Slashdot Mirror
Vector Linux 4 Reviewed
SilentBob4 writes "On October 7th, the developers at Vector Linux released the latest version of their lightweight Linux distro, version 4. Vector has always been built upon the Slackware Linux framework and this time around it is based on Slack 9.0. The interesting thing here is that there was quite a delay between releases from the Vector camp, so as they were readying version 4, Pat Volkerding was releasing version 9.1 of his Slackware distro.
This past Friday, the first review of Vector Linux was released (Distrowatch.com posted a link to it today). It was a pretty good review for the most part, but the interesting thing about it was that they actually benchmarked it against Slackware 9.1 and posted the results. I'll spoil the ending right now and tell you that Vector Linux won, but you should check out the findings. There are some pretty interesting numbers obtained from the two distros. The reviewer has published three PDF documents detailing the results. Everything was tested from the kernel to filesystem performance. It is interesting to say the least. Even if you don't have to time to read the whole article (it's two pages long), do check out the benchmark results. "
A Linux "distribution" is (or so I have always thought) the kernel, plus system support files, plus all the tools (typical "GNU") that go into making a working OS. So how is it that you can have significant differences between distros in "performance"? And how does that matter if you build the system on your own hardware (a la Gentoo)?
Is this just another example of irrelevant Geek pissing contests, or is there some actual significance here?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Yet another PHP-Nuke-alike that seems to be so obfuscated it's impossible to find anything...
However: looks like a fairly good distribution with a good set of tools for the space. But I find myself asking why the 450MB number? Too little for a compressed CD-ROM (like Knoppix), and I haven't seen a hard disk in a machine (even consumer devices) that's under 1GB in years.
It could be the ideal candidate for a 512MB CF card or Microdrive, but then again, it only runs on Intel x86, so ARM-based XScale, StrongARM, OMAP etc devices are out of the picture.
So my question is this: it looks pretty good and seems to have quite a bit of support, but what's it's niche? Older machines, like 386s?
every time you slashdot a server, god kills a kitten.
please, think of the kittens.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
We have produced a bloat free, easy to install, configure and maintain Slackware based system that is second to none
how can a software be "bloat free" and "easy to install, configure and maintain" at the same time?
I am not anti "easy to install, configure, maintain" (even though I use command line text console for administering NIS+), but there a quite a few distro that claim to do just that like Mandrake, Suse etc, and they are not that bloated.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
I'll spoil the ending right now and tell you that Vector Linux won, but you should check out the findings.
Great, now no one has to RTFA. Oh wait, I forgot this is /.
Slashdotters should know by know that there are now 4 kind of lies. Lies, damned lies, statistics and benchmarks.
It doesn't come with XFce4! (WHich was a bitch to compile with all those friggin module directories to go through!)
Screw the performance, we need a linux distro that is componentizd, easy to use, and pluggable !
Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
Runs comfortably on my P133 with 48 MB of RAM.
Although I am curious what other modern distros will run on such a machine?
I have a small P133 webserver at home: hwo would Vector linux stack up on such a system? How are packages managed in it? The one thing I'd have to be sure of is that I could specify to not load X - I use the box just for print, file and web page serving, and don't want to load it down with anything else.
My God, kids these days are spoiled. How about starting the benchmarks on a 386 with 4 megs of RAM and working up to that mighty 233 monster. I'd be most interested in the differences between say a 486DX66 with 128Megs and a P90with 32Megs. Perhaps these specs will make some snicker, but when you're working on making old hardware do something cool these are the specs that are interesting. If you've got a 1GHz plus machine with tons of RAM you don't need stripped down distro.
But do yours smell like fish?
Vector Linux is good because there are still loads of P2-2xx/3xx around. While you can always run XFCE on them, dillo and so on, they do have hardware limitations which might be difficult to overcome in order to have something normal people can use. If you get a distro that runs a modern desktop (KDE, GNOME) with some response (this is what the reviewer says; what he means is anyone's guess), then you can effectively extend the life of these older machines, save money, and so on. While many gamers may not be aware of this, people in small/family-run companies could definitely use something like vector for these purposes.
