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. "

109 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Okay, "stupid question" time by Illbay · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Being software-illiterate, will someone please explain to me how this really matters?

    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.
    1. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by daBass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Performace won't matter much, except for self-compile distros, where you can get about 10% better performance. But it is a bit silly, on any distro the kernel is easy to compile and so are any applications you really use (database, webserver). But I don't see the point in making vi run 10% faster...

    2. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The significance is this: I just installed Vector 4 on a 233MHz machine with 32 meg of RAM that I bought for 1 (One pound sterling) from my employer who was chucking it out. I will use it for word processing and other basic tasks and it will be just fine. It has the speed of Windows 95 (which was previously on board) but it's a modern operating system with all the capabilities that implies. I am well pleased.

    3. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Valar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the issue is that different distrobutions include different sets of tools. Some, for example, include many more daemons (think apache, mysql, etc) and turn them on by default. Also, there will be a noticible difference between Gentoo built for Athlon versus Gentoo built for i386, for example. Similarly, the default build instructions are different for different distros. You might download a Redhat ISO targetted for the i586 (pentium) or perhaps Mandrake targetted at i686. So in those cases, often, it would matter.

    4. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by rendler · · Score: 1

      Also the different features that can be enabled on those different software packages that will require things like linking to an external library or adding extra internal code bloat. An example is the exim package in Debian depends on libldap2 for those that don't need LDAP it would be considered uneeded bloatness.

      --

      *shrug*
    5. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Informative
      So how is it that you can have significant differences between distros in "performance"?

      Quite easily if you use them as they come out of the box.

      I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but in the past when I played around with RedHat and Mandrake before going back to Slackware, I noticed a general sluggishness about those distros.

      Most of that got fixed when I rebuilt the kernel my own way, but other aspects such as slow init loading never got fixed until I threw those distros out.

      I haven't been able to read the article yet, since it is presumably slashdotted, but I would have thought most benchmarks against Slackware 9.1 would be irrelevant, since the majority of Slackware heads compile their own apps and kernels. In other words, it makes more sense to compare it against Slack in a way that the latter might be assumed to be implemented. Yes, I know that's hard, since Slackware fans tend to be an individualistic lot, but that's too bad.

      And yes, I know Gentoo does that, but Slackware gives you a system that works so that you can compile stuff at your leisure, rather than having to leave a machine out of action for hours/days while everything gets built.

    6. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by watzinaneihm · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you take a typical redhat kernel, it has support for AMD and Intel both built in,SSE2 and MMX are both on etc., meaning it is not optimised for either.It also enables a lot of stuff like i2c bus support on, which is useful for servers etc. Then there are stuff like patches for faster GUI response etc. which can be added to improve apparent speed. Modules being built in versus loaded matters a lot too.This is for the kernel.
      When it comes to tools, there are so many tools available in the typical GNU stuff that choosing a different one can change performance for different stuff. A change in init can increase bootp speed, since this distro is based on another distro here this would not matter. What they probably did is to change a few package options to tweak the speed.For webserver performance you can tweak Apache (this ofcourse depends on knowing your typical load etc.).
      Certainly there cant be a significant speed increase between distros, but if you know what you want, then you can compile your packages and set options well enough on YOUR system and get a significant boost.

      --
      .ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
    7. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It also enables a lot of stuff like i2c bus support on, which is useful for servers etc.

      I2C is useful for your home computer, too. SMBus is an I2C bus, which is the temperature/fan speed monitoring/health status information bus for your PC. DDC2 (How your video card gets information from your monitor) is implemented with an I2C bus on your video card.

      Here ends the pedentry concerning I2C.

    8. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Illbay · · Score: 1
      Certainly there cant be a significant speed increase between distros, but if you know what you want, then you can compile your packages and set options well enough on YOUR system and get a significant boost.

      I guess that's the point of my confusion. I mean, you get the entire RH distro source code (as you do all "legitimate" distros--don't know what Lindows provides, for example), and you can essentially roll your own, if you know how (and anyone who's so obsessed with performance IS going to know how).

      So in the end, it's Linux, and you can customize however you want. True, systems like Gentoo make it EASY for you to customize, and you have features like the ports system or RPM, whatever, but as far as SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (as distinct from system administration), it's just Linux.

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    9. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Illbay · · Score: 1
      The significance is this: I just installed Vector 4 on a 233MHz machine with 32 meg of RAM that I bought for 1 (One pound sterling) from my employer who was chucking it out.

