It might not feel like you're trolling, but I think you (unintentionally?) are. In any case... <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Jason Hsu, embedded engineer, Linux user <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jhsu802701@jasonhsu.com" target="_blank">jhsu802701@jasonhsu.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">I find it ironic that Linux set out to be the bloatware buster, </blockquote><div><br>Linux set out to be a hobby/experiment in building an OS (specifically the kernel as Linus was already leveraging GNU before his first big release) to fill a gap between Minix (not useful enough in the eyes of Linux) and GNU's kernel (too far out in the future (more than he knew)). Anyway, go read for yourself. <a href="https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/" target="_blank">https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/</a> and other sources. <br>
<br>Bottom line, what Linux became was far beyond the vision of its creator. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">but the leading distros have themselves become bloatware. Just look how much the hardware requirements have escalated in the history of Ubuntu, Fedora, and many other leading distros. There was a time when 256 MB of RAM was plenty. In fact, my very first distro was Fedora Core 1 (which came with the book _Linux For Nongeeks_). On this computer (1 GHz, 256 MB of RAM), Fedora Core 1 was reasonably fast. This computer falls short of the requirements of today's Fedora. I don't recommend Ubuntu (or even Xubuntu) for anyone with less than 512 MB of RAM.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Just look how far hardware has advanced since the 1990's. 4GB of RAM can be had cheaply, and 6GB is becoming the new base-line. 500GB seems to be the bottom of most product line-ups for hard-disk vendors, etc.... and then there is Moore's Law for CPUs. And with that power computers do many more things now, with video, audio, GUI's, etc... <br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
As these leading distros increase their hardware requirements with each version and cut off support for older versions, they're throwing away a segment of their users.<br></blockquote><div><br>And arguably gaining more users with the enhanced functionality that people take for granted in modern OS environments. But that doesn't mean the old-school "CLI and TWM 4ever" crowd has been left in the dust - choices exist for you too. :) <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Why do these distros need so much more RAM and processor speed? What's driving the escalating hardware requirements?<br></blockquote><div><br>Don't forget that in addition to the enhanced functionality being supported, developers are using enhanced tool-streams that do more of the dirty work for them at the expense of larger overhead in the runtime environment and tool chains. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I'm glad that there is antiX Linux. </blockquote><div><br>\o/<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
The success of antiX Linux makes me wonder why other distros have much higher hardware requirements. What exactly do the users get for their extra processor speed and RAM? Why do these other distros need more processor speed and RAM to do the same thing that antiX Linux does?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I see it's using IceWM, not KDE or Gnome (a big source of bloat AND functionality :) ). One of the gaps most distros fill in are administrative GUI's, etc... what does AntiX provide for managing users, groups, disks, networks, and services? <br>
<br>Anti-x looks like a nifty distro for a niche. Don't know if I'll ever need it. <br><br>Embedded engineers tend to see the world through a more hardware-centric lens. For them the draw is the mechanism (hardware) as well as the functionality. So your focus is understandable.<br>
<br>-Rob<br><br><br></div></div>