Unfortunately, I think that most of the people who would benefit most from things like Vector will never hear of it, and if they do, they will probably be overwhelmed by difficult installers and so on. If the VL people could come up with their distro packaged so that it effectively is a domestic distro (put CD in, wait, enjoy), then they would have a great product that many SMEs would use. They might also want to get some other software (accounting and that sort of stuff), but there is definitely a niche there for them to occupy. I wish them well :-)
*runs away, ducks for cover*
(DISCLAIMER: I'm a FreeBSD user. This post is a joke. Please don't take it seriously)
I was approached by a private grade school that had a bunch of old gear and no money to upgrade software much less the hardware to run the latest windoze. I had them buy a single poweredge server and loaded up mandrake. Turned on XDMCP and are currently loading the clients with Vector Linux. It works really nice on old hardware and boots quickly. So for the cost of a single server they get to use the old gear plus all of the open source software they could ever want. Kudo's to the vector linux developers they saved this schools 50 workstations.
Got Code?
YAPNA
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
...slashdot God!
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
This phrase is funny insofar that the term "page" does not give any clue how long a "web page" is. :-)
Every time you make that f*@!(%# joke, God kills a Domo-kun.
Please, think of the Domo-kuns.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There's no bloat in command-line based configuration and administration via the text editor of your choice.
Well, we all know that most of the distros *can* be configured to run on older machines -- if you change all the defaults to load programs and interfaces running with lower memory requirements. Slack and Debian are probably the best for tis task.
But if you're looking for something designed for older PC's "out of the box" then Deli, Damn Small Linux, or most of the other live CD distributions designed for business card CD's will also work, since they're all designed for small memory footprints, which is probably the main constraint on older systems.
Deli, in particular, makes the interesting choice of using the 2.2.25 kernel, which should be good for older machines.
They do after I stir-fry them with a bit of Thai fish sauce.
Just curious if anyone can explain why should one choose Vector over another.
Not trying to be silly, or a flame.. just curious what they have to offer the others don't. Unless you get into the 'special use' distros like FreeSCO, or KnoppixCluster..
Coming from a BSD user viewpoint.. and an ex-Linux user from the old days ( before the thing would even self host ) I just don't see that much *real* difference from Distro A to Ditsro B, except perhaps for the dependency hell when you try to add new things... Part of why I ended up in the BSD camp. got tired of fighting with dependencies between RH/Debiain/etc.. ( that and the slow digression of the Linux camp in to a bunch of rabid religious neophytes... )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Reviews highlighting a distro built for speed are useful for those who are unable/unwilling to build their own Linux system.
Recently I bought a mini-itx system to put in my car. At that point, I wanted something lighweight (runs on VIA C3 Proc) and fast. I ended up building a Linux From Scratch system, but if I did not have the skill or inclination for something like that a distro optimized for slower hardware would be a great choice.
Even though I built a LFS system, I could have saved a bit of time by installing a binary distro. LFS took me several days of steady compiling to complete. (I did most of the build work on my desktop and simply copied the files over, but still.)
the_crowbarHave you read the Moderator Guidelines
hahahahaha... u teh funny makre
We have clearance, Clerance.
Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
I use and run Slackware. I installed 9.0 on my Compaq Aero (486sx33/8MB). X is unthinkable, but it runs text just fine. The biggest performance tuning came from putting `noatime` in /etc/fstab . Those atime writes were hurting performance with the buffer shortage.
There are some pretty interesting numbers...
It is interesting to say the least.
I'm searching for an adjective to describe this article. Somebody help me here...
Is vector compatibile with packages designed for slackware 9.0?
Actually, it comes on the disc but not installed by default :) Its a TGZ package
Harharhar! Hakenkreuz am Stahlhelm, schwarz-weiss-rotes Band, Sturmabteilung Hitler, werden wir genannt! SS marschiert, die Strasse frei, die Sturmkolonnen stehen, sie werden den Weg von Tyrannei in die Freiheit gehen, so seid bereit auf zum letzten Stoss wie uns're Vater's waren, der Tod sei unser Kampfgenoss, wir sind die schwarzen Scharen!
Your post reminded me to check the Knoppix site for a new version... and it looks like the project is dead, or at least comatose, due to the current states of patent law.
"Wie ist es mit Ihren Freunden von Dirk van den Broek" ??! ???!?!?!!? Und jetzt auf Deutsch?! Warum um Gottes Willen nicht AUF DEUTSCH VERFLUCHTES ELENDIGES NIEDERLAENDERPACK! Ihr seid eine Zumutung! "Hoe" so wie das englische 'How', Vriend wie das englische 'Friend' anstatt Freund. Freund?? Ihr seid eindeutig Feind! Wir haetten euch alle die Deutsche See aussaufen lassen sollen!
this was modded insightful instead of interesting :P
Somewhat OT, but the idea of a toned down but still functional Linux appeals to me. I had a similar idea of doing this to a distro not well known for being slim -- RedHat 9. For partially philosophical reasons, and partly because I was not getting any work done with all the gizmos cluttering my desktop, I decided to remove the clutter but not lose any functionality. (In my defense, I'm comfortable with Debian and some embedded, minimal distros and have built a Linux from the kernel sources to X).
