Mini Lubuntu (MLubuntu) [Archive]

amjjawad

July 10th, 2013, 02:39 PM

Hello :)

Let's start some brainstorming, how about that?

One of the things in mind is:http://amjjawad.blogspot.com/2013/06/mini-lubuntu-part-2.html

Part 1 can be found on the above link so you can tell from all this has come from.

Please note, this is very initial idea. Which means, we are just in the beginning. Things will sure be different when we start and finish, hopefully.

Let me know what do you think?
Bottom Line: Create a system that is even lighter than Lubuntu and much simpler. However, it is not a good option for NEW comers to Linux!

I am looking forward to hear from you.

The name might not be Mini Lubuntu. We (in case we will have a team working on this project) may not use LXDE or the same packages in Lubuntu. I'm not yet sure. This is just the beginning!

Thanks!

amjjawad

July 10th, 2013, 04:33 PM

http://amjjawad.blogspot.com/2013/07/draft-mubuntu-simple-minimal-system.html (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Famjjawad.blogspot.com%2F2013% 2F07%2Fdraft-mubuntu-simple-minimal-system.html&h=FAQFg8zdM)

amjjawad

December 17th, 2013, 02:48 AM

The last months were super crazy and busy so I had no time for this project but I just found some spare time so here are some thoughts.

During all that time, I was thinking and discussing with some friends on Facebook about this project. Lately, I have started a Real Life campaign (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2174725&page=7&p=12872331#post12872331) to convert people to Linux. During this, I have seen many very old machines and some didn't even work for hardware faults, etc and totally dead. The ones that worked, each has its own surprise and gave me some hard time until I managed to install a flavour and get it working. One of these machines never worked on any flavour of Ubuntu. However, it worked with SliTaz like a charm.

That made me wondering:

1- What 'exactly' is different in Ubuntu (note that I have tried several releases so different Kernels) and its flavour which makes installing it on some hardware mission impossible?

2- I am aware that after 12.04, there is no support for NON-PAE machines. However, from what I have seen, there is a difference between say Xubuntu 12.04 and Crunchbang 32-bit for i486 which supports the NON-PAE machines?! is it the i386 and i486?

3- I have heard that the new releases 13.10 and later will not be or are not computable with NON-PAE Kernel so there is no way for any system based on Ubuntu 13.10 and above to support or work on a NON-PAE hardware no matter what?!

4- If my project will be based on Ubuntu 12.04, it might be able to support more range of old hardware but what if it will be based on Ubuntu 14.04? or that is too early to discuss?

5- Can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly makes other system (Debian for example) LIGHTER than Ubuntu based system?
I have talked to many friends and all of them confirmed that Debian with LXDE is Lighter than Lubuntu. Same goes for Crunchbang - for example. So, what exactly on Ubuntu Core build that makes it heavier?

6- The target of my project (this one - regardless of the name) is to have a lighter system than Lubuntu. It should be super minimal, yet it should have a DE (GUI). I am very confused yet and not sure what is the best DE and/or WM should I use for that? I don't want ugly build yet I want it lighter than Lubuntu.

These Qs I have in mind and guess the answers will help me to carry on with this project and decide whether it worthy to carry on or call this project off.

Thank you!

1leenie

December 17th, 2013, 04:43 AM

iceWM and pekwm run very light. They can be made pretty.

sudodus

December 17th, 2013, 06:33 AM

The last months were super crazy and busy so I had no time for this project but I just found some spare time so here are some thoughts.

During all that time, I was thinking and discussing with some friends on Facebook about this project. Lately, I have started a Real Life campaign (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2174725&page=7&p=12872331#post12872331) to convert people to Linux. During this, I have seen many very old machines and some didn't even work for hardware faults, etc and totally dead. The ones that worked, each has its own surprise and gave me some hard time until I managed to install a flavour and get it working. One of these machines never worked on any flavour of Ubuntu. However, it worked with SliTaz like a charm.

That made me wondering:

1- What 'exactly' is different in Ubuntu (note that I have tried several releases so different Kernels) and its flavour which makes installing it on some hardware mission impossible?

I think the kernel and the hardware drivers make the difference.

2- I am aware that after 12.04, there is no support for NON-PAE machines. However, from what I have seen, there is a difference between say Xubuntu 12.04 and Crunchbang 32-bit for i486 which supports the NON-PAE machines?! is it the i386 and i486?

An Ubuntu i386 kernel is actually i686 with CMOV, PAE and SMP (and probably more capabiliities that are not available in i486)

3- I have heard that the new releases 13.10 and later will not be or are not computable with NON-PAE Kernel so there is no way for any system based on Ubuntu 13.10 and above to support or work on a NON-PAE hardware no matter what?!

13.10 works for me with fake-PAE with Celeron M and Pentium M CPUs, that have PAE capability but no PAE flag.

