Tiny Core Linux

Off-Topic => Off-Topic - Tiny Tux's Corner => Topic started by: roberts on September 07, 2009, 09:46:31 PM

Title: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: roberts on September 07, 2009, 09:46:31 PM
Quote
For comparison, the size of a default Gnome desktop install for Etch was 1360MB; for Lenny it is 1830MB; for Squeeze it looks like it will be well over 3000MB! Remember that for Sarge we installed both Gnome and KDE from CD1 with both together taking 1390MB?

Sure, some of that is real functionality, but a lot is also (IMO) redundant visual effects that only serve to slow the desktop down and junk needed to do stuff automagically. And a heck of a lot is duplicated functionality. One of the main reasons I switched to Linux was because it gave me back control over my systems, but with KDE4 and pervasive stuff like hal and all the various "kits" Linux is on a fast track that's giving priority to flashiness over real functionality and eroding that control.

Full article:  http://alioth.debian.org/~fjp/log/posts/debtree_0.7.3_-_Oh_what_tangled_webs_we_weave.html

As the others grow larger, I try to go smaller, by doing more with less.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: bmarkus on September 07, 2009, 11:01:22 PM
Agree. This is why I have choosen Xfce4 (http://www.xfce.org) to port which is still small enough yet feature reach, modular and what is also important has a live developer and user community and continously developed. Its size and philosophy fits to TC well.

Another possible alternative is LXDE (http://www.lxde.org) which is also small and not resource hungry.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: tclfan on September 08, 2009, 08:33:15 AM
As much as I had been using XFCE in the past (gnome, kde and vista bload completely unacceptable) with xubuntu and zenwalk, I would be happier with still lighter one like LXDE.
Linux with Gnome and KDE as well as Vista took the wrong path, bloated with garbage and inefficiency.
The ultimately desirable would be fast and light system developed in Assembler, such as Kolibri, unfortunately the development cycle of Kolibri is far too slow (It is not truly usable yet). Therefore Tiny Core with LXDE would be nice to see, as probably the most efficient, usable desktop in existence...
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: bigpcman on September 08, 2009, 09:13:55 AM
As much as I had been using XFCE in the past (gnome, kde and vista bload completely unacceptable) with xubuntu and zenwalk, I would be happier with still lighter one like LXDE.
Linux with Gnome and KDE as well as Vista took the wrong path, bloated with garbage and inefficiency.
The ultimately desirable would be fast and light system developed in Assembler, such as Kolibri, unfortunately the development cycle of Kolibri is far too slow (It is not truly usable yet). Therefore Tiny Core with LXDE would be nice to see, as probably the most efficient, usable desktop in existence...


So is there anything holding back LXDE from being used with tc? Why has an extension not been created?
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: bmarkus on September 08, 2009, 09:29:26 AM
So is there anything holding back LXDE from being used with tc? Why has an extension not been created?

Because nobody created yet  :P A while ago I ported LXDE to a ... live system. I will try to repeat this deal.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: curaga on September 11, 2009, 11:03:46 AM
I didn't like the direction Xfce 4.6 took. It added a gnome-style registry, the sound applet doesn't work with OSS, added more bloat.

LXDE - isn't openbox a part of it, and already available on TC?
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: roberts on September 11, 2009, 12:01:30 PM
I believe my original post was related to Hal and his buddies, Pango, and Dbus, otherwise known as Gtk2. It is that which has boarded the bloatmobile. So, Xfce and LXDE would also be considered as quite large.

While I think it is an admirable effort to offer such as extensions, don't expect them to be included in the base.