./configure options carefully to minimize memory usage.
The hardware for this ongoing project is a 333MhZ PII laptop, 192M. I started by getting rid of the Gnome and KDE environments (well, most of it -- I kept the libraries and some select applications around). In their place I put in Fluxbox, choosing
Next, because I spend the majority of my time in the shell, I looked at some of the different xterms around. I was surprised that the native xterm, though much smaller than konsole or gnome-terminal, was still somewhat bloated in comparison with others such as aterm or rxvt. They didn't support transparent terminals but that's no biggie. The important thing was that they could do green-on-black terminals; also no biggie, but I was thinking about this because I made an assumption that a black background would use less battery than a white one. Of course, you could also ditch X entirely and run from a console but browsing the web in elinks or links, though great for documentation, kinda sucks for looking at Dolphin cheerleaders.
Next, I exchanged the stock RedHat kernel with a 2.6.0-test kernel (test9 at this writing). It does seem a lot faster, but I am still working out some module loading issues so there is some functional loss until I get these working. This is important because the goal is not to lose functionality for performance.
I've been testing different journaling modes for the ext3 filesystem. No benchmarks yet, but I understand that there's a decent performance boost to be had from using a different writeback mode.
These are all in addition to the standard tweaks such as using a lower bit depth on the X session, replacing apps with slimmer alternatives (Firebird for Mozilla, etc.). There are also dubious claims of speedups by just recompiling but in my case these gains weren't perceptible.
I'm about to replace syslog with one that batches writes. This will allow the drives to spin down. Since power management is otherwise functional it might gain some performance.
I wouldn't say that gentoo is exactly always smaller.
The binaries are roughly the same size (given)
But you find yourself compiling alot of libraries for your other programs to either link to or draw from.
That and all those source files lying about.
I suppose if you took the effort to manually unmerge and delete those uneeded libs and source files you'd be golden though....
I can't speak for the "hax0r" crowd,as I'm just an AC noob.
But, I was running Mandrake, and when I got my "new" machine (PII 450 IBM), I couldn't get mdk to work with the S3 Trio3D video. I had a Slackware 9.0 disk I had downloaded but had never tried (I guess I was scared it was too hardcore). I trew it in for the hell of it, and everything works great. Took some work, but I like it better.
Why not Debian or Gentoo? Well, I'm on dialup(with no choice in the matter), and even though I've tried Debian, it was SO far out of date, that I didn't want to run it. Apt-get is great, but try a dist upgrade on dialup.
And the last thing I want is to spend two days compiling everything in Gentoo.
Slackware 9.0 was one disc, up to date, and easy to set up. Explain why it is "inefficient". Works way faster than Mandrake did.
That's why I run it. YMMV.
if you have to ask then it's not for you.
I can make slack do anything I want. from a single floppy linux install based on slack to a full boat install.
you CANT do that with redhat or Debian,suse,whatever.. because they are not designed to do that or meet any standards.
Slackware is THE standard for how linux is supposed to be.
not the bastardization the rest are.
Its the name of course...
No but seriously, Slackware is probably the most secure, stable, and fastest distros out there. Nearly every application including the kernel is vanilla, meaning that you don't get all the screwy patches that aren't as widely tested. If you do a quick search on bugtraq, you'd find that redhat, mandrake, etc. have the biggest list of bugs. Most of these are due to the patches acting up, or too many things already preconfigured. If there is a vulnerability in, say sendmail, then its a vulnerability that affects all the distros. But if its a vulnerability caused by a poorly written patch, then slackware isn't going to be affected.
Also, slackware users tend to compile all the necessary applications that have to do with the internet. Slackware allows us to do this easily. On an RPM based system, when you compile something, it doesn't get entered into the RPM databases, so other applications won't know it exists. I'm simplifying the situation, but basically RPMs and custom-compiled applications dont' mix well. On the other hand, slackware's packages mix very well with apps you've compiled yourself.