4- If my project will be based on Ubuntu 12.04, it might be able to support more range of old hardware but what if it will be based on Ubuntu 14.04? or that is too early to discuss?

We don't know definitely about 14.04 yet.

5- Can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly makes other system (Debian for example) LIGHTER than Ubuntu based system?
I have talked to many friends and all of them confirmed that Debian with LXDE is Lighter than Lubuntu. Same goes for Crunchbang - for example. So, what exactly on Ubuntu Core build that makes it heavier?

You mentioned it: The kernel (and to some degree the selection of software packages).

6- The target of my project (this one - regardless of the name) is to have a lighter system than Lubuntu. It should be super minimal, yet it should have a DE (GUI). I am very confused yet and not sure what is the best DE and/or WM should I use for that? I don't want ugly build yet I want it lighter than Lubuntu.

These Qs I have in mind and guess the answers will help me to carry on with this project and decide whether it worthy to carry on or call this project off.

I think there are many nice features of Ubuntu for the vast majority of users and computers. It works: the standard tasks can be performed without any tweaking. But it is not the best solution for very old computers with old CPUs, low RAM and old or unusual graphics.

Thank you!

mastablasta

December 17th, 2013, 08:46 AM

also it's runnign some services that are sort of standard on latest mashicnes but do not exists on older ones. while in debian you need to turn them on or install separatelly.

amjjawad

December 17th, 2013, 09:53 AM

iceWM and pekwm run very light. They can be made pretty.

Welcome to Ubuntu Forums, my friend :D
Good to see you here!

Hmm, that is the default for AntiX - http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=antiX - and I have never heard about pekwm!

Do you have any experience with IceWM? last time I used AntiX was 3 years ago, I guess :)

IceWM is a Window Manager so does it need a DE or it will work as a DE and as a WM too?

Thanks for posting and enjoy Ubuntu Forums :)

amjjawad

December 17th, 2013, 10:00 AM

also it's runnign some services that are sort of standard on latest mashicnes but do not exists on older ones. while in debian you need to turn them on or install separatelly.

I SEE :)
That does make lots of sense to me. That is why everyone is keep saying Debian based system is faster than Ubuntu based system for old machines.

Any idea what kind of services? so I can remove or turn them off?

Thank you!

amjjawad

December 17th, 2013, 10:14 AM

I think the kernel and the hardware drivers make the difference.
Oh, as I expected :)

I guess no matter what I try, as long as the system will be based on Ubuntu and it sure does for the moment, I think I will run into this problem :(
I mean, the system will not be installable on all/most of the hardware and then the user needs to use something else! I guess there is nothing we can do about this as long as the system is Ubuntu based.

An Ubuntu i386 kernel is actually i686 with CMOV, PAE and SMP (and probably more capabiliities that are not available in i486)

AHA, that does make lots of sense now :)

Therefore, Ubuntu based system, will be different from Debian because AFAIK, Ubuntu is no longer support i486, correct?

13.10 works for me with fake-PAE with Celeron M and Pentium M CPUs, that have PAE capability but no PAE flag.

Yes, but it does not work by default, unless you actually do something to make it work like Fake-PAE :)

We don't know definitely about 14.04 yet.
+1

You mentioned it: The kernel (and to some degree the selection of software packages).
I see :)

I think there are many nice features of Ubuntu for the vast majority of users and computers. It works: the standard tasks can be performed without any tweaking. But it is not the best solution for very old computers with old CPUs, low RAM and old or unusual graphics.
Yes indeed, that is why I am using Ubuntu as the base system either for this project or my daily usage because I have no time to do things manually but maybe one day, I make the switch :P

It is a trade off, as far as I can tell. You need super easy system that works out-of-the box? = Ubuntu
You need a system that works on wider range of hardware and old machines = Non-Ubuntu

Thank you so much for your post!

sudodus

December 17th, 2013, 10:46 AM

Therefore, Ubuntu based system, will be different from Debian because AFAIK, Ubuntu is no longer support i486, correct?

Yes

wjckc79

December 17th, 2013, 12:01 PM

1. The number one problem that makes installing Ubuntu on some hardware is the kernel that the installer boots. For example, I use elementary OS, elementary OS is based on 12.04 and so the installer boots with the 3.2 kernel. Because of this the only way I can install it is to use one of their unstable builds which boots the installer with the 3.8 kernel. My system has newer hardware and the 3.2 kernel simply can't make sense of it, preventing the regular installer from booting.

2. For the reasons I stated above, I strongly suggest forgetting about 12.04 and instead base the distro off of Ubuntu Mini 13.10. 12.04 is simply too old and it's really starting to show. I believe committing to 12.04 would be something you would regret in the long run. As far as PAE goes, that simply a matter of compiling it into the kernel. I have no idea why support for it is being dropped by everyone.