      Yes, yes, I understand that you can build a function Linux system using cast-off hardware, etc. (I ran my email/web server for a couple of years on an old 486DX2-66 with RH 5.x, and never noticed any sort of "performance hit," other than that I could not run X on it with the old 1MB Trident ISA graphics card that I had on it.

      But that's not really the answer to the question I posed.

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    10. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by yarbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can pick your own compile settings. Normally people don't pick these intelligently, but that's beside the point. There can be performance differences, but there are people out there who spend a ton of money on cooling for a small overclock, so what's so bad about compiling for a little extra performance? Also, there are USE flags which can set the functionality at compile time. Want to use a program without a front end? set -X, want to use ungif instead of gif? set -gif, etc...

    11. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      part of the sluggishness is, because they are commercial distros, they have to work out of the box. they can't require tons of fiddling, recompiling, etc. and yes, in the install, afaik, drake does let you turn off all the uneeded services, and will even ask you when yo install apache, et al., if you want to turn them on by default. but, the fact is, they have to work. and since they are commercial, they can take an approach to their distro based on the standard, common hardware around. for instance, most people are at around a P3 with min. 128MB ram. so, a little bloat is overcome with hardware. is that okay? well, maybe.

      on another, sorta related note, don't let anyone tell you that that makes linux harder to set up. i just got a new g4 ibook (awesome), and when i had to set up my airport card, it asked for the password. since i use 128bit encryption on my wifi router, i had to type in the number. two times it don't work. damn!! oh yeah, it's hex, so pwd is 0xABCDEF... ya think there's a clue in the user's manual? nope. how many people are sitting around with a shiny new mac unable to connect to their wifi?

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    12. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by fdawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree, what really sets this distribution apart from any other distribution besides the obvious bootup and daemon start up tweaks?

      Most of the benchmarks on this review are all kernel dependant. Wouldnt it be safe to say that the same numbers can be found in any modern distribution if they use the same kernel patches/optimizations?

      This leads me to my next question. Its true not all distributions are created equall and all distro maintainers do their own black magic to tweak their kernels. But, rarely do I see these optimizations published; as in a list form or even a howto. I am a longtime Slackware fanatic (circa slack2.1 to present) and have always swore by it if for nothing more than the fact that its kernels are straight vanilla with no patches. Now here comes VL which is said to be "faster". How? If i were to remove all running daemons that I dont use (which I do upon a knee-jerk reflex response after a fresh install anyway), wouldnt I get the same speed ups? What did they do to their kernels? How do I find out?

      I switched from Slackware to Debian last week (oh how painful it was...really) on my desktop and I am keeping slack on my laptop. All my development is done on the laptop and Id rather not have to figure out why code I wrote last week no longer wants to work because of some strange header problem between distros. First thing I did was install a vanilla kernel since I really dont trust any distribution's kernel unless I KNOW its vanilla. Anyway, I notice no speed difference. What does the slackware world think about this? Am I missing out by using the vanilla sources? Are there some optimizations that the rest of the world swears by that may increase my speed somewhat?

    13. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Theatetus · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      I use Gentoo but not because I think the "build-it-yourself" stuff makes anything faster. I am one of the ones who can use flags well, but what's useful about that is the "USE" flags: emacs modes get installed automatically or not, documentation gets installed automatically or not, etc.. What is cooler than the local building about Gentoo is that I find portage personally easier to use than apt, and Gentoo's init & rc setup is IMO just awesome.

      That and the splash screen. We all pretend it's not important, but a distro's artwork is huge part of what sets it apart from other distros.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    14. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by daBass · · Score: 1

      BS it is then! :) Just repeating the Gentoo marketing hype...

    15. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is cooler than the local building about Gentoo is that I find portage personally easier to use than apt, and Gentoo's init & rc setup is IMO just awesome.

      You don't have to stick to your distros init & rc setup. You could even make "init" a bash script containing functions for every runlevel, and have it call the appropriate one, based on the parameters passed.

      Personally, I use just 3 bootscripts, one to start, one to stop, and one to enter multi user mode. For me, the best distro is the one that has the least amount of bloat to whine about me changing things around.

      I use Crux, a much more user-managed distribution than Gentoo, and have taken out devfs, hacked the init scripts, hacked the ports tree to my liking, etc. Using Gentoo from Crux is honestly like moving from a manual transmission to an automatic (something I'll never, ever do.

