Linux Distro Elive Emerges Alive After 8-Year Hibernation (theregister.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Distro Elive Emerges Alive After 8-Year Hibernation (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @05:20AM from the how-about-that dept.

Designed to run on minimal hardware, Elive is very much a passion project of its leader, Samuel F Baggen. Based on Debian, the first version took a bow in 2005. The second stable version made an appearance in 2010 and it has been a long eight years for the third stable version to become available. The Register: Elive has an impressively low bar to entry, with hardware requirements for the distribution coming in at 256 MB RAM and a 500 MHz CPU, meaning that some very elderly silicon is theoretically going to be able to enjoy the highly polished Enlightenment desktop. "Theoretically" because after The Register took Elive 3.0.0 out for a spin on a relatively low-powered laptop, we'd frankly baulk at running it on anything much slower than a 533MHz Core 2 with at least 512 MB RAM. However, the Enlightenment UI is undeniably an attractive desktop, particularly if a macOS-alike dock is your thing, and runs at an impressive lick even on hardware that lacks graphics acceleration.

At its core, Elive is based on the Debian 8 distribution (aka Jessie), using the 3.16 kernel and version 0.17.6 of the Enlightenment X11 Window Manager. It comes replete with a full set of applications, including the ubiquitous LibreOffice and Gimp, along with a variety of productivity and entertainment tools, some of which are Elive's own. Unlike the previous version of Elive, 3.0.0 removes the requirement of donating to the project in order to install the thing locally (although Baggen was quick to tell The Reg that cost-free alternatives existed, but often with annoying processes).

36 of 89 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

it has no purpose that is already met by iggymanz · 2018-09-11 05:25 · Score: 2

plenty of low memory/disk Linux distros out there for i386...
And there are the BSD too, OpenBSD desktop can work with 32MB of RAM and 250MB disk, just as example.
1. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-11 05:32 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I love BSD! It's Unix without the faggotry, zealotry, and drama that comes with Linux.
2. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by commodore64_love · 2018-09-11 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  My favorite "tiny" Linux distribution is "Puppy" because it's just so cuuuute ;-) And only needs 64 MB and a 486 CPU. Of course for actual real work Lubuntu is my preferred lightweight system.
  - I had to laugh when the article said "we recommend 512 MB". I'm still running an ancient Pentium 4 with XP on that exact amount of memory. I figure: Until the power supply or hard drive dies, I'll just keep using this ancient unit to watch youtube, read Gmail, etc.
  It's almost twenty years old! (Although my Sears TV has that beat... it surpassed 40 years a few months ago. I used to play Atari games on it!)
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
3. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by iggymanz · 2018-09-11 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  it's faster to type 'systemd' than that phrase
4. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-11 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's about the only case where systemd is faster.
5. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by iggymanz · 2018-09-11 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  damn small linux can go down to 16MB on 486
  more RAM is recommended though 8D
6. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by tkotz · 2018-09-11 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  If the goal is low power, an under-clocked modern CPU may be a better option to an older CPU.
7. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by iggymanz · 2018-09-11 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  for fast, you should see a server when systemd goes full retard and takes everything up and down again in an endless cycle. it does that really really fast.
  I've yet to meet a serious systems admin in charge of hundreds or thousands of servers that thinks systemd is good think. they all say something akin to "maggot infested shit" in more diplomatic tones
8. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by Raenex · 2018-09-11 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure hackers like going through your Gmail too. Seriously, running XP? When's the last time that OS got a security update? When's the last time the browser you're running on it did?
9. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by thanatermesis · 2018-09-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  it has no purpose...
  Definitively you didn't tried it saying this kind of comment No offense, it is a very DIFFERENT system and the goal is absolutely not low resources, check the new homepage to see all the characteristics, low resources is just one of the much features and an important one
10. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-12 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  I guarantee you it's better off than a system running with known exploits.
  Better known exploits than unknown ones like on your "agile", trial-and-error, end-user beta test pile of shit.
  
  No it isn't.
  Yep, it's easy. You're just a noob who doesn't know how to use a computer.
11. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by Raenex · 2018-09-12 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  Better known exploits than unknown ones like on your "agile", trial-and-error, end-user beta test pile of shit.
  You're legit retarded.
  