3. Yes, a system the boots a PAE enabled kernel and is also based on 13.10 can be created.

4. Again, I suggest forgetting about 12.04 and going straight for 13.10. 14.04 is too new to work off of right now and won't be done until April. But at some point, following the six-month release cycle may be something to consider.

5. Ubuntu is heavy for the following reasons: The init process starts way too much stuff. Once you start the DE, a whole bunch of stuff that does not need to be loaded right away gets loaded. Also, Unity and GNOME are heavy. Other distros are much more conservative when it comes to what gets loaded and when. Building off of Mini would prevent all that, being lightweight by default.

6. XFCE and for hardcore types http://i3wm.org/ come to mind, but I'll have to think and do some research on this one. To an extend, the DE depends or your target audience.

amjjawad

December 17th, 2013, 01:43 PM

I am glad to announce that myself and sudodus (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1499021) will team up and work on this project :D

If anyone would like to join, he/she is more than welcome (http://amjjawad.blogspot.com/2013/12/minimal-ubuntu-aka-mubuntu.html) :)

amjjawad

December 17th, 2013, 02:32 PM

Hi and welcome to Ubuntu Forums :)

1. The number one problem that makes installing Ubuntu on some hardware is the kernel that the installer boots. For example, I use elementary OS, elementary OS is based on 12.04 and so the installer boots with the 3.2 kernel. Because of this the only way I can install it is to use one of their unstable builds which boots the installer with the 3.8 kernel. My system has newer hardware and the 3.2 kernel simply can't make sense of it, preventing the regular installer from booting.

So, let me get this straight. Are you saying that 3.2 Kernel Series is causing you some problems one newer hardware while Kernel 3.8 series (13.04 releases) work perfectly?

Well, I am typing this from Core i5 2nd generation and 4GB RAM using Xubuntu 12.04.3 LTS with 3.2 Kernel Series :) works like a charm!

2. For the reasons I stated above, I strongly suggest forgetting about 12.04 and instead base the distro off of Ubuntu Mini 13.10. 12.04 is simply too old and it's really starting to show. I believe committing to 12.04 would be something you would regret in the long run. As far as PAE goes, that simply a matter of compiling it into the kernel. I have no idea why support for it is being dropped by everyone.
But this will defeat the whole idea of this project, at least for the very moment. We are trying to help the old machines as much as we can. One of my good friends (PhillW) was trying to find a way for i486 to work with newer releases but Ubuntu Kernel Team told him that could never happen due to compatibility issues.

So, for this project as a start, we do need to use 12.04/3.2 Kernel to support wider range of old hardware. However, some older hardware won't be supported.

3. Yes, a system the boots a PAE enabled kernel and is also based on 13.10 can be created.
13.10 releases are using PAE Kernel and they will not be installed by default on NON-PAE machines. Lubuntu and Xubuntu 12.04 both using NON-PAE Kernel. Starting from 12.10, all Ubuntu Family dropped that and all are using PAE Kernel.

4. Again, I suggest forgetting about 12.04 and going straight for 13.10. 14.04 is too new to work off of right now and won't be done until April. But at some point, following the six-month release cycle may be something to consider.
Check my previous reply :)

5. Ubuntu is heavy for the following reasons: The init process starts way too much stuff. Once you start the DE, a whole bunch of stuff that does not need to be loaded right away gets loaded. Also, Unity and GNOME are heavy. Other distros are much more conservative when it comes to what gets loaded and when. Building off of Mini would prevent all that, being lightweight by default.
Indeed. If I remember correctly, logging to the Mini ISO installed system was using 27MB of RAM when I tested it last time :)

6. XFCE and for hardcore types http://i3wm.org/ come to mind, but I'll have to think and do some research on this one. To an extend, the DE depends or your target audience.
This is the most part that confuses me. I am not yet sure what is the best super light DE to use. I don't want something ugly and at the same time, something easy with less problems and beautiful :) not very beautiful though because this suppose to be very lightweight. If they want something beautiful, there is Lubuntu or even better Xubuntu but both will not work on some hardware. Not to mention, this is an LTS system unlike Lubuntu 12.04 which is NOT LTS :)

Thank you so much for posting :)

amjjawad

December 18th, 2013, 04:49 PM

Yesterday, on IRC and Google+ Community (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/101281875711197058405), we had an amazing brainstorming session :D

@sudodus, there is great news :D
You sure know Melodie? the one who created Bento (http://linuxvillage.org/en/2013/11/bento-ubuntu-remix-rc/) - she was so interested and she said within few days, she will start playing with the very first version of this project :)

Most likely, we will have two builds: one using an old kernel to support old hardware and other based on new kernel.