      I like ports trees that are easy to hack, not done for you (there are always times when you really want ports to behave differently than the official tree).

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    16. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Informative
      I call bullshit. Unless you're doing something stupid, like using bog i386 binaries on a PIV or PIV optimised binaries on an Athlon, you'll get nowhere near 10% performance increase just by recompiling from source.

      I've easily got 10% performance improvement from compile-it-yourself distros (LFS and gentoo are the two I run here) for a number of reasons:
      • The cumulative effects of optimisations to a number of packages can be significant. When X and Gnome and ImageMagick and the Gimp and glibc and the kernel are all optimised for this exact machine (and yes I know what I'm doing with flags), then its faster - starting with kernel block memory copies and working up from there.
      • Code and shared library sizes are smaller because I didn't include the --with-kde flag or whatever when I knew I wasn't using it.
      • Some obscure flags make a huge difference - like --no-g++-exceptions on Qt and KDE. I've found the speed increase to be 50% in some cases which you just don't get when installing a bog-standard binary without those flags enabled.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    17. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      We all know what Gentoo has to offer. This is a Vector Linux article. We should discuss the technical merits and faults of Vector Linux, not use it as a soap-box for Gentoo zealots to blow their wad over how great they think their distro is.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    18. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by dollar70 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Why don't you just shell out on a decent computer?

      Oh, that's an easy one! I love buying new computers. This computer that I'm on now is a "Belchfire" computer with GHz to spare, and the one in the other room is an amazing little devil with a lot of spunk. But down in the basement is where my "server box" is. This is a computer I don't want to have to touch. I just want it to quietly do its job 24/7. The fact that it is an older technology doesn't prevent it from performing exactly the same as when it was a new technology.

      Do I need to spend another $500 for yet another full featured PC when all I really wanted was a box that took care of a rather menial webserving task? No. I want a cheap reliable OS with staight-forward tools that will do their job in the dank darkness of my dungeon while I enjoy the cozy comfort up here in my living room.

      Another point is that modern computers come with bells and whistles to entice consumers. These things can get in the way of straight forward tasks where a person isn't going to be there to respond. (Pop up dialogs, commercial offers, etc...)

      And remember: There's no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid people asking needless questions. ;-)

    19. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by yarbo · · Score: 1

      read the parent to my post, he brought Gentoo into this, not me. I replied before he was modded down btw.

    20. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      I know...I was more making the coment about him. It's never offtopic if it makes sense wrt the parent post :)

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    21. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      It keeps the toxic chemicals from leaching into groundwater for a few more years.

    22. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Khazunga · · Score: 1
      Oh, you just have to try semi-automatic transmitions, like Tiptronic. Amazing pieces of machinery.

      I'd equate Gentoo to a semi-automatic.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    23. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by EverDense · · Score: 1

      I'd equate Gentoo to sending away for a kit, and then making your own bullets.

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    24. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Still, I am comfortable driving my manual, and see no reason to change. There is no perturbation to solve.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    25. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Cloud+K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Why don't you just shell out on a decent computer?"

      A fair enough question.

      My answer: I work for a charity. They can't afford to shell out on a decent computer. Heck at the moment they even struggle buying inkjet cartridges.

      Currently we're running a PC refurbishment scheme where, older systems (e.g. currently a lot of K6-2/300s for some reason) which would've been on their way to landfill are donated to us. I then install Linux onto them and either sell them on cheap to support the charity's income (for members of the public who simply don't need anything more) or give them away to disadvantaged people and families through referral schemes.

      It's a fairly new project, and I've been through a good few distros (Slackware, Gentoo, Peanut...) looking for one that's both simple to use for the target audience (everyday people) and runs smoothly on this older hardware. Obsolete versions of RedHat didn't really appeal to me. Peanut has been the choice so far, but Vector definitely sounds right on the mark.

    26. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      I'll second Crux linux as a wonderful distro :) But it is something which will scare a lot of users away, as almost all functionality you have to add in yourself.

      Vector Linux looks like a "halfway house" between the bloated nature of the mainstream distros, and the minimalism of Crux. This can only be a good thing ...

    27. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. In that vein you have Arch Linux, based off Crux, but comes with way more packages on the cd, and simplifies things for newcomers a lot.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    28. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by 00420 · · Score: 1

      I then install Linux onto them and either sell them on cheap to support the charity's income (for members of the public who simply don't need anything more) or give them away to disadvantaged people and families through referral schemes.