  Yep, it's easy. You're just a noob who doesn't know how to use a computer.
  Then describe your secure setup. Making claims without evidence is meaningless.
12. Re:it has no purpose that is already met by Raenex · 2018-09-13 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Says the child who thinks Windows 10 is secure.
  I never said it was secure. I said XP and the outdates browsers that run on it are trivially insecure with known exploits.
  
  It's not my job to educate you
  But it is your job to substantiate your claims. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed. If it was easy to secure then we wouldn't need to pay a super "genius" like you for consultation. We'd just look up the recipe online and do it.
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-11 05:28 · Score: 1

Windows 98 ran on 32 MB of RAM and a Pentium 1. It had an entire suite of GUI programs available. Even this bare bones modern OS needs 256 MB and is barely usable. It's sad how far performance has fallen over time.
1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-11 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  TOS and GEM ran on my Atari ST with 1MB of RAM and a full suite of GUI apps available. Could even do multitasking with MultiTOS and a 4MB upgrade. Get off my lawn.
2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-11 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  "could do multitasking with 4 MB upgrade"
  Not impressed. My Commodore Amiga did multitasking from day 1 (1985) with only 1/4 MB of RAM. It also was used to create CGI for television shows like seaQuest (all three seasons) and Babylon 5 (seasons 1 and 2).
3. Re: LOL by c6gunner · 2018-09-11 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  The first video toaster ran on an Amiga 2000, which came with a full 1 MB of RAM (not 1/4) and could be upgraded up to 9 MB. The guys working on seaQuest likely had them fully upgraded, or they may even have been using the Amiga 4000 version which came standard double the RAM of the 2000.
4. Re:LOL by LordHighExecutioner · 2018-09-11 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  We had OpenVMS on a microVAX (16 MW of RAM, IIRC), together with AllIn1, and four users connected to it with VT320 terminals, and this was in 1989...
5. Re: LOL by c6gunner · 2018-09-11 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't remember the commercial, but Wesley Crusher did work on development for the Toaster 4000.
6. Re:LOL by tkotz · 2018-09-11 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Though technically possible. Win 98 on an original Pentium would NOT have been a pleasant experience. I remember people installing it and booting up to show they could then immediately going back to actually keep the machine usable. And I'm assuming office 97 is in the suite of programs. Oh the pain. An original Pentium was a great DOS machine, but just stop there.
  I think modern OSes are a lot more conservative on the minimum requirements as people expect a certain level of usability.
  On a "i686" class machine, I'd assume this distro would out pace windows 98 in any side by side test being that in the late 90's I preferred Debian to Windows 98 and every version of Debian seems to eek out a little more performance on a given piece of hardware. Especially with modern approaches to old crushers like boot time, multitasking and virtual memory management.
  And then you would have to to come to terms with the modern web.
  Side note: Win 98 SE is probably my favorite version of windows.
So, it has a faster development cycle than Debian? by El+Cubano · 2018-09-11 05:38 · Score: 1

So, it has a faster development cycle than Debian?
I kid! I kid! I've been a Debian user for a very long time and thoroughly love it. But looking back at how long the Sarge release took, it is difficult not to poke fun at it now.
Article is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-11 05:41 · Score: 5, Informative

The article claims Elive 3.0.0 is based on Debian 8. This is incorrect. Elive 3 is based on Debian 7, which is several months past the end of its end of life date, even for the LTS repo. This means Elive users will not have any security updates. It is not a good idea to install this OS.
Ready for Robot Chicken guest open ... by fahrbot-bot · 2018-09-11 05:43 · Score: 2

It's Elive!

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Source? by MAXOMENOS · 2018-09-11 06:19 · Score: 1

Hi AC. You're stating that Elive is based on Debian 7; can you tell us how we can validate this for ourselves? Much obliged.

--
Finding God in a Dog
1. Re:Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-11 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  1. Download Elive. Boot from the live disc.
  2. Open a terminal and run either
  2a) usb_release -a
  or
  2b) cat /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian*
  Both show the project is based on, and pulling packages from, Debian 7 Wheezy.
2. Re:Source? by rahvin112 · 2018-09-11 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have a hard time believing it as well because the base kernel on Jesse (debian 8) is 3.16 and the base kernel on Weezy (debian 7) is 3.2 (3.02 if you aren't familiar with the numbering).
  The article is clear the base kernel is 3.16 indicating Jesse. Maybe it's a mix but I'd like to see this confirmed.
3. Re:Source? by MAXOMENOS · 2018-09-11 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you.
  