I am however confused whether to choose Ubuntu Mini 12.04 for the old hardware build? or should I go for Debian which supports i486?
As per Phill (posted on my facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/419362094844633/)):

I have been given two opinions, one that it will not work and one that it will. Given that, I intend to find out by doing it!

That was a response to my post:

in our last chat, you said that is not possible and the 'new' kernel is not compatible and will not be possible to support NON-PAE Hardware. I still think the easiest way is to use i486 Kernel (Crunchbang - based on Debian - already have that) but that is just me and I am not a developer

So, what do you think??!!

sudodus

December 18th, 2013, 05:28 PM

Great news :-D

If we don't know, but have energy enough, let us test what works!

dbyentzen

December 19th, 2013, 03:51 AM

This project is a great idea. I like the concept of having two different builds. One for older hardware and one for newer. Also, if possible, I think having a default( just works/the basics ) install and a "build-your-own" install within each build would be nice. I have some experience with and like Openbox as a WM and Razor-QT as a DE but I am totally open to using something else. It's great to gear this towards older/slower hardware but we should keep in mind folks with newer hardware that may want a very fast, lightweight, highly configurable system---like me. We can attract both older hardware and newer hardware if we can manage two builds!

amjjawad

December 19th, 2013, 07:27 AM

Great news :-D
Great news indeed :)
She is busy working on a project right now and she will let me know once she is done.

If we don't know, but have energy enough, let us test what works!
We? don't know? you for sure know that if 'we' (at least me and you) want to do something, we will do whatever it takes to actually 'know' :D

As for energy, you know me ;)

Yep, beside Melodie, there are other interested people but most likely the first alpha will be made by her.

I added you by the way to the Launchpad team :)

amjjawad

December 19th, 2013, 07:31 AM

Hi my friend and welcome to Ubuntu Forums :)

This project is a great idea.
Glad you like it :)

I like the concept of having two different builds. One for older hardware and one for newer. Also, if possible, I think having a default( just works/the basics ) install and a "build-your-own" install within each build would be nice. I have some experience with and like Openbox as a WM and Razor-QT as a DE but I am totally open to using something else. It's great to gear this towards older/slower hardware but we should keep in mind folks with newer hardware that may want a very fast, lightweight, highly configurable system---like me. We can attract both older hardware and newer hardware if we can manage two builds![/QUOTE]

Have a read at this (http://amjjawad.blogspot.com/2013/12/minimal-ubuntu-aka-mubuntu.html). I updated it last night.

I am keen to have two builds, one for old hardware and one for new because I had a previous experience with Lubuntu when people started to use it even on their new hardware, not only the old ones. Worst case scenarios, if we couldn't do it for this version (1), definitely version (2) will have that. You know 14.04 is not yet ready and it is bad idea to have something based on 13.10 while we are 4 months away from having 14.04 up and running. Above all, my intention to have an LTS system as I am not interested at all to base it on 9 months release :)

Thanks for posting and you are most welcome to join us!

mips

December 19th, 2013, 03:21 PM

I am keen to have two builds, one for old hardware and one for new because I had a previous experience with Lubuntu when people started to use it even on their new hardware, not only the old ones.

I think you are overcomplicating things. Seeing as this is suppose to be something lightweight why not create a single spin. Have it use a new non-pae kernel so everybody can boot off it. If you need a different kernel just install it from the repos or have a post installation script where people can select what kernel they would like to change to.

Just the other day I made manjaro respin with with kernel 3.12 for someone because their new laptop would simply not boot on with the default 3.8 kernel.

Once you have the system installed the kernel can always be changed by the user. People these days battle to find distros with non-pae kernels and it's a pain for many people with older hardware.

amjjawad

December 19th, 2013, 09:52 PM

Hi mips and good to see you here :)

I think you are overcomplicating things.
That is definitely not my intention to make things harder. So, let's KISS (Keep It Simple and Short)!

Seeing as this is suppose to be something lightweight why not create a single spin. Have it use a new non-pae kernel so everybody can boot off it.
What do yo mean by "a new non-pae kernel"? are we, for example, taking about 3.11 but non-pae kernel? AFAIK, that might involve creating/using something different that what 'Ubuntu' is using by default. As you may know, starting from 12.10 Ubuntu and all its official flavours are using PAE Kernel. AFAIK, Crunchbang, which is based on Debain, is using NON-PAE Kernel for its 'For Old Hardware Build/ISO' with i486 Kernel:

crunchbang-11-20130506-i486.iso

If you need a different kernel just install it from the repos
Let me get this straight. If I am now using Ubuntu 13.10 and I'd like to have a NON-PAE Kernel, are you saying I need to download and install that from the official repertoires? is that even possible?

or have a post installation script where people can select what kernel they would like to change to.
But that will defeat the purpose of this system. The point is to boot the LiveCD of this system. If this system will 'not' use 'by default' a NON-PAE Kernel, then as long as the machine is NON-PAE machine (CPU), the LiveCD will never boot. Someone please correct me if I am wrong :)

Just the other day I made manjaro respin with with kernel 3.12 for someone because their new laptop would simply not boot on with the default 3.8 kernel.
New Laptop? that is definitely not the main target of this project. The 'main' focus on 'old' hardware.

