Friday, September 03, 2010
Absolute Linux 13.1.42
I installed Absolute Linux 13.1.42 this evening on my Virtualbox setup and I am experimenting with it now. It looks like a pretty solid release as usual.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
I wrote a review article about antiX core today
This week I have been exploring Debian based systems that offer strong, flexible networking. All of them are specialized, to some degree; some are definitely special purpose systems; others are highly customizable systems that you can tailor to best meet your specific needs.
I've looked at Easy Peasy, Jolicloud, Debian Live, and I've come back to antiX core today.
Easy Peasy is what its name implies, a really easy system that is designed to work simply and well on small mobile systems, especially netbook systems. It is strong in network computing and social networking.
Jolicloud is alway what the name implies, a special purpose system designed to work exclusively in a powerful network environment with network based "Cloud" applications.
Debian Live is a great customized environment where you can request a custom build of a Live Debian ISO image that meets your specifications.
The antiX core proof of concept is similar to these other great alternatives in the sense that its name matches its function. Unlike the other released implementations of antiX software, the antiX core is just that - the core components of an antiX system, coupled with some raw, but functional tools that enable you to build a highly customized system that has only what you choose to install.
By default, the antiX core comes with only a Linux system kernel, the core GNU utilities, the Debian packaging system, and a few installation and configuration scripts, from which you boot the antiX core, install it to a device, then add the software you want to use. At its most basic state, it does not even include a graphical user environment, so those who want to use it to create a Web server environment or an ancient console based system can do that, but you can also use it in a manner very similar to an Arch Linux system, where you add only the software that you want, and nothing else.
The results can be outstanding, and they have been for me. I installed xorg, the X server, an LXDE and Xfce4 desktop environment, the Iceape, Iceweasel, and chromium-browsers, and a couple of additional text editors. Later I added a few more fonts and tools. That was it.
The result is a REALLY fast system, faster than anything else I am using in fact. I really like it. It is fast - I said that more than once for emphasis, but its also flexible, and it provides only what you configure, nothing more, nothing less. What I have built represents what I prefer to use in my personal computing environments.
I've looked at Easy Peasy, Jolicloud, Debian Live, and I've come back to antiX core today.
Easy Peasy is what its name implies, a really easy system that is designed to work simply and well on small mobile systems, especially netbook systems. It is strong in network computing and social networking.
Jolicloud is alway what the name implies, a special purpose system designed to work exclusively in a powerful network environment with network based "Cloud" applications.
Debian Live is a great customized environment where you can request a custom build of a Live Debian ISO image that meets your specifications.
The antiX core proof of concept is similar to these other great alternatives in the sense that its name matches its function. Unlike the other released implementations of antiX software, the antiX core is just that - the core components of an antiX system, coupled with some raw, but functional tools that enable you to build a highly customized system that has only what you choose to install.
By default, the antiX core comes with only a Linux system kernel, the core GNU utilities, the Debian packaging system, and a few installation and configuration scripts, from which you boot the antiX core, install it to a device, then add the software you want to use. At its most basic state, it does not even include a graphical user environment, so those who want to use it to create a Web server environment or an ancient console based system can do that, but you can also use it in a manner very similar to an Arch Linux system, where you add only the software that you want, and nothing else.
The results can be outstanding, and they have been for me. I installed xorg, the X server, an LXDE and Xfce4 desktop environment, the Iceape, Iceweasel, and chromium-browsers, and a couple of additional text editors. Later I added a few more fonts and tools. That was it.
The result is a REALLY fast system, faster than anything else I am using in fact. I really like it. It is fast - I said that more than once for emphasis, but its also flexible, and it provides only what you configure, nothing more, nothing less. What I have built represents what I prefer to use in my personal computing environments.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Another Debian Live snapshot
The last time I took a Debian Live Snapshot, I selected the XFCE desktop environment. This time, to compare, I selected the LXDE desktop environment, and I also added the Chromium-browser. It will be interesting to review how well the two environments compare to one another.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Working with external USB drive again
Now that I have an external USB drive once again, I have started to pick up the volume of testing of Linux ISO images, because I have a place to store them, and I also have linked the location of the Virtualbox hidden directories to the USB drive, which means I have space for the test virtual images as well, plus I can run them on both of my systems - which I've already tried (and it works).