      You, my friend, are a good man.

    29. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      Just a note, it's been mentioned to me that "scheme" is a rather negative word in the US. Rest assured that I meant the positive version (UK), as in "refurbishment initiative" or "referral agreements"

      Also charity = completely non-profit here, by law, and proven in account bookkeeping :)

    30. Re:Okay, "stupid question" time by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      I work for a good organisation.

      Incidentally, in the process we also try to stress that Linux isn't a "free cut-down alternative to Windows" which is an easy, but false, impression for people to get in these circumstances.

  2. Don't like the website by Ianoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Don't like the website by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I have an older 486 laptop that I still use as a glorified terminal. I currently have Caldera on it but it's a bit bulky for a 486sx with only 4megs of ram.

      I *could* buy more ram, I could buy a bigger HD, but that would be investing money in a POS 486sx laptop. I could buy a new laptop but all I need is a glorified terminal.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    2. Re:Don't like the website by Rutulian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and I haven't seen a hard disk in a machine (even consumer devices) that's under 1GB in years.

      I think that's the point. This distribution is meant for older hardware. When a 1GB hard disk was as large as you could get.

    3. Re:Don't like the website by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Slack 8.1 works for me on a 486 laptop with 4mb ram... check the 4mb Laptop Howto for some good hints on making it better.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    4. Re:Don't like the website by Talez · · Score: 1

      I currently have Caldera on it

      Come on, Daryl. We know its you!

    5. Re:Don't like the website by mse61 · · Score: 1

      /me points at Debian 3.0 Testing running on P1 Laptop. Makes a great, inexpensive mobile hacking station. It's only got a 1GB hdd and no CDROM so i had to be very selective about what OS to use. Debian at the time was the only one that had a floppy based install and was compact. Had i know about it at the time i would have figured out some way to get Vector installed on it. Seems to be a more complete, less "oh, crap i need to download a package".

      --
      ++mse61--
    6. Re:Don't like the website by ShadowDrake · · Score: 1

      Why not go old?

      There are a couple distros with *0.99* kernels available on an archive somewhere. I tried an early Debian (from floppies!) on my 486/40... while it was equipped with the full compliment of 20Mb memory, XF86 still sucked, so I went back to GEM and FreeDOS.

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
    7. Re:Don't like the website by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Yea, I could also switch to Slack 8.1, I could check out this vector stuff. Or I could just forget about it and declair victory.

      Caldera was my choice not because it offers anything special over Slack, it was just something that I got in the mail that had a pre-compiled kernel that wouldn't choke on my lack of a mathco.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  3. we need a new cliche by rootofevil · · Score: 2, Funny

    every time you slashdot a server, god kills a kitten.

    please, think of the kittens.

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    1. Re:we need a new cliche by PunchMonkey · · Score: 1

      Seems like "Here comes the science" would do very well on /. :-)

      --
      I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
  4. bloat by stonebeat.org · · Score: 1

    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.

  5. The 4th kind of lie by tangent3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdotters should know by know that there are now 4 kind of lies. Lies, damned lies, statistics and benchmarks.

  6. The only problem with it.. by naterosen · · Score: 1

    It doesn't come with XFce4! (WHich was a bitch to compile with all those friggin module directories to go through!)

  7. Uggh by Zanek · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Uggh by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Screw the performance, we need a linux distro that is componentizd, easy to use, and pluggable !

      So go and create one

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    2. Re:Uggh by stm2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe Morphix Linux is what you are looking for. It has a "base" system and then you could add "modules". there are some modules ready for download or you could download an ISO with some modules installed.

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    3. Re:Uggh by adamruck · · Score: 1

      just go with redhat then, performance sucks, but it works well and is easy to use

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    4. Re:Uggh by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 1

      The parent does sound like an idealistic plea, but the concept of a simple, componentised distro is going to be very important in the future if Linux is going to win desktop space.

      It would be very nice (IMO), for instance to have a nice CLEAN /dev directory (maybe make things easier and call it /devices instead) with things organised in a monkey-could-understand intuitive way. A clean and modular replacement and/or extension to X, with, say, and OpenGL backend and native SVG support would do wonders yet still provide flexibility, and so on and so forth.. I could add a quick plug for Gentoo while I'm at it and say a system such as portage would be excellent for installing & removing programs (it doesn't have to be portage, but it would be nice if it were just as simple)

      Are there any distro projects (aside from Morphix Linux) that really aim to simplify and tidy up Linux as much as is possible?