Once you have the system installed the kernel can always be changed by the user.
Exactly, that is why this system needs to use a NON-PAE Kernel by default ;) so it can be installed then the user is free to do whatever he/she wants which is the 2nd main focus on this project - give freedom and the choice to the users to build their own system the way they want/wish.

People these days battle to find distros with non-pae kernels and it's a pain for many people with older hardware.
Indeed, you are correct. That is why, I decided to go for this project on the first place.

As of today, even Lubuntu can't help these machines with NON-PAE. Fake-PAE and other approaches? maybe but still that involved lots of steps and it is totally different when you have something that just work out of the box with NON-PAE Kernel :)

amjjawad

December 19th, 2013, 09:54 PM

mips

December 20th, 2013, 02:17 PM

What do yo mean by "a new non-pae kernel"? are we, for example, taking about 3.11 but non-pae kernel? AFAIK, that might involve creating/using something different that what 'Ubuntu' is using by default. As you may know, starting from 12.10 Ubuntu and all its official flavours are using PAE Kernel. AFAIK, Crunchbang, which is based on Debain, is using NON-PAE Kernel for its 'For Old Hardware Build/ISO' with i486 Kernel:

Yes, 3.11 non-pae. You would either have to compile your kernels or find a PPA that provides them.

Let me get this straight. If I am now using Ubuntu 13.10 and I'd like to have a NON-PAE Kernel, are you saying I need to download and install that from the official repertoires? is that even possible?

No, not possible. There are no non-pae kernels available in the repos for 12.10 onwards as far as I'm aware.

But that will defeat the purpose of this system. The point is to boot the LiveCD of this system. If this system will 'not' use 'by default' a NON-PAE Kernel, then as long as the machine is NON-PAE machine (CPU), the LiveCD will never boot. Someone please correct me if I am wrong :)

That's not what I meant. I meant have the livecd boot with a non-pae kernel and once the system is installed the user can change to a pae kernel if they have the need for one.

New Laptop? that is definitely not the main target of this project. The 'main' focus on 'old' hardware.

Some people might wanna use your distro on new hardware. If you are using an old kernel it might not work for them. I know you are not targeting new fancy laptops but some people might still wanna use your distro and would not be able to do so with an older kernel.

Exactly, that is why this system needs to use a NON-PAE Kernel by default ;) so it can be installed then the user is free to do whatever he/she wants which is the 2nd main focus on this project - give freedom and the choice to the users to build their own system the way they want/wish.

That's what I've been saying but I think I've been misunderstood or did not make it clear enough.

As of today, even Lubuntu can't help these machines with NON-PAE. Fake-PAE and other approaches? maybe but still that involved lots of steps and it is totally different when you have something that just work out of the box with NON-PAE Kernel :)

Fake-PAE does not really seem like an option as people still have to jump through hoops to make it work. Short of finding a PPA with non-pae kernels you can add to your livecd or maintaining your own PPA a better option might be to look at Debian Testing or Debian Stable.

amjjawad

December 20th, 2013, 04:58 PM

Yes, 3.11 non-pae. You would either have to compile your kernels or find a PPA that provides them.

Phill, former Lubuntu QA Team Leader (just like me, he stepped down/resigned from Lubuntu) was looking for someone to do exactly that as far as I can tell:

Phill Whiteside:
non-pae kernel has now been built, just waiting for download instructions it needs adding to an ppa.
(17:06:08) hyperair: phillw: https://launchpad.net/~hyperair/+archive/staging/+packages <-- nonpae kernels are up
(17:06:37) phillw: hyperair: what can I say? WoW!!!!

Source for information (https://www.facebook.com/groups/amjjawad/permalink/499321653515343/)

I think, things are clear now to me :)
As long as there is a Kernel, say it is living inside an PPA, one can use it with whatever Kernel he/she wants: 3.2, 3.8, 3.11, etc. I think that is the easier path.

No, not possible. There are no non-pae kernels available in the repos for 12.10 onwards as far as I'm aware.
Yes, that was confusing me but now, things are clear and make more sense, thanks :)

That's not what I meant. I meant have the livecd boot with a non-pae kernel and once the system is installed the user can change to a pae kernel if they have the need for one.

This is very interesting indeed. How exactly can I do that? any idea?

Some people might wanna use your distro on new hardware. If you are using an old kernel it might not work for them. I know you are not targeting new fancy laptops but some people might still wanna use your distro and would not be able to do so with an older kernel.
I see your point now. You are right. What if someone has a new machine and wants to try my system?

