Possible space savers for base version if/when iso no longer fits on CD

[Moderator BobC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I don’t have any 32 bit UEFI machines.

When they did the CD1 to CD5 thing, it used to be that CD1 was required, and then the other CD’s were optional.

If it gets to that, maybe CD1 would be Core, and CD2 could be the GUI desktop, or maybe the X-Windows itself, but almost none of the GUI apps, just enough to get online and download CD2 lol.

I miss Synaptic in base. It should be listed in both of the Package installer options on the Control-Centre so it can be added easily.

Also the Pentium III is so slow with Firefox, that it crashes a lot. I think it would make sense to put a lighter browser on the 32 bit package, I’ll let someone else decide which.

I also wish antix-viewer was easy to access. I will make a desktop entry for it to go in thre Internet group and send it to anticaptialista. It is super fast compared to Firefox. If there is a “fuller” (ie can login and post here, or check web email) but still light browser that uses the same dependencies as antix-viewer, that might be a good choice from a space saving and performance perspective.

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I will make a desktop entry for it to go in thre Internet group and send it to anticaptialista.

Please don’t.

It’s a naked browser (no possibiity of adding extensions, no privateBrowsing mode…
… no addressbar + lock symbol to assist you in verifying the webpage you are typing login+password credentials into is actually hosted on the site you expected (vs is a spoofed/hijacked destination). You can’t even gauge whether your comms are being sent via https

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I miss Synaptic in base. It should be listed in both of the Package installer options on the Control-Centre so it can be added easily.

idea:
If synaptic is not installed, controlCenter could display instead a placeholder for it ~~ when clicked, it would initiate installation of the synaptic package then exit/relaunch the controlCenter app.

[Moderator BobC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Yes, that sounds even better. No point making them hunt for it.

[Moderator BobC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Sorry, didn’t see the antix-viewer post before. There is a lot I don’t know. I suppose that’s why it doesn’t have a URL entry field…

I was getting pretty desperate trying to use a web browser on a Pentium III. Firefox was literally painful, wait a few minutes and see if the screen changes, and that was with 2 gb of memory.

[Member mroot]

Helpful

Up

0

::

The browser situation is unfortunately bad and there aren’t many viable solutions. Firefox-esr requires a pentium 4 and 1 gig ram to work and be reasonably responsive. I see the same lag issues on my Celeron m laptop that you are experiencing on your Pentium 3. In the past, people could use netsurf, midori, etc. and have a acceptable user experience. The problem now is most of these lighter browsers have security issues and are not being updated. So if you use them you are putting your self at risk if you use them for credit card transactions, Paypal or other security sensitive situations. That is basically why Antix uses Firefox-esr as it’s default browser. You may take a look at this old thread for some ideas.

https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/default-browser/

One browser you might want to look at is Palemoon- it appears that it is still receiving updates and it is certainly lighter than Firefox-esr. I wish I had a better solution for you. I think all of us would like a lighter weight browser to be available but really we are at the mercy of the upstream browser developers.

-mroot

[Moderator BobC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Yes, I’m afraid that is what we should expect at 20+ years old.

It reminds me of a line from a song:

“53 Studebaker going for broke, pushing it night and day”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wp4qrP2qhE

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by BobC.

[Member PDP-8]

Helpful

Up

0

::

If you accidentally blow your vim, in an emergency one can always use the busybox vi onboard for visitors. 🙂

I’m not sure it would save a whole lot of memory overall, but I always wondered if a “busybox” version of antiX, would be feasible for those who don’t care about what’s on the command line as long as their apps are launched, OR for us who just dig the whole busybox scene even for normal user-land shells and scripting….

[Member fatmac]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Busybox – I like the idea, though I do use the command line, Busybox usually has enough features for what I need – it’s one reason why I like the SliTaz distro.

Linux (& BSD) since 1999

[Member PDP-8]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I also enjoy Slitaz, and am currently evaluating the TazPuppy RC-5 project release. (Slitaz on top, puppy underneath). TinyCore too.

Sometimes I’ll download Busybox source, and do the make/make-defconfig and put the binary into a /BB directory hanging off my home, and put that in front of my $PATH. Inside I’ll softlink things like vi (typically ln- s busybox vi) and then rename it to bvi, so I can call it up as “busybox vi”.

Or sometimes just download a binary from them, and play around.

But that is far different from devs who know how to compile busybox to best fit the needs of the distro and can keep up with the sometimes “busybox-ism’s”.

I think it’s worthwhile, but overall needs a reason to bring benefit over the standard gnu utils in larger projects.

[Author]

Posts