      If it's within my coding capabilities, I'd even like to undertake such a project myself given the time..

  8. Great distro by Beek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Runs comfortably on my P133 with 48 MB of RAM.

    Although I am curious what other modern distros will run on such a machine?

    1. Re:Great distro by MattGWU · · Score: 1

      Slackware 9.1.

      Have it running on my laptop of similar spec. It's pretty snappy in console, or running X with Fluxbox. Stay away from the obvious hogs like Mozilla or massive PDFs and you'll be fine.

      --
      "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    2. Re:Great distro by scosol · · Score: 1

      Uhm- all of them?

      What do you mean exactly?
      GNOME or KDE is certainly out of the question for that machine.
      And I would bw hesitant about X at all-
      But my P133/32MB fileserver can happily saturate it's 100TX connection, so that's all I need :)
      (It runs FreeBSD btw)

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
  9. 233Mhz is slow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:233Mhz is slow? by xsbellx · · Score: 1
      How about starting the benchmarks on a 386 with 4 megs of RAM and working up to that mighty 233 monster.

      [WARNING: Strictly opinion with no facts to back it up]

      You make an interesting point. Yes, most benchmarks are done on fairly substantial hardware but this generally reflects the typical "desktop" Linux user. Unfortunately, these benchmarks do not adequately take into account the MANY server/router systems in use. These are, in many cases, aging systems that have been replaced as the "main" system and can be dedicated to a specific task or tasks.
      [/WARNING]

      It would be great to see a series of benchmarks comparing various distros on other less "muscular" hardware. I would be very interested in seeing how Debian, Slackware/Vector, Suse, Redhat/Mandrake and Gentoo compare on systems like a 486/16MB, P90/32MB, PII 300/64MB and a PIII 500/64MB. Yes, I realize some of the hardware does not meet the minimal requirements of the some of the distributions and in such cases, the distro would receive a score of zero for the particular configuration.

      Although I have limited access to older hardware, I would be happy to provide such information for a P166 with either 64MB or 32MB.
      --
      If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
    2. Re:233Mhz is slow? by mst76 · · Score: 1

      > I'd be most interested in the differences between say a 486DX66 with 128Megs and a P90with 32Megs.

      A 486 with 128MB ram would be pretty interesting in itself.

    3. Re:233Mhz is slow? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I owned a number (2) of 486 motherboards with four 72 pin SIMM sockets. I could just never afford 32MB SIMMs. (I have a bunch of 'em now.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:233Mhz is slow? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      I have a spare P90 with 64 MB ram on it. I'll tell you *exactly* how "modern" distros like Mandrake/SuSE/Redhat run... ..like shit.

      Oh, the CLI version runs just fine, but the moment you toss a GUI onto it, bye bye usefullness.

      BeOS on the other hand, is perfect at that speed. Lightweight GUI and consistant OS, no legacy baggage and all that.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    5. Re:233Mhz is slow? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      One of the embedded systems I work on is a 486DX99 with 256MB. There's a lot of stuff interesting about this machine, but being a 486 is not one of them.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:233Mhz is slow? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      RJH: "Hey boss, we need to set up a webserver for the new project"
      PHB: "Sure go ahead. Use one of the old 486 Microns"
      RJH: "But we can't use a 486! It's way to slow!"
      PHB: "There's only five people on the project. Surely that old Micron can handle it"
      RJH: "But it only has 16MB. There's no way I can run GNOME on it!"
      PHB: "I thought you said this was to be a webserver?"
      RJH: [grumble grumble]

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    7. Re:233Mhz is slow? by ShadowDrake · · Score: 1

      There may be addressable size problems.

      I have a 486 laptop (Dual Group DC-4000-- now there's a weird box), and it seems to only understand 4Mb SIMMs. That includes attempts to use 8Mb EDO SIMMs, 16Mb FPM ones, and a 32M SIMM from a HP PA-RISC pizza

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
    8. Re:233Mhz is slow? by chasec · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have a 386? In my day, we didn't have no fancy-schmancy 386s. We had an abacus, and we liked it!

      I overclocked my abacus, and that thing was fast. It runs linux as fast as you can move the beads.