So, to solve this, we need:

That's not what I meant. I meant have the livecd boot with a non-pae kernel and once the system is installed the user can change to a pae kernel if they have the need for one.

Correct?

This is very interesting. If 'both' old hardware (the main focus on this project) and new hardware can be used with this system, this is really great. I definitely want to go that path :)

This will actually 'save' my time and no need for another Spin/Build, correct? now, I guess I know what you meant about your first post:

I think you are overcomplicating things.

That's what I've been saying but I think I've been misunderstood or did not make it clear enough.
Yes, it wasn't clear to me but thanks to you, I got it now :)

Fake-PAE does not really seem like an option as people still have to jump through hoops to make it work.
+1
This is what I had in mind too. Newcomers will find this super hard for them. Some if not most don't even know what 'PAE' means!
That is where the idea of this project has come from.

Short of finding a PPA with non-pae kernels you can add to your livecd or maintaining your own PPA a better option might be to look at Debian Testing or Debian Stable.
Not sure how Crunchbang (based on Debian) is doing it but it seems Debain are still supporting i486 Kernel which is NON-PAE Kernel and that is why Crunchbang was an option for those with old hardware + Bodhi Linux. Not yet sure what other systems are using NON-PAE Kernel by default?

So, if Debian has that by default, it is good because there is no much difference between Debian and Ubuntu AFAIK.
And, if we can have that on Ubuntu (PPA), so no need to use Debian's Kernel.

But a Q here:

Kernel on PPA? is that stable? I mean, will this cause any problem when upgrading for example? or it is the other way around?

sudodus

December 20th, 2013, 05:24 PM

@sudodus

Could you please confirm whether you can help to make OBI the default installer for this system? ;)
Yes, you read it correctly. I'd like to go for OBI as the default installer for this system!

I trust your skills and I am sure this will be helpful. I have always promised to test OBI for you but never got the chance. I think the best way to make it up for you is to go with OBI as the default installer. So, what do you think? is that possible?

Yes - provided I get a working systems, I can make tarballs of them. And The OBI can install a system from the tarball.

1. The kernel
2. The software packages including desktop environment and application programs.
3. System settings.

Actually anybody can make a tarball from an installed system (that works). We must decide how to communicate the system.

A. Who should have the master system, and how should it be distributed between the project participants?

@amjjawad: Do you want to build and tweak the system?

B. How to upload contributions (plans, suggestions, parts (software, tweaks of the system) and the whole system?

I suggest that the whole system is communicated as a tarball (tarballs of different versions along the path of development).

ps/
You can test the OBI by installing a system from LubuntuCoreSaucy.tar.xz, which will give you a reference system with the standard Lubuntu Core 13.10 with the only tweak (extra feature compared to the mini iso), that the network is made portable.
/ds

sudodus

December 20th, 2013, 05:37 PM

Phill, former Lubuntu QA Team Leader (just like me, he stepped down/resigned from Lubuntu) was looking for someone to do exactly that as far as I can tell:

I think Phill has such a kernel now, and it needs testing ...

+1
This is what I had in mind too. Newcomers will find this super hard for them. Some if not most don't even know what 'PAE' means!
That is where the idea of this project has come from.

-1
Not superhard. Lubuntu fake-PAE makes it easy. The OBI makes it easy also for other flavours and re-spins of Ubuntu. And there is information about the PAE problem, when they try to install from the iso file, if the users didn't know. But a non-PAE kernel is better, it is the straight-forward way to do it :-D

mips

December 20th, 2013, 11:54 PM

Not superhard. Lubuntu fake-PAE makes it easy. The OBI makes it easy also for other flavours and re-spins of Ubuntu. And there is information about the PAE problem, when they try to install from the iso file, if the users didn't know. But a non-PAE kernel is better, it is the straight-forward way to do it :-D

Please explain to us how it's easier? Easy is installing from a livecd or usb without any intervention. Having to jump through hoops to get your non pae pc to work is absolute bullschite in my honest opinion.

I've spent most of the day googling solutions to this problem wrt non-pae and ubuntu and in al seriousness does not give a continental **** about your old hardware. That's why I suggest people look at Debian as it's similar to ubuntu but you can still use it on your old hardware. There are many other distros that still do non-pae by default but I reckon most people would feel more familiar with a debian based distro.

If anybody thinks I'm talking crap please mention it and escalate ;)

sudodus

December 21st, 2013, 12:38 AM

Please check the instructions how to install using Lubuntu fake-PAE (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/grub-n-iso) or the One Button Installer (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2172971).

1. Download a compressed image instead of an iso file, the same level of difficulty.

2. Make a USB boot drive. If you are using mkusb, the same level of difficulty (very similar), sudo mkusb filename

3. Run the installer:

3a. Lubuntu fake-PAE grub-n-iso starts the iso file via grub2, so it is the same procedure (it looks like an installation with Unetbootin).

