- This topic has 18 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Sep 19-8:08 pm by Brian Masinick.
-
Posts
-
iznit
Brian Masinick, please understand that I was not complaining, not whining, just empathising with Re1000
As far as “perfect documentation”, no, our documentation is NOT 100% perfect
Come on, why compelled to state the obvious? Also, unfair of you to throw parentheses around “perfect documentation” as though someone is asking or expecting perfection.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
and
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
— Arthur C. Clarke, “Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible”
Brian Masinick
My intentions are not to discredit anyone, only to indicate that the antiX team is doing it’s best job; sorry my words and intentions are unclear; no attacks or criticisms were either made or suggested, nor are they now. As for the work here, the vast majority of us here love what we have and what we’re doing; when mentioning “perfection” I’m speaking here as a developer, tester, maintainer. Those of us who have had a long career in this profession know good software and I emphatically believe that we have very good software.
As I said, it’s not perfect in the senses that it is not guaranteed to be 100% defect free, the documentation is a work of love by many people, yet nobody claims at any time that there may be areas where improvements could be made. Our work is a balance: from the standpoint of efficiencies, it would be hard to get much better in efficiency without sacrificing something else, so it’s a work very well done. At the same time, while it’s great at what it is designed to do, it’s possible (if so inclined) to find particular things it doesn’t offer by default.
So in short, my statements are not attempting to criticize anyone in this discussion or anyone in development; they are merely an attempt – one which clearly didn’t resonate acceptably to everyone – that we have a good effort, something that is always a work in progress. Anticapitalista does read and consider the views of the readership, yet he is also clear in what he intends to produce – something that strikes, in his opinion, the best possible balance between extremely lean code and a reasonably practical system that people can use who typically do not have the most current hardware and in many cases, can’t afford anything other than what they have. He also wants to keep older working equipment available and usable – something positive in terms of keeping hardware usable and out of the toxic waste dumps!
I hope this clarifies some of my comments and thinking – I’m definitely not aiming attack or criticism upon anyone, simply explaining an apparently unconventional viewpoint.
--
Brian Masinickolsztyn
I am wondering how is antiX specifically optimized to support old hardware, like underneath, is it depending on the kernel config which would have been super stripped, “aggressive and/or specific” flags used during compilation of the binaries ? I guess you are using glibC and not musl, so I _really_ wonder what makes the antiX magic here.
My understanding is that Re1000 asked a very specific and targeted question on antiX optimization areas, which requires expert understanding of antiX architecture, configuration and composition to answer. I am sorry to say but most what I see in terms of answers is not fair to Re1000 as it is mostly pointing to reading various basic documentation, typically designated to basics: How to use, configure, etc., in addition to directing Re1000 to research on his own, on the internet, which likely does not have the answers that would be easily taken as related to the original and very specific questions.
Is this forum not a collection of antiX expertise that would be able to directly provide viable answers instead of run around, saving lots of hopeless searching internet and various basic documentation as for a needle in a haystack?
I am not an quite qualified to provide technical details that would answer the original questions but I would offer to summarize some areas which contribute to antiX being highly efficient system, suitable for older hardware. Hopefully other and expert members will add more detailed and relevant info:
– Kernel optimizations – as brought up by oops
– Drivers for older hardware (I did not know that) – as pointed out by BobC
– Window managers (IceWM, Fluxbox and JWM) instead of Desktop Environments as pointed out by Punranger
– Minimal list of services started upon boot
– Systemd-free
– Optimal software infrastructure to run antiX system to maximize performance, with minimal memory footprint. In this respect I have not seen other distro that would have smaller memory footprint while providing full set of functionality equal to antiX.
– Fully functional Live architecture that has no match out there in efficiency and dexterity, allows to boot on minimal hardware, even on very old computers.
– Starting with antiX 21 – *elogind*-free option, that further optimizes antiX memory footprint and maximizes performance. Next version of antiX 22 will be such as default.There must be many other areas, which contribute to antiX performance, which I missed here…
Just my two cents…- This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by olsztyn.
- This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by olsztyn.
Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_ParametersBrian Masinick
@olsztyn: thanks! Good comments; hopefully that’s the best answer here yet; appreciate it!
--
Brian Masinick
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