It is also MHO that the Linux Desktop should stop trying to emulate Windows, registry, key strokes, GUI, and the like. This is *nix and should be have its own identity.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: alu on September 11, 2009, 01:09:25 PM
agree. i personnally have looked at a lot of distros and ended up with debian-minimal install, ion3, and if possible almost only gtk1 or cli apps. from that point of view, tc/mc offers much more choice and flexibility. if you want windows app, or if you can't work without specific windows apps (those which won't work with emulation in linux either), then you have the possibility to preserve a partition for windows. i must use it for 2 apps which i can neither run with wine, nor with vbox, and the more i use linux, the more i find out ways not to use these 2 apps. i think, i am running windows now once in a month (average) for one day or two.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: tclfan on September 11, 2009, 02:35:47 PM
It is also MHO that the Linux Desktop should stop trying to emulate Windows, registry, key strokes, GUI, and the like. This is *nix and should be have its own identity.
Yes! Emulating bloat, registry, etc. is the tragic direction many linux distros took unfortunately. Adding fragmentation of linux landscape to this and I see Microsoft has little to worry.
To be competitive, linux should have a unified strategy of focussing on efficiency and dexterity, not bloat and emulating Windows. As long as there is no central management that would enforce this, it is difficult to compete except on price point.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: thane on September 11, 2009, 10:46:34 PM
It isn't just Linux developers though. One of my favorite websites was providing some of its content in downloadable .mov files. Great, I had mplayer. Then it switched to using YouTube, which of course requires Flash. So I now needed gtk2. Can Linux force content providers to use formats that don't require bloated software? I don't see how.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: curaga on September 12, 2009, 02:26:06 AM
That's why we have scripts like youtube-dl, and sites like keepvid.com :) to fight the Flash requirement.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: bmarkus on September 12, 2009, 02:41:04 AM

LXDE - isn't openbox a part of it, and already available on TC?


Yes, openbox is there as well as pcmanfm, mybe they will require rebuild. Unfortunately I couldn't start LXDE till now. True, had no too much time to play with. Work in progress.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: jpeters on September 12, 2009, 03:33:49 AM
That's why we have scripts like youtube-dl, and sites like keepvid.com :) to fight the Flash requirement.

who's fighting...download every video?  I don't think so. 
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: curaga on September 12, 2009, 03:38:14 AM
It's downloaded to cache with Flash too. Very little difference.
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: jpeters on September 12, 2009, 03:56:44 AM
not my experience....clicking on a vid starts streaming immediately. Also, the quality was much better than a downloaded version. 
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: bmarkus on September 12, 2009, 05:05:23 AM
Regarding Xfce direction, Jannis Pohlmann, a core Xfce developer wrote just recently on the Xfce mailing list:


"Is being a lightweight desktop environment still a goal?

Yes, I'd say so. Perhaps not ultra-lightweight but in the foreseeable future the thing we call Xfce will remain a small number of components with a realistic set of dependencies and I don't think there's any reason to be concerned about bloat in Xfce.

Actually, I'd go as far as to say that 4.6 didn't introduce any additional bloat compared to 4.4 except maybe for GStreamer. In 4.8, the mixer is no longer a core component (which makes sense in the light of pulseaudio being adopted by distributions). 4.8 will have a new dependency on GIO (ThunarVFS will be dropped for that). GVfs (which has a few GNOME dependencies) will be completely optional. Besides that, our increasing use of D-Bus could be seen as a "slow-downer" of Xfce but it also ensures loose coupling, flexibility and a nice overall architecture.

I'm sure that there's a lot of room for speed and memory optimizations without the need to sacrifice the maintainability of our codebase. But people have to accept that we're just a small team consisting of half a dozen core developers working on Xfce in their free time. For this situation to improve there would have to be more participants in the development and/or systematic funding.

And hey, we're using git now, so please start cloning our repositories and work on fixes and play with new ideas!"


Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: curaga on September 12, 2009, 08:14:49 AM
Also, the quality was much better than a downloaded version. 
Now, that's the placebo in effect ;) How can the same file be better streamed?

Or, maybe youtube showed the high-quality version, but you downloaded the low-quality one?
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: jpeters on September 12, 2009, 10:52:24 AM
Also, the quality was much better than a downloaded version.  
Now, that's the placebo in effect ;) How can the same file be better streamed?

Or, maybe youtube showed the high-quality version, but you downloaded the low-quality one?

One is using flashplayer, the other xine. I did better with youtube-dl. The high-quality  download from keepvid.com had audio problems. Although it might be nice to save youtube videos, flashplayer saves to cache while it's playing, so there's no wait. Looking at videos is now a basic browser function that's well beyond looking at youtube videos.  ( my short youtube download was 5M ) 
Title: Re: The general direction of the Linux desktop
Post by: ^thehatsrule^ on September 12, 2009, 01:17:37 PM
I've found downloading the .flv/other(?) can be sufficient at times (sometimes better too, for video accel with some other player).  Assuming the download is done in order, typically players can also start playing it.  If one prefers a player embedded in the browser, I think there's alternatives such as mplayerplug-in.

Does (another) flash thread need to be started..? :P