3b. Lubuntu fake-PAE installed system is somewhat different, actually simpler, but the difference might cause doubts and problems for users who want everything to be as usual.

3c. The One Button Installer is made to be easier and safer (more fool-proof) than the standard installers. It is somewhat different, which might cause doubts and problems for users who want everything to be as usual.

-o-

But a non-PAE kernel is better than fake-PAE, it is the straight-forward way to do it :grin: And I am involved in this process to use such a modern Ubuntu kernel. There is an advantage with Ubuntu and Ubuntu based flavours and re-spins and distros: They work for many people and computers without any tweaking, which is not the case with most other alternatives.

mips

December 21st, 2013, 01:14 AM

I'm sorry but this fake-pae thing is just bs. I understand that it gives people an opportunity to change the kernel but it's way to complicated to noobs. Why can't they simply release their so called 'light' flavours with a non-pae kernel. it's not a sin. i will never understand how they got to this decision and implemented it.

sudodus

December 21st, 2013, 01:40 AM

If a noob uses the OBI, [s]he will never mess with fake-PAE. It is there already installed in some of the tarballs. And it is similar with Lubuntu fake-PAE 'installed system'.

But I need to ask why you are so negative to fake-PAE. Maybe you have some bad experience of it. In that case, please let us know the details!

-o-

Maybe it happened like this: Celeron M and Pentium M were forgotten at a meeting about kernels, and when the decision to drop non-PAE kernels was made, those in charge did not want to reverse it.

amjjawad

January 11th, 2014, 12:28 AM

I understand that it gives people an opportunity to change the kernel but it's way to complicated to noobs. Why can't they simply release their so called 'light' flavours with a non-pae kernel. it's not a sin. i will never understand how they got to this decision and implemented it.

+1

@sudodus

If a noob uses the OBI, [s]he will never mess with fake-PAE. It is there already installed in some of the tarballs. And it is similar with Lubuntu fake-PAE 'installed system'.

'Still' complicated and might be even 'very' complicated for first timers ;)
We are talking about those who have never even heard of Linux.

That is why, I am trying to go ahead with this project :) to simply offer a NON-PAE Kernel for old machines so they will 'not' be forsaken.
Also, since Trusty has not yet released and will be released after 8-April-2014 (EOL of Windows XP), I am willing to base this system on Ubuntu 12.04 Mini ISO :) and yes, it is going to be an LTS :)

By the way, "Mubuntu" name is taken:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mubuntu-main/

So, I am working with my team now to finish the naming process and very soon, we shall start the real fun :)

sudodus

January 11th, 2014, 09:50 AM

'Still' complicated and might be even 'very' complicated for first timers ;)
We are talking about those who have never even heard of Linux.

Please try the OBI before saying that it is very complicated ;-)

Think of a person who has never even heard of Linux, but is used to install programs in Windows XP. Compare the steps to install linux the OBI way with the ISO file way!

amjjawad

January 11th, 2014, 09:53 AM

Please try the OBI before saying that it is very complicated ;-)

Think of a a person who has never even heard of Linux, but is used to install programs in Windows XP. Compare the steps to install linux the OBI way with the ISO file way!

If you are willing to contribute to our (because I am not alone, there are good people who are so willing to participate) project and maybe OBI can be the default installer, then it is a good chance to try it on real hardware ;)

But, just for the record, this project will have NON-PAE Kernel by default so with or without OBI, this system should support old and newer hardware :D

sudodus

January 11th, 2014, 09:58 AM

If you are willing to contribute to our (because I am not alone, there are good people who are so willing to participate) project and maybe OBI can be the default installer, then it is a good chance to try it on real hardware ;)

But, just for the record, this project will have NON-PAE Kernel by default so with or without OBI, this system should support old and newer hardware :D

I made an OBI tarball with an experimental nonpae kernel. You find it here: http://phillw.net/isos/one-button-installer/rc/

amjjawad

January 11th, 2014, 10:04 AM

I made an OBI tarball with an experimental nonpae kernel. You find it here: http://phillw.net/isos/one-button-installer/rc/

That is good but it is a bit early for this project to discuss the installer now. We need to choose a name. Finish the team Setup on Launchpad, etc. Create some Artwork for the name, etc (I hope Rafael can help with this or any one interested). Book the domain for the website (there is another member who is very interested to be in charge of the website of this project). Decide the default DE/WM, etc. And maybe at the end to discuss the installer :)

But definitely, having someone like you with us on this project is a huge plus because we both worked together on this very topic (old hardware and lightweight systems) and I do know how helpful you will be to us :)

mips

January 11th, 2014, 11:55 AM

But I need to ask why you are so negative to fake-PAE. Maybe you have some bad experience of it. In that case, please let us know the details!

I'm sorry if I came across as negative to fake-PAE, it's not my intention. I realise fake-PAE is there to try and fill the gap left with no no-pae kernels available any more. fake-pae is a 'fix' for something that should never have been broken in the first place. It's a case of treating the symptoms and not the cause.

fake-pae is not that simple for someone new to linux, most people will pop in a ubuntu cd, it won't work and they wont bother any further. There was no need to drop the non-pae kernels as far as I'm concerned, it just created more hassle for 'certain' people

My issue is not with you or fake-PAE, it's with the dropping of the non-pae kernels and creating this issue. Sorry if it came across as directed at fake-pae, I assure it was not my intention. You guys tried to create a fix for the situation for which you should be commended but I don't think it's an ideal solution and that is not your fault.

sudodus

January 11th, 2014, 02:50 PM

I'm sorry if I came across as negative to fake-PAE, it's not my intention. I realise fake-PAE is there to try and fill the gap left with no no-pae kernels available any more. fake-pae is a 'fix' for something that should never have been broken in the first place. It's a case of treating the symptoms and not the cause.

fake-pae is not that simple for someone new to linux, most people will pop in a ubuntu cd, it won't work and they wont bother any further. There was no need to drop the non-pae kernels as far as I'm concerned, it just created more hassle for 'certain' people

My issue is not with you or fake-PAE, it's with the dropping of the non-pae kernels and creating this issue. Sorry if it came across as directed at fake-pae, I assure it was not my intention. You guys tried to create a fix for the situation for which you should be commended but I don't think it's an ideal solution and that is not your fault.

OK :-)

Then our opinions are rather similar (even if they differ a bit, I think we can live with that, and strive together to improve the Ubuntu based systems for old hardware).

... most people will pop in a ubuntu cd, it won't work and they wont bother any further.

Another problem is that standard Ubuntu needs rather powerful computers (CPU and RAM) to run reasonably well. It means that even computers with more modern CPUs than the Pentium M and Celeron M will perform poorly, if people pop in a ubuntu cd. So it is important to promote the community flavours (Xubuntu and Lubuntu) with lighter foot-print.

mips

January 11th, 2014, 02:57 PM

Another problem is that standard Ubuntu needs rather powerful computers (CPU and RAM) to run reasonably well. It means that even computers with more modern CPUs than the Pentium M and Celeron M will perform poorly, if people pop in a ubuntu cd. So it is important to promote the community flavours (Xubuntu and Lubuntu) with lighter foot-print.

I use the term Ubuntu loosely to mean any of the versions, problem however exists across the board.

amjjawad

January 12th, 2014, 05:08 PM

Hi everyone,

Kindly help me to choose a name for my project by voting:

https://t.co/W9rJVMa8Jy

Thank you!

amjjawad

January 13th, 2014, 12:24 PM

Hi everyone,

Kindly help me to choose a name for my project by voting:

https://t.co/W9rJVMa8Jy

Thank you!

52 votes so far :)

Once the name will be decided, I shall rename:
https://launchpad.net/~mubuntu-team

And New Mailing List will be created so the Social Media Sites that are currently being used will be only for general chat and not any further development discussion.

Can't wait to beat Lubuntu :P
It is great to challenge yourself and challenge the project that you put so much efforts into it. After all, we shall work together because maybe half of the interested people of my project are Lubuntu contributors too :)

amjjawad

January 14th, 2014, 01:13 AM

By the way, I had a chat today with a good friend on IRC and I've been told that Ubuntu Mini ISO can't be used to build a system but it is helpful for installation purposes. For some 'Technical' reason I couldn't honestly understand (maybe I need to sleep and get out from my Zombie mode so I can understand better), the Ubuntu Mini won't be helpful. Maybe I should get more information like why or how? but any idea if this makes sense?

P.S.
Very soon, the name will be decided :)
https://t.co/W9rJVMa8Jy

mastablasta

January 14th, 2014, 08:02 AM

what's with all the birds?

why mini iso can't be used? it's a wattered down OS (netinstall). you install what you want and then remaster it. why not?

amjjawad

January 14th, 2014, 09:33 AM

what's with all the birds?
All the birds name? there are only 2 names :)

Why? because this project is based on 'Freedom' of choice. It gives the users all the freedom to choose what they want to use and build their own system as they wish, want and/or desire :) so, 'Bird' means 'Freedom', that is why the focus was a bit more: https://t.co/W9rJVMa8Jy but there are other names which reflect the features of this project.

why mini iso can't be used? it's a wattered down OS (netinstall). you install what you want and then remaster it. why not?

This is what I've been told by a friend and I was really tried and sleepy so couldn't understand much. I will try to find a technical explanation for that. I thought someone here might be aware of this?