[dev] Distribution
Sir Cyrus
Bjartur Thorlacius
pmarin
Le Tian
Bjartur Thorlacius
into whatever your want at build time, strip out the support for BSD
slices, SCSI and ATA and it'll just run (or not run, that is the
question). It's not even hackish.
Pieter Praet
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>
Perhaps not the *most* suckless, but Arch [1] is a very worthy contender
IMHO. Their manifesto [2] is very similar to suckless.org's.
[1] https://www.archlinux.org/
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
--
Pieter
Bryan Bennett
Crux for general ideaology.
Jacob Todd
Sabotage.
Ethan Grammatikidis
pmarin <paco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Linux ≠ suckless
s/Linux/Gnu/
The more I learn about Linux the more I think the real problems are outside the kernel. There are problems within the kernel, of course, but if you have to have a modern unix the Linux kernel at least can at least keep much of its rubbish out of your way.
garbeam
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
--garbeam
Jonathan Slark
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
This has been covered a few times on the list so you should search the
archives online.
I do agree the main problem with Linux Distributions is the GNU stuff.
The BSDs are a good alternative as they try and avoid GNU stuff because
of GPL. I've personally tried both OpenBSD and NetBSD and both are good
in their own way.
A BSD gives you a simple and minimal installation to install or compile
further software into.
Jon.
John Matthewman
Maybe slackware?
Arch is loaded with suck.
While debian (stable) is definitely not what most -- if not all? --
people would describe as suckless, it is what I use on my computer.
John
PS: as somebody else said, this discussion has happened before, and
turned into a big, useless argument..
Andrew Hills
> Arch is loaded with suck.
You mean their package manager allows you to install software that's
not from suckless.org?
--Andrew Hills
Jens Staal
http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/
I recently made a native install and it works pretty darn good! (still
need to figure out a number of things but that is basically due to
lack of knowledge - I seem to have an issue with write permissions to
some critical directories when I try to install contrib or update via
hg pull from my username or glenda).
2011/6/4 Andrew Hills <hill...@gmail.com>:
hiro
Too subjective, too much work, sucks.
Ethan Grammatikidis
Having done it (a long time ago) I have to agree. It's fine up to a point, but that point leaves you able to run little more than what you can in Plan 9. You get more hardware compatibility than with Plan 9 of course, but that brings me to Linux kernel configuration, which as far as I'm concerned is now far too much work in itself. Half the reason I use a distro is for the kernel configuration!
Kurt H Maier
> Having done it (a long time ago) I have to agree. It's fine up to a point, but that point leaves you able to run little more than what you can in Plan 9. You get more hardware compatibility than with Plan 9 of course, but that brings me to Linux kernel configuration, which as far as I'm concerned is now far too much work in itself. Half the reason I use a distro is for the kernel configuration!
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Configuring a
linux kernel is much easier than, say, packaging it. There's also
'make allyesconfig'.
--
# Kurt H Maier
hiro
> linux kernel is much easier than, say, packaging it. There's also
> 'make allyesconfig'.
Kernel documentation sucks a lot.
Jonathan Slark
I can't say I've ever had a problem with it. Each option has a little
help with it and if it's vaguely dangerous it will say to use the default.
Kernel compilation takes a long time the first time when you're setting
options but after that you only need to tweak.
Jon.
Paul Onyschuk
Sir Cyrus <sirc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>
What about Alpine Linux[1]?
As said before GNU parts sucks so much, that even Linux kernel looks
good. Alpine Linux uses Busybox and uclibc by default. No GNU coreutils
and no glibc in base system is a good start.
Alpine Linux setup is very small - only about dozen packages in bare
system. At first I found weird that even man pages are missing after
default installation. Although this means that groff is missing too and
can be replaced by mdocml or even by plan9 troff, depending on user's
choice.
One thing that isn't to my taste is OpenRC init system. I can swallow
this, compared to other distros bottlenecks.
Using plan9 software by default shouldn't be much problem either. Just
uncomment some options in Busybox build config for package[2] and port
9base/plan9port (I didn't have time to resolve problem with building
9base against uclibc).
[1] http://alpinelinux.org/
[2] http://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Creating_an_Alpine_package
--
Paul Onyschuk <bl...@bojary.koba.pl>
Pierre Chapuis
So the most suckless Linux is a Linux that requires a
bloated Javascript VM to run?
--
catwell
Bjartur Thorlacius
Jacob Todd
No, you just got trolled.
Ethan Grammatikidis
Considering the emulator gets about 30 or 40 BogoMIPS, the Linux on top must be VERY computationally lightweight if it's going to give the appearance of responding at all. If I remember the numbers correctly, this works out about equivalent to a 10 KILO-Hertz 4086. :D I could be wrong, it could be more like 100kHz, but still...
