part, FDR got it right when he followed the theories of John Maynard Keynes. That, today, is termed liberal. Interestingly enough Hoover's policies were termed "classical liberal" economics in their day. The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now. I have a tendency, when I do wax political, to annoy both right wing and left wing ideologues. I'm very liberal on some issues and sharply conservative on others, notably foreign policy. tuxchick can attest to the latter from my days on the LinuxChix lists. So... my point is NOT to spout "left wing talking points" as you called them. I would hope this discussion would encourage people to read historical sources on the Great Depression and make their own judgments. ADDITION: If you have a chance read Marriner Eccles' testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1933. It is amazing how much of what he said then seems to apply equally well to where we are today: [url=http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/MeltzerPDFs/ecctes33.pdf#search='marriner eccles']http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/MeltzerPDFs/ecctes33.pdf#s...[/url] |
| NoDough Mar 12, 2009 4:49 PM EDT |
>> I don't thing a purely left wing approach (which you have accused me of favoring)... I didn't use the term "purely", which changes meaning significantly. I did say, "all left-wing talking points". But the context clearly referred to the 4 lines quoted. >> Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course. Exactly! >> My view of the causes of the Depression were originally expressed by Marriner Eccles who served as Federal Reserve Chairman during FDR's administration. I don't trust authors. They nearly always have a revisionist agenda. I especially don't trust politician/authors. I trust historical archives and direct quotes. >> Yes, I do believe that, for the most part, FDR got it right when he followed the theories of John Maynard Keynes. That, today, is termed liberal. Interestingly enough Hoover's policies were termed "classical liberal" economics in their day. There's a reason they were both called liberal. >> The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now. No argument there. |
| caitlyn Mar 12, 2009 4:57 PM EDT |
I trust historical archives and direct quotes. Hence my decision to link Eccles 1933 Senate testimony. There is no filter there. It's a transcript of what was said. |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2009 5:10 PM EDT |
> There is one historical view of the Great Depression which is held by the vast majority of historians and economists and there is a relatively small minority view which you are espousing. I don't believe that's true. From what I've seen it's closer to a 60/40 split. And both arguments are internally consistent. The question is which better matches reality. Without performing experiments, it's almost impossible to say. Unfortunately, we appear to be in the process of performing just such an experiment. :( > Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course. Agreed. > I suspect there are points we could easily agree on... Also agreed. > The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now. I doubt we agree there. It seems to me that they've both been doing their best to follow Keynesian theory. Bush merely chose tax cuts first, then reverted to government spending when that didn't work. Obama has started with government spending, then will probably move to tax cuts if that doesn't work. Both have been trying to stimulate their way out of the current recession/depression, unsuccessfully so far. So while I agree that neither is getting it right, that's because their method's haven't worked, not because they disagreed about the theory of what needed to be done. > I would hope this discussion would encourage people to read historical sources on the Great Depression and make their own judgments. Any economic period provides enough data that selective editing will allow you to reach the conclusions you want, so I recommend people read up on alternative viewpoints in addition to the default Keynesian ones, then make their best judgment as to which is correct. The primary economic schools of thought I know of are the Keynesian (emphasizing government stimulation of the economy to correct downturns), the Chicago school (money supply oriented), and the Austrian. Does anyone know of any others they would recommend? There was a recent read through over on Vox Popoli (http://voxday.blogspot.com/) where they covered America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. The folks there highly recommend it for the Austrian perspective. Oh, and this discussion will undoubtedly attract Bob's attention eventually. :) |
| bigg Mar 12, 2009 5:20 PM EDT |
> Oh, and this discussion will undoubtedly attract Bob's attention eventually. :) I'm guessing he was so excited that he passed out at the keyboard. In a couple of hours we should hear from him. |
| caitlyn Mar 12, 2009 5:36 PM EDT |
The last line of jdixon's post and bigg's reply brought a certain movie to mind... "..but what about Bob?" Should I be worried? Is my future much like Richard Dreyfuss' character's in the film? |
| NoDough Mar 13, 2009 10:31 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, Didn't mean to abandon the thread. Just been really busy. >> Hence my decision to link Eccles 1933 Senate testimony. There is no filter there. It's a transcript of what was said. Sorry. Did not read. My mistake. >> Should I be worried? Is my future much like Richard Dreyfuss' character's in the film? Nah, I don't think so. Bob is probably tired of getting beat up for participating in this very type of thread. Kinda makes me feel bad. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!