As of a package manager, I'm sure you're aware of the packagetools available on slackware. New to Slack 9.1 is swaret, which does some dependency checking, upgrading, etc. You're right in saying that package management not quite as efficient here... but I guess slackware ppl don't mind too much. We ftp into our local mirror, cd into the patches directory, and download the necessary patches, check the md5sum (which is important for security), install it with one command, and that's it. I've got a fast connection... I can download packages at about 4-5Mbs/sec (I'm at a university), so the process of downloading the whole patches directory takes around a minute, md5sum takes another minute, and upgradepkg takes a couple minutes, and that's it.
And as of standards compliant, as I said before, nearly everything in slackware is from vanilla. That makes it extremely standards compliant.
As of benchmarks... I'm sure there are some available... but why don't you in your spare time, give Slackware 9.1 a shot. You look like someone who already knows your way around linux. It'll only take you a little while to get a slack-box up and running.
Ah, this old troll again. Always appears, in one form or another in a Slackware-related article. Guess I'll take this one...
Slackware Works.
It does its job efficiently (despite your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. What's so inefficient about it?), quietly, and without getting in your way. It runs on whatever hardware you throw at it. I've got Slack 9.1 running on my main Athlon machine, and the P133 laptop I kick around to do programming on. I'd like to see Red Hat or most other distro (save perhaps Gentoo and this Vector) do that.
What are these bugs of which you speak? The inefficiencies? The non-standards-compliancies? Heck WHAT are these standards? The filesystem hierarchy?
Package system? Who needs one. Build from source. That said, slackware HAS a package system. It's mainly useful for creating packages of programs you build from source so they can be moved around or uninstalled. Somebody wrote an apt-like thing for Slackware, but I don't plan on using it. Maybe I'm a huge geek with a little too much time on his hands, but there is something to be said from building from source, chasing down dependancies, chasing down THEIR dependancies, and sorting out build and config errors. Woe is they who try to build their first GTK2 app on a Slack 9.0 or earlier system, but when it's done an hour and three levels of ependancies later, you know you're set, and there's a feeling of having accomplished something. Non-geeks, the lazy, and the impatient won't appreciate this, of course, but not everything in this world has to be handed to you.
If you have to ask these questions, Slackware isn't for you. If you're just comming over from Windows, Slackware may also not be for you. If you're impatient and want to be hand-held by a distro that does everything for you, Slackware is not for you. If you're looking for a Windows clone, Slackware is not for you.
I wouldn't concern yourself too much about these questions and revelations. Slackware is not for you. Sorry, but it's your loss.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
And here it is with the correct link.
The install mechanism is way too basic for my needs. I installed it on an old laptop, and it wouldn't let me partition it the way I wanted.I wish they had options for more advanced users.
Slack has a package management tool ala apt-get. Conveniently, it is called slapt-get. It is fast, stable works with slackware.com, mirrors and repositories. It is just now coming out with dependency checking...
Check it out: http://software.jaos.org
I've met people like you before. They've never had to use linux in a professional capacity before. Slackware takes time, and time is money.
First off, Slackware does not "just work", and it is inefficient - you said so yourself: Package system? Who needs one. Build from source. The slackware packaging programs are crap. There are precious few scenarios where you need a different compile-time option, additionally, so compiling things is out the picture in terms of practicality of efficiency. I'm not sure if you knew this or not but the definition of 'efficiency' is "producing results, actively operative; not slack (emphasis mine) or incapable." I think that speaks for itself, but it seems I need to elaborate for you. Slackware is, by very definition, inefficient. Building your own packages when it's unnecessary is inefficient, yes (and no, you do not get a significant performance increase by doing so).
The standards I speak of are LSB standards. The bugs I speak of are in the design of the system: it encourages slackness in updating critical components due to the time involvement required. Don't think that's a bug? Then maybe "design flaw" is more apt. I know of quite a few people that run slack on multiple computers who do not have the time or motivation to constantly be updating them. Thus, as a result, they remain unpatched. Version control would be nice, here.
Now, your arguement for using slack as a learning tool (in the 'geek-ness' of chasing down deps, and the like) is valid and true, and I agree with you on that. I've learned quite a bit from doing such things myself, as well as doing a little LFS and various other things. But that's where it stops. It's impractical to constantly do those things. Once I understood how things work, and the concepts behind them, I found out there was a better way to do things. Debian might not be 'best of breed' but it does things well, and it does them susinctly. Hopefully you'll get past your fledgeling slackware stage like the rest of us, and figure these things out on your own.