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Testing Debian Live CD snapshot
I created a live CD snapshot of the Debian Sid distribution with the Xfce desktop environment yesterday by making a request at Debian Live. Within twenty minutes, I was sent a link where I could download the Live image. I then created a bootable CD image of this system and tried it out today and it worked very well. The only quirk I noticed was that no Web browser was included in the build, so I had to use synaptic to go get a browser; I grabbed Chromium.
Nice result; fast desktop, and I am using it now.
Nice result; fast desktop, and I am using it now.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
KDE SC 4.4.5 is now in Debian Sid
I was happy to notice that the Debian Sid project included another KDE monthly update in their Sid repositories. During the 4.2 and 4.3 releases, the monthly updates were not being closely tracked at all, so I am thankful and grateful that the more of the maintenance updates in the Version 4.4 release have been included in Debian Sid.
It is possible that KDE SC 4.4.5 could become the KDE desktop represented in Debian Squeeze, the next release, if rumors of an August release are accurate.
It is possible that KDE SC 4.4.5 could become the KDE desktop represented in Debian Squeeze, the next release, if rumors of an August release are accurate.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Reviewing the latest speed wars in Web Browsers
Google raised quite a stir when they claimed to have the fastest Web browser, and Apple did the same when they claimed that Safari is the fastest Web browser. Clearly we can't have TWO "fastest Web Browsers". Where do things stand today?
Well, what is good about all of this stuff is that browser developers are taking a closer look at resource utilization of their browsers. For many years, as Web browsers added more and more features, they became more and more bloated.
I've been around a long time, and I can vividly remember when GNU Emacs was soundly criticized for being so large, using up so much memory. Well, those complaints went away a long time ago. Before we even had 1 GHz desktop computer systems, I found that GNU Emacs would load in just a few seconds on computers with as little as 200 MHz and 32 MB memory. It's so much better today. The typical Web browser is four or five times larger just to download, and the amount of virtual memory they use can easily exceed a factor of ten beyond what an even loaded Emacs would consume.
Where does that leave the typical Web browser then? Two years ago, Web browsers were probably near their all time low in terms of efficiency and performance. Yes, they were offering more and more features, but the cost of those features were becoming prohibitive.
When Apple Safari came on the scene, they took the browsing engine, KHTML, from the Konqueror file and Web browser, part of the KDE project. They released their improvements as a Web rendering technology called Webkit.
A little over two years ago, Google took that technology and used it to form the basis of their browser project. They called the browser Chrome and the source code project Chromium. They have made numerous performance improvements on top of what Apple did, and the results were staggering.
When Google made Chrome available, it shocked many people with how much faster it worked, especially on Google sites. A few years ago, that technology was immature. Other features that people commonly used were noticeably missing. Many of those features are now included, but Chrome still tries to maintain a modest appearance. It's worked great, and Chrome moved into the number three spot behind Internet Explorer and Firefox in several usage reports.
This competition has proven to be very helpful. Microsoft has done a lot with Internet Explorer to improve its reliability, performance, security, and overall usefulness. It is so much better in Versions 8 and 9 that it is hard to fathom why so many people continue to even use Versions 6 (from XP) and 7 (from Vista).
Mozilla, which has lost some ground to Chrome, has been vigorously working on improving its performance on several fronts. Mozilla had already been working on a new generation of browser capability so that it would be technology that would be portable to various hand held devices. They've taken a lot of what they've learned and applied it to the Firefox project. Version 3.6.6, the current version, is already improved a lot, but just wait until you see Version 4.0. Currently called "Minefield" because it is undergoing nightly build testing, it is nevertheless in its second test release, and we ought to see it released later this year. I've tested it a number of times and it looks really good.
