Page 1 of 1

new emmabuntues 32 (and 64) bits

Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:53 pm
by oui

https://sourceforge.net/settings/mirror ... ted=freefr (*1

this great distro for poor people (*2 comes again :thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2: with a fully new 32 bit version for poor people not having modern hardware! it is a sensation as emmabuntues offers all that is needing in a good distro!

please use yourself the search engine http://lilo.org to support emmabuntues without some effort from you :welcome:

(note: a puppy based on emmabuntues 32 bits would also be an sensation if it would be available!)

~~~~~

(*1 the name did not be changed but actual emmabuntues is now based on Debian!

(*2 after having cancelled the publication of 32 bits new versions! emmabuntues and emmaus are DIREKT active in tropical Africa helping children and poor communities to re use old PC's :o


Re: new emmabuntues 32 (and 64) bits

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:24 am
by 8Geee

WOW, 3.9Gb download... I'm a lot poorer than that. Slacko 5 series pups MADE for older computers is 1/16 the size.
Just how OLD is old???

8Geee


Re: new emmabuntues 32 (and 64) bits

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:54 am
by wiak
8Geee wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:24 am

WOW, 3.9Gb download... I'm a lot poorer than that. Slacko 5 series pups MADE for older computers is 1/16 the size.
Just how OLD is old???

8Geee

Show me a distro under 2GB once all the usual apps like Gimp, (full of course) Inkscape, Libreoffice, Kdenlive are installed that ends up under 2GB in size. Easy enough to make a distro under 1GB download size (even 500MB in size) but unless you just want to browse and have a few simpler apps like Abiword, Geany, and Gnumeric, you are going to be installing more and ending up a few GB in installed size almost certainly. But apps storage size has nothing to do with run-time efficiency, and most internet connections nowadays would not be frightened with a 3.9GB download (though does take a while on my rural ASDL broadband... The Emmabuntus require 1GB RAM machines minimum, but what machines newer than 10 years old would not come with at least that much??? And what machines newer than 10 years old would not provide considerably more than, say, 10 GB of hard disk storage space (and even becoming difficult to buy usb flash sticks under 8 GB)... Or are people in developing countries expected to only have use of smallest apps possible, so no full Inkscape, Kdenlive and so on. Is Abiword and similar all enough for those who have old machines or little money because living in developing countries with few resources? I think not - I think they want and need a distro that ends up over 2GB in stored size.


Re: new emmabuntues 32 (and 64) bits

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2021 1:33 pm
by rockedge

I am working on making a bootable ISO of WDL_Void-xfce4, which I have done and it will boot in VirtualBox no problem. This ISO is 750 M round about. This WDL_Void-xfce4 has the full xfce4 desktop and what comes with it but little else. Sure it has terminals, a Thunar file manager, can view images, play media files but I supply no browser, no image editor, but does have a small editor (mousepad). What one does get is the BASE to add easily what ever one needs (or wants) to it with the excellent xbps package manager.

What I am saying here is sure I can build a command line only, no Xserver no wayland distro that fits and boots from an ISO around 50 M, which is blazing fast and rock solid stable but no GUI at all and also not outfitted with many command line text only applications. But the reality is for a system to be close to a "regular" desktop we are looking at a 1.5 - 3 gigabyte ISO, which isn't what will run in RAM.

The WDL_Void-xfce4 fully loaded with "good stuff" with an ISO size of 2 G still only requires 300-800 M of RAM to run. The command line version even less.


Re: new emmabuntues 32 (and 64) bits

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:33 am
by Clarity

I am SO HAPPY!

For once, someones of us are standing correctly identifying 'SIZE'!

The community has to begin to evision functionality vs size. Size of an ISO has NOTHING to do with PC behavior. Has nothing to do with performance, stability, capability, etc.

An ISO's size is MERELY the box that the distro is delivered to us users. The more features that are built-in to the ISO, expect a bigger box necessary to provide the features.

Over the years, some better compression techniques have allowed some slight reductions so the the box 'size' is smaller depending on which of the techniques a distro developer employs.

Thanks, so much, for the "standup" expressions made.