      Kids these days...

    9. Re:233Mhz is slow? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with that pretty much. I've a router machine/firewall/occasional FTP (P90 32MB, 500MB HD) running RH7.3, which works fine, but then it's hardly being pushed. It certainly wouldn't run X at any useful speed on its 1MB graphic card!

      However, I still find X sluggish compared to Windows even on a reasonable machine. I use Gentoo at work, on a P4 2.4ghz with (admittedly crap) SiS graphic card, and 256MB of RAM (32MB shared to gfx). Since I mostly use terminals, this is all fine and dandy, but if I start up, for example, Mozilla then the waiting starts.

      Moz takes a good 15-20 seconds to appear, OpenOffice over half a minute to come up with a small spreadsheet. I attribute some of this to the fact I'm running KDE, but even under Gnome it's really little faster. Evolution is "ok", but even something as simple(?) as filtering the inbox into separate folders takes a long time (I do clear out mail so there's never more than a coupld of hundred messages in any box).

      In short, Linux is a great server (I run quite a few with RH/Gentoo), but it's not as snappy as Windows on the desktop; I'll still stay with it though ;-)

    10. Re:233Mhz is slow? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      Oooo! Listen to mr "Fancy Pants" with his abacus. We weren't all millionaires you know! I had to crunch numbers by using a system of mudballs and sticks in the swamps where us "commoners" had to live while you lot lived it up!!

      Grrr!!

  10. Good by d-Orb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 :-)

    1. Re:Good by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

      Vector had a very 'nice' install, not difficult at all, even as dual boot.

  11. I am rolling it out in a school by codepunk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:I am rolling it out in a school by fdawg · · Score: 1

      Wait until all 50 of those workstations press the "mozilla" button in gnome. XDMCP with 50 clients sounds like mortal sin to me. Good luck.

    2. Re:I am rolling it out in a school by Beek · · Score: 1

      There is no GNOME or Mozilla in Vector Linux.

    3. Re:I am rolling it out in a school by fdawg · · Score: 1

      There is in Mandrake and since you're using XDMCP, there is on all of your clients.

    4. Re:I am rolling it out in a school by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      > It's crap, he's lying, whoring for karma. Hello!!!

      That's "Hello World" to you, punk. Either that or HELO. Please to remember, this _is_ Slashdot.

    5. Re:I am rolling it out in a school by codepunk · · Score: 1

      I am not a school kid, I do this shit for a living. Say what you want but it works and it works extremely well. Actually they are using the firebird browser and it is working really nice(low footprint). I suggest you just log back into your XP machine and quit trolling on slashdot.

      --


      Got Code?
    6. Re:I am rolling it out in a school by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      There is Mozilla Firebird in VL 4.0

      Which, incidentally, won't partition a VMware hard drive without dropping to command line and using fdisk.

      Its neat, pretty, fast and simple. Its a great distro for schools, I'm gonna give it to my kid to play with.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  12. New Acronym discovered... by twoslice · · Score: 1
    Yet Another PHP-Nuke-Alike

    YAPNA

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
  13. The solution... by leoboiko · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...slashdot God!

    --
    Prescriptive grammar:linguistics :: alchemy:chemistry. Stop being a nazi and learn some science.
  14. "Two pages long" by Karamchand · · Score: 1

    This phrase is funny insofar that the term "page" does not give any clue how long a "web page" is. :-)

    1. Re:"Two pages long" by keller · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter nobody RTFA anyway!!!

      --

      Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!

    2. Re:"Two pages long" by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter nobody RTFA anyway!!!

      True, but we did all go to vector's site and download the ISO, right?

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  15. Every time you make that joke... by yerricde · · Score: 2, Funny

    Every time you make that f*@!(%# joke, God kills a Domo-kun.

    Please, think of the Domo-kuns.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Every time you make that joke... by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      but you see, thats what makes it such a great cliche

      along with:

      all your base
      soviet russia
      beowulf clusters
      the intel divide error

      together we can run any joke into the ground!

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    2. Re:Every time you make that joke... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      I'm a washed up comedian and use those jokes to survive on, you insensitive clod!

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  16. Seems to me... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
    ... tht if we want "a bloat free, easy to install, configure and maintain Slackware based system" then the best thing anyone can do is simply install Slackware and configure it properly.

    There's no bloat in command-line based configuration and administration via the text editor of your choice.