As far as my initial questions, they were mainly intended as rhetoric. I know -why- people start using slack nowadays. It's because it's trendy, and there's an elitist culture built up around slack. Just join any slack IRC channel and you'll see what I mean.
When you grow up a little bit, you'll realize that there are things that are more important than the geekyness of your operating system. Things like spending time with your family. Showing affection towards those you love. Even something as banal as mowing the lawn or raking the leaves. Or maybe even doing something important, as actually writing code or being productive.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
That's actually valid in my book. Were I in your situation, I might find myself doing the same. Mandrake and RedHat are indeed crud when it comes to actually using a distro. When I first got into linux, I tried DOSLinux. Quite a bit higher learning curve involved there, compared to redhat at the time. Ended up getting it on my 386 laptop, and experimented with it until I was satisfied, and then put redhat on my main system. Wasn't long until I'd moved onto better things.
:) It's new enough for me, and really, you don't need to do an update daily or anything like that. I simply did an update once or twice a week (if that), and everything was fine.
As far as dialup is concerned, I ran debian sid on my p133 laptop two summers ago, and just did the updates overnight.
My post was mainly in contest to those that trumpet slack like it's the return of Christ. Glad
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
And as of standards compliant, as I said before, nearly everything in slackware is from vanilla. That makes it extremely standards compliant.
Thanks, that's the most humorous thing I've read all day.
Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!
Setting the right compiler options for your hardware can make a small difference. Most people, though, don;t have a clue about setting compiler options.
Hardware itself makes a much greater difference. Any OS running on a Pentium 4 3 gHz with a large UDMA133 drive and a $500 video card will be faster than the same OS running on a 486SX-25 an ancient drive and a $35 video card. One would think that's obvious.
Most of these so-called performamce tests are silly. One guy finds Thing A is faster on his hardware than Thing B. Doesn't mean that will happen on my hardware.
The real test is you, and that's subjective. If its fast enough for you, it's fast enough.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I'm the AC poster from before.
You said you ran Debian sid on a laptop. Was this installed as Woody and upgraded? I thought of doing that, but I didn't even want to do that one major upgrade on dialup.
I didn't think there were any cd's available for sid. But the last time I used Debian, I think it was potato (2.2 r3 or something), and it was too old for my tastes.
I haven't checked out woody, mainly because I didn't want to download so many discs. It may be new enough for me now. I guess I could get them at cheapbytes or something.
So the question is, should I stick with slack and use swaret or slapt-get (haven't tried them yet), or try Debian again? I was thinking of upgrading to slack 9.1, which is now two discs.
Either way, I don't think I'll go back to a RPM distro.
What could be more trendy than Gentoo right now?
Who gets to define what things are more important in each of our lives? Not you I think...
hopefully you'll see this, Mr. AC...
Yes, that is what I did. It's a fairly negligable upgrade if you do it properly; that is, install debian woody, and then immidiately thereafter, do an apt-get dist-upgrade, so that you're not downloading packages twice. I think that would take about 20M - 25M of redundant space. Additionally, I'm fairly certain there are debian sid ISOs and the like available via debian's site, linked externally.
As far as debian being so many disks, I've got no experience with that. Whether being on dialup or broadband, I've always just apt-get installed what I've needed. I'm fairly certain you can get nearly every package you'll ever need on the first 2 disks of debian, but being as debian has damned near everything, there are extra disks.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I thought I should mention that the initial install was a base install (netinst), and by no means was it a full install.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Fast distros matter heaps. Most of us can't afford to change our boxes often. Modern distros are getting larger, and slower. Particularly if you want to run KDE or Gnome. (Yes, KDE and Gnome are getting faster. Yes I recompile the kernel: my favourite distro is libranet which makes that easy). I'm now finding that my pentium 3 laptop is getting sluggish. Slackware is noticeably faster than Libranet on that: both are faster than Red Hat: this means I can use gnome instead of fluxbox on that machine. I want to keep that laptop going for at least another two years. (Now, if I can only apt-get R, Lyx, and ESS!)
Chris Gale Dunedin, New Zealand. http://www.pukeko.net.nz
and excessivly cromulent.
Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
i have a brand new (built myself) 2000 desktop. It runs everything as fast as you can imagine under windows but install redhat/mandrake and I soon notice the slight lags. Thats where vector comes into its own. its JUST as responsive as windows, doesn't hide the details away like some of its larger brothers, but isn't as difficult to get going as slack/gentoo.
as i vector user, i must say its the best distro i've ever come across.
anon