  --
  Finding God in a Dog
Re:So, it has a faster development cycle than Debi by rahvin112 · 2018-09-11 06:57 · Score: 1

They mostly fixed that and appear to have sustained a 18 month release cycle over the past few years since wheezy came out.
Better headline by thegreatbob · 2018-09-11 07:06 · Score: 1

Might have gone with "Elive apt-get updates after...", you know, because it's Debian based, and not Gentoo. I crack myself up. Sorry, I'll show myself out.

--
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Re: I tend to agree & why... apk by c6gunner · 2018-09-11 07:06 · Score: 1

imo as a dev
lol
Re:Why no RaspPi image? by DontBeAMoran · 2018-09-11 07:27 · Score: 1

Even the Raspberry Pi Zero, at only 5$USD, has a 1GHz processor and 512MB RAM. From the description of Elive in the sumary, it should be enough computing power and RAM to run easily it.
On a Raspberry Pi 3, with a 1.2GHz Quad Core 64bit CPU and 1GB RAM, it should be running as fast as a regular desktop computer with a modern OS.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Looks like a good start by thePsychologist · 2018-09-11 08:31 · Score: 1

Someone should help make a mirror of this distro, as it has run out of bandwidth for downloading it seems. It's also 32-bit only.

--
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
And please, resurrect Yggdrasil Linux too! by guacamole · 2018-09-11 09:35 · Score: 1

I love Yggdrasil, but after 1995 it became somewhat difficult to use. Porting Linux 3.x patches to 0.95 has been notoriously troublesome and we still haven't got the Meltdown patch.
Browser by markdavis · 2018-09-11 10:07 · Score: 2

The real problem comes when you try to use a modern web browser with such a low-powered system. Some web sites might fare OK, but the current main web is such a crapzone of intense and unbelievably big javascript, forced video, HUGE images that it forces the client to scale, transparencies, fly-outs, mouse-overs, stupid animated transitions, hooks into a zillion other sites, that ANY browser that CAN render it halfway decently is going to gobble up all your memory and CPU resources with just a single, terribly slow page.
So although such a system might work fine for some types of projects, but as a desktop, it would be pretty bad.
Ironically, I just updated my browser, and have 5 tabs open half-screen, with ads blocked, and is doing NOTHING, yet it is consuming 50% of an entire core (hasn't done THAT before, but has since the update two days ago, it pretty constant). Top shows one of the processes at 50% CPU, yet about:performance says NOTHING about anything using resources. The tabs are 4 static/old forums, Slashdot, Hotmail, Youtube. And the Youtube one is just sitting on a listing of videos with nothing playing and no animation. If I close that tab, wham, back to a very low CPU, except it didn't work this last time I closed it. Annoying on a powerful 6 core system... but it would be crippling on a old/weak 1 or 2 core system.
1. Re:Browser by Artemis3 · 2018-09-11 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Install uMatrix or your favorite script/annoyances blocker, among other measures (such as blocking video autoplay, flash, etc).
  Use a browser that lets you disable "multi process", I know Waterfox allows this. Others let you change the number of threads, I set those to 1.
  Configure it to always start your last open tabs, that way you can close and open the browser periodically (don't leave it open unattended).
  The current browser developer mindset is that THEY are the OS, they will eat all your cpu cores and ram because only they matter, they don't behave well to the other running apps...
  I'd rather have a slower browser that leaves a lean OS than a fast browser that makes everything else grind to a halt. This is why i tend to use Firefox forks, but not Firefox itself because that has gone too bloated. Chromium is a backup, i keep to very few tabs and close asap, because it WILL eat your resources, like it or not..
  
  --
  Artix
  Your Linux, your init.
Re: c6gunner FAKE NAME, tell ya what: by c6gunner · 2018-09-11 14:59 · Score: 1

Your software is just crap - written in crayon, fictional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine as a punchline to a joke by mmell February 17, 2017
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is fucking insane - by JazzLad April 20, 2016
his hosts "program" is actually a broken batch file by xenotransplant August 10 2015
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to be a laughingstock while consuming excessive amounts of alcohol by alexgieg September 25 2015
I like your tinfoil hat by Karmashock September 09 2015
that APK nut, I can't get him to stop talking about his piece of shit file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015
I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017
APK
P.S.=> When YOU do better than THAT by our /. registered peers, then talk (from behind your FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIE of a "so-called" WASTED life) - ok? apk