  17. Lightweight Distros by MuParadigm · · Score: 3, Informative


    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.

  18. Re:I always think of kittens by BJH · · Score: 1

    They do after I stir-fry them with a bit of Thai fish sauce.

  19. Why Why Vector? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    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 ----
  20. Re:Good move by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
    Great, now no one has to RTFA. Oh wait, I forgot this is /.

    Well, I had to be patient to RTFA, but I did so and was disappointed.

    OK, as a disclaimer, I admit to being a big fan of Slackware, but it seems to me that the benchmark comparisons made in the FA are invidious.

    Pat V. deliberately leaves the default kernels in Slackware unpatched. The idea is that users will apply the patches that they require, and recompile kernels as appropriate, but not bulk the kernel out unnecessarily. This implies an assumption of a certain level of expertise in the user. The days when Slackware heads were equated with Satan worshippers are now well and truly past, but I would not particularly recommend Slack for the linux newbie.

    This is not to belittle the efforts of the Vector distributors: There is lots to be gained by combining the simplicity of Slackware's packaging and configuration with an easy-to-use interface.

  21. For those who do not want to build their own by the_crowbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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_crowbar
    --
    Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
    1. Re:For those who do not want to build their own by zealotasd · · Score: 1

      Now you know why opensource programs are distributed in pre-compiled binary form *AND* provided in a .RPM or .DEB package.

      What I would like to see is a compressed package that can self-compile and export a binary or source of a .RPM or .DEB without having .RPM or .DEB available in the environment.

      LFS (Linux From Scratch) is a verry viable solution. Some computers have so many anomalies with all distributions that it is of greater ease to have the most simple environment installed as LFS and then slowly compile and build that environment to what you need. We don't need all the bloat-applciations of KDE and Gnome, we just need the applications we asked for: web browser, eMail client, word processor, cdr software for backup data, video conferencing; aka glorified type-writer.

      --

      Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
  22. the only thing i can think of... by bobsalt · · Score: 1

    We have clearance, Clerance.
    Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?


  23. `noatime` by redelm · · Score: 1
    I find it somewhat farcical/Windowseque to compare distros on speed. Learn to tune what you've got.

    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.

    1. Re:`noatime` by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I used to run linux with X and netscape on a 386DX25 with 8MB ram and a 1MB ISA VGA card. It wasn't fast, but it was usable. If you can't manage to use X on your 486SX33 8MB, you're using the wrong X, and the wrong apps. Step one: Forget KDE and GNOME altogether.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Re:Yeah? So? by fdawg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Itd be a joke if it wasnt true.

    "#apt-get install flame-armor increased-karma"

  25. How very... (what's the word I'm looking for) by joeslugg · · Score: 4, Funny
    The interesting thing here is...
    ...but the interesting thing about it was...
    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...

    1. Re:How very... (what's the word I'm looking for) by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      Very interesting ... but stupid!

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  26. packages? by Danathar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is vector compatibile with packages designed for slackware 9.0?

  27. XFce4 is on the disc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, it comes on the disc but not installed by default :) Its a TGZ package

  28. and the saddest part is that by shweazel · · Score: 1

    this was modded insightful instead of interesting :P

  29. OT -- Back to Basics by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

    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 ./configure options carefully to minimize memory usage.

    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.

    1. Re:OT -- Back to Basics by YoJ · · Score: 1

      Changing the color of your desktop will not affect battery life. The backlight is always "on", the colors come about by the LCD pixels filtering the white backlight. The only way to save battery power this way is to run the backlight on less power.

  30. Re:Knoppix dead? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    No, when a site says "Closed", I don't typically go hunting for new content on it.

  31. Re:MY response: by MattGWU · · Score: 1

    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:
  32. Morphix Linux indeed by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 1

    And here it is with the correct link.

  33. Basic Install by JThundley · · Score: 1

    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.

  34. Re:my response: by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    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.

    As far as dialup is concerned, I ran debian sid on my p133 laptop two summers ago, and just did the updates overnight. :) 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.

    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
  35. Real Performance Tests Are Subjective by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"
  36. Re:MY response: by Slack(er)ware · · Score: 1

    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...

  37. Re:my response: by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    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
  38. Re:my response: by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    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
  39. It matters if you are not a corporation. by apeteryx · · Score: 1

    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
  40. Intersting by zealotasd · · Score: 1

    and excessivly cromulent.

    --

    Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor