Got an idea. All major dists should make light versions. Gnome and Kde should also have light versions. Major apps like openoffice and the mozilla suite should do the same. The goal of these light projects should be to strip down the software, so that only the very most important is included and find solutions that are smarter, smaller and faster. The development of software will benefit from this work. I know that a lot of dists are doing this work already (DSL, Slax, Puppy, etc), but I think it is a good idea to work in two directions. Keeping things small, fast and simple and also to develop software to do more.

I feel that a lot of software is too large these days. Since harddrives have grown and processor speed increases, the software has just tried to catch up by doing more and more.
Just a thought...
E

Not sure that offering Lite Verisions of Distributions or software would be the way to go. I say this because the developers should be able to provide their work without constraints such as this. Publish your work the way you want to.

Sure, they can do what ever they want to. I'm not saying they have to do it. I just think it is a good idea to have two versions of a program. If you don't need an overbloated version of a program just grab the lite version. It will also help the developers to consider size of the programs, which in the end leads to a faster running system.
I have seen that Ubuntu got this idea, Ubuntu lite, which is supposed to run on older machines.
E

I like the idea of lite versions, too. But you can pretty much do the same thing with all of the alternative desktops out there. I really like what the developers are doing with XFCE, for example. In fact, I liked it so much that I made my KDE look the same (at least on the surface.)

As for Lite OpenOffice.org, well, you can lighten that up yourself, if you don't mind a turn at the command line. I do a manual install and just delete the unwanted rpms (like the database package (don't need it, and don't foresee any need in the future) and drawing package (I don't use it much, but Inkscape seems to be really coming along for drawing, anyway).) Everything else seems to work just fine without the added bloat. I got the idea from the Windows installer--you can select only the modules you want there, so why not with Linux? Lite Gnome and KDE make sense, though: if you want to stick with one, you would know exactly where to find the utilities that you need when you need them.

SLAX is a really nice little package. I would love to see a few more modules developed for it. I was almost able to build my complete "dream system" live CD using the SLAX Popcorn edition as a starting point. I've looked at Puppy and DSL, and I like the concepts, especially that these can work on nearly antique hardware. But small size comes at a price: in my brief survey, neither one has the sophistication to offer the flexibility and interoperability of a more complete system that can run a competitive office package like OOo. If they work for you, that's great. And that's the great thing about the Linux world: practically everyone can find something that they like.

On another note, I would really like to see someone build a distro that contains only the absolute best critic- and user- rated apps pre-configured. You could call it something like "BOB/OS," for "Best Of the Best." (Finding the b.o.b. base would cause mountains of debate, however: too many great ones to choose from! Take your pick from the big guys, SUSE, Mandriva, Fedora, Slack....Each has merit) The application list would be easier to compile by checking reviews, download stats, forum comments, etc. For average users like me, however, installation and maintenance are at the "somewhat important" level (i.e. it does still need to be very painless), but the applications included may be even more important. To me, a great operating system should be something that I'm only marginally aware of, sort of like the "best dressed person is the one that you really don't notice," if that makes any sense. I guess I would prefer solid functionality with an understated elegance. The OS is the really efficient assistant, the butler, the Dr. Watson to Sherlock Holmes, the Smithers to Mr. Burns....but I digress.

So there you go: some sharp developer needs to build BOB. I'll be waiting to fight the teeming masses for an opening day download.... (SUSE 10 or Mandriva 2006, anyone?)

I can not tell you how many posts that I have read that people keep asking for lite versions of software. "Get rid of the bloat" I keep hearing.

What I don't understand is why would one want to do that? An average low end computer today has

1. Processors of at least 1GHz
2. Fast front side busses
3. 3D graphics card
4. 40 GB harddrive

Even the laptop I am using is far supperior than anything I have had in the past. Why push to get smaller and smaller packages/distros? This will take away from quality of graphics and would mean fewer and fewer features. Nothing Linux can do today will be as large as Microsoft. Lets make linux better, not smaller. Most people are not running an 286s, so focus on quality.

As a side note. Publisher in Microsoft is around 650 mb. I downloaded Scribus in a few minutes. The size: 7MB. Linux like the .NET framework reuses the same libraries. I think the duplication of distribution of the same dlls in Microsoft makes for bloat. Perhaps the push should be more of standardization of libs so that when you install a new linux package, you have fewer and fewer dependency issuses. Sometime a package install goes smoothly, sometimes it sucks.