I already wrote the other day about another project that the Mozilla Labs has been producing, the Mozilla Prism project, to provide Web applications. That work is also bringing new ideas to the table, and it has been effective.
Opera, which has been around a very long time, was once known as the fastest browser, but it had become large and sloppy, much like the others. Version 10.60, recently released, has many positive changes to reverse that trend. Like the other browsers, it is much faster than its previous version.
It looks like what Google has done to awaken the industry has been a positive thing. It's worth giving Google Chrome a try, but it's also worth investigating some of the test versions of the new browsers. If you can spare the time and periodically test a few of them, and provide feedback and defect reports, it definitely helps to improve the browser landscape. I try to do so at least periodically.
Well, what is good about all of this stuff is that browser developers are taking a closer look at resource utilization of their browsers. For many years, as Web browsers added more and more features, they became more and more bloated.
I've been around a long time, and I can vividly remember when GNU Emacs was soundly criticized for being so large, using up so much memory. Well, those complaints went away a long time ago. Before we even had 1 GHz desktop computer systems, I found that GNU Emacs would load in just a few seconds on computers with as little as 200 MHz and 32 MB memory. It's so much better today. The typical Web browser is four or five times larger just to download, and the amount of virtual memory they use can easily exceed a factor of ten beyond what an even loaded Emacs would consume.
Where does that leave the typical Web browser then? Two years ago, Web browsers were probably near their all time low in terms of efficiency and performance. Yes, they were offering more and more features, but the cost of those features were becoming prohibitive.
When Apple Safari came on the scene, they took the browsing engine, KHTML, from the Konqueror file and Web browser, part of the KDE project. They released their improvements as a Web rendering technology called Webkit.
A little over two years ago, Google took that technology and used it to form the basis of their browser project. They called the browser Chrome and the source code project Chromium. They have made numerous performance improvements on top of what Apple did, and the results were staggering.
When Google made Chrome available, it shocked many people with how much faster it worked, especially on Google sites. A few years ago, that technology was immature. Other features that people commonly used were noticeably missing. Many of those features are now included, but Chrome still tries to maintain a modest appearance. It's worked great, and Chrome moved into the number three spot behind Internet Explorer and Firefox in several usage reports.
This competition has proven to be very helpful. Microsoft has done a lot with Internet Explorer to improve its reliability, performance, security, and overall usefulness. It is so much better in Versions 8 and 9 that it is hard to fathom why so many people continue to even use Versions 6 (from XP) and 7 (from Vista).
Mozilla, which has lost some ground to Chrome, has been vigorously working on improving its performance on several fronts. Mozilla had already been working on a new generation of browser capability so that it would be technology that would be portable to various hand held devices. They've taken a lot of what they've learned and applied it to the Firefox project. Version 3.6.6, the current version, is already improved a lot, but just wait until you see Version 4.0. Currently called "Minefield" because it is undergoing nightly build testing, it is nevertheless in its second test release, and we ought to see it released later this year. I've tested it a number of times and it looks really good.
I already wrote the other day about another project that the Mozilla Labs has been producing, the Mozilla Prism project, to provide Web applications. That work is also bringing new ideas to the table, and it has been effective.
Opera, which has been around a very long time, was once known as the fastest browser, but it had become large and sloppy, much like the others. Version 10.60, recently released, has many positive changes to reverse that trend. Like the other browsers, it is much faster than its previous version.
It looks like what Google has done to awaken the industry has been a positive thing. It's worth giving Google Chrome a try, but it's also worth investigating some of the test versions of the new browsers. If you can spare the time and periodically test a few of them, and provide feedback and defect reports, it definitely helps to improve the browser landscape. I try to do so at least periodically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)