I currently use SuSE 10 (retail version on a 2 layer dvd) and it is great. Often if I am missing a lib or something else, I can pop in the dvd and it is there. No need to download anything.

A very good point. Standardization of libraries would really help. By convention, it would be helpful to users for the Linux developers to decide for the next x months or years, these are the libraries that will be used on standard Linux systems. Since I have not read all of the information about this, Is this a part of the standard base initiative?

But, this type of library restriction sort of contradicts your earlier point, that developers need the freedom to explore and develop software as they see fit. Again, from the user perspective, if I knew that I had all of the mission critical libraries in place when I installed the system, software installation would be much more "on-the-fly," and I would not have to set aside blocks of time to track down dependencies.

As a SUSE user, I think YaST works great for established packages. But for those bleeding edge upgrades, it still takes time to tweak. For example, I think it was the Scribus development series (1.3.x) has some odd dependencies that I have not been able to scrounge. So, I went back to the latest stable version, and all is well.

While I agree that most current low-end computers have ample resources and could store and run huge programs, I think that there could be some with even skimpier specs that could run decent, functional Linux systems, like the old Pentium 233 MMX I mentioned way back when. OpenOffice.org won't run on that dinosaur. But when AbiWord comes out with full support for the .odt format in the 2.4 series, I wouldn't hesitate to set up a system like that (PI or PII, 64-128 Mb RAM, small HD) with ZenWalk 1.3 and XFCE4 and use it for productivity. I am confident that there are a lot of junked computers that make their way to the closet or dumpster (er, recycling facility) simply because the software gets out-dated. Who really wants to be held to Win95 (or Me, for that matter)? Maybe this is just a specialty niche. But maybe, schools and universities could save a bundle of money by reviving some of the old hardware with fresh operating systems and modern applications. Word processors, dtp apps, basic drawing packages and spreadsheets don't need 3D graphics cards and the latest CPU's, or even the minimal configuration you mentioned.

So, on the one hand, I completely agree with you: make Linux better. But for some people, smaller can still be better.

Yeah I did contridict myself. LOL

A better approach. If the libraries were standardized that would help. If a developer develops something new, they should include it in the RPM or other means that they use for release. Standardization would make it possible for developers to know that their creation almost certainly would not be part of a "standard" linux distro and thus they should provide it. And versioning should be renforced as well. If a newer version is available as part of an update, you should be given the option to choose whether or not to allow them to operate side by side or one or the other.

you cant exactly call it linux2 as linus torvalds called one of the early versions of the kernel "linux 2.0".

what you're describing is a mix-match of already exisitng distro's such as:-
Ubuntu
Gentoo
Mandrake
Linspire
Slackware

then we just have to make it then.. even if its called a mix-distro or whatever.. I want something to happen..

do you have a clear plan of what you want to happen?

unless you have an idea on paper i dont think many people would be interested in helping you out.

sorry to be negative but the world is harsh.

Well, I don't know if this something new, but my oppinion is that all distributions, especially those that include a package manager should have complete sources added, or ready to be added. Or at least a big link on the desktop with the place where you can find those sources and how to add them. One of the most common question is how to add software in linux. Making new users understand that installing an application is as easy as clicking the mouse twice is very important.

I think that great disponibility of software in linux is a great advantage. And if a newcomer sees right away that he can have all this software ready to install with these two clicks, he will try harder finding a solution to why his soundcard will not work or why he cannot get more than 1024x768 or any other problem he might have.

..." I wanna see a linux which can make Microsoft say.. "wow, linux is really serious now, and taking over bite after bite.. can't we do nothing about it??" "...

They´ll never do that, even if they think this way.

... " I want to see a competition.. All i see now is still... windows, windows and windows again.. and it SUCKS really hard.. And it makes me angry.. I wanna see something DIFFERENT in the world.. I wanna see a free operative system every people can use.."...


Easy, Daniel San! These things take time. Remember that the average user thinks a computer just like any other fax machine.

They already have this. Its called OSX

hmm maybe..

but im working on a concrete "plan". A possible solution to make linux take more advantage for the average user.

I am hardly working on a solution, Ill give sign when ready to show it.