Recently in Puppy Category

As soon as I'm able to begin posting them, my eight-part series on finding the best operating system for my circa-1999 Compaq Armada 7770dmt will begin unfolding, one part a day, on Click.

I've been working on this series for about a month, working with everything from Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux to OpenBSD and Wolvix Cub, with a lot of thoughts about past use of Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu and more.

So starting — again, as soon as I can get the entries lined up — look for a long meditation on the best way to make old hardware work in the 21st century.

I hooked up my Starbucks card with AT&T today to draw on the free Wi-Fi now available at the coffee giant, and was pleasantly surprised to have good broadband speed in Puppy Linux 2.13 on the $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt).

I was even able to sign on using the Dillo browser. I started Seamonkey after that, but just being able to log in with Dillo was a surprise.

Even more of a surprise, however, was that the AT&T Wi-Fi didn't work in OpenBSD 4.2, which I have installed as the primary OS on the laptop.

Now I know that wireless works fine in OpenBSD, because I use it at home and at the Los Angeles Public Library. When OpenBSD booted, I got an IP, and I could ping that IP. I should've written down the location's IP and tried to ping that. Otherwise, I couldn't ping anything, and as a result could not get any services to work. That means I couldn't get data into or out of the laptop.

Why does AT&T Wi-Fi work in Linux but not OpenBSD? That's a good question

What I'm saying, basically is that if you're running anywhere near 64MB of RAM and you, say, want to run Firefox, you need more memory.

The $15 Laptop -- a Compaq Armada 7770dmt with 233 MHz Pentium II MMX CPU -- ran a Linux console with no problem and even did an X session, provided no "heavy" apps like Firefox were used.

But how can you get along with just Dillo as a Web browser?

It's not easy if you want to do any kind of blogging, which a) uses the more-memory-intense Firefox and b) demands much more out of Firefox and the whole system as well.

Well, I can safely say that a 233 MHz CPU and 144MB of RAM are enough to run Puppy Linux (currently version 2.13, for which I continue to have a soft spot), Damn Small Linux 4.3 and even OpenBSD 4.2.

I'm going to reboot into OpenBSD right now to see just how well the Compaq is doing with it.

(I'm now back with OpenBSD 4.2)

Things appear to work pretty well with OpenBSD as well. Though certainly more secure than almost every other operating system out there (though I miss Debian and now also Ubuntu's ability to encrypt an entire drive with LVM) and as stable as anything out there, OpenBSD is in no way faster than the fastest Linux distributions.

And speed is a bit of a problem on hardware this old.

I'd have to try Debian again. Puppy and DSL are quite a bit quicker when it comes to screen refresh time in Firefox (and generally in X). I don't remember Debian Etch as being all that sprightly in comparison.

(Changing to DSL 4.3)

There's no doubt that DSL runs the graphics in X faster than OpenBSD. The screen does a much better job of keeping up with my keystrokes in Movable Type, and if the main purpose of this laptop is to crank out blog entries, that is an important consideration.

Of course, before I pull OpenBSD off of this drive, I'll have to make sure I have the xorg.conf saved, as well as a number of other configuration files as well as the output of pkg_info so I can remember all the software I have in this install.

I should probably just get a few swappable hard drives for the Compaq. Maybe even something bigger than 3GB. Just a thought.

Other problems with using DSL as the sole distro: no Flash (but OpenBSD doesn't have it either).

... (two weeks later)

I've been running the $15 Laptop a bit more. Having a good wireless connection helps immensely. I've been most happy with Puppy 2.13 thus far, since it has Seamonkey — a very acceptable Mozilla-based browser — and all the graphics work as they should.

I still have OpenBSD 4.2 on the hard drive, and as I say above, I'm reluctant to remove it, even though I can and will save the various configuration files in case I want to do a reinstall.

I'd like to try Wolvix again, just to see if the additional memory makes any difference in loading it. I could — and probably should — try Debian again. I don't know if it'll be as fast as Puppy or DSL, but it is worth trying.

What I'll probably end up with: I might leave OpenBSD on the laptop for awhile, but I can see myself ending up with a hard drive or Compact Flash chip with IDE converter completely devoted to storage and either running Puppy Linux off of the Live CD or as a frugal install on the hard drive or CF card.

File this under "why didn't I think of it before?"

I've been complaining for at least a month about how I can't install Google Gears to gain offline functionality for Google Docs because Gears only supported Firefox 1.5 to 2.x, and I was running Ubuntu with FF3 and Debian with Iceweasel.

Sure, there are ways to make Gears work with Mozilla browsers that don't go by the name "Firefox," but it seemed a bit above my capability.

And just today, on the first day of Firefox 3's official release, I finally installed Gears in Ubuntu 8.04 with FF3.

But I could've done this weeks ago, had I only come up with this solution:

I could (and now am) running Google Gears with Docs in Puppy Linux.

I occasionally run Puppy 3.00 on the $0 Laptop, but since the Mozilla-based Seamonkey browser/suite isn't Firefox, Gears refuses to install.

But ... there's a PET package for Firefox, and I figured that if I install it, I can add Google Gears and gain the offline functionality for Google Docs that I need.

Know what? It works. Sure, the version of Firefox (2.0.0.4) is a bit old, but I'm pretty much going to be using it for this one purpose.

And I'm just so damn stoked that I can run Google Gears with Docs in both Ubuntu 8.04 and Puppy 3.00.

Note: This should work for just about every version of Puppy out there from the 2's to the 4's. If you can run the Mozilla-Firefox PET package, you can run Gears.

Now maybe I'll try that trick on getting Gears working with non-Firefox browsers based on Mozilla.

It's nice — really nice — to see via Distrowatch that development is continuing on low-spec favorite DeLi Linux. Here's the release announcement.

I've been able to install DeLi on my VIA C3 Samuel converted thin client, but not without a few tricks that I picked up from the forums (here and here). And I also recently did an entry on some good DeLi-related blog entries from others.

I never was able to get my static IP configured in DeLi, but I think I could do it now.

According to the DeLi site, you need 32 MB of RAM to run the GUI version. The Web browser is Dillo, I believe, and that runs great in 64 MB and looks like it can run about as well in 32 MB.

Probably the biggest change is a shift from GTK+1 to GTK+2, which accounts for the memory requirements rising for this release of DeLi.

When you're trying to resurrect and make an old computer useful, DeLI is a great distro to have in your arsenal, along with Puppy, DSL and even Debian (the Standard install with X and a lightweight window manager and your favorite apps added manually).

I just upgraded the $15 Laptop from 64 MB to 144 MB of RAM, and before the upgrade, OpenBSD, Puppy and Debian ran well on it with X ... unless you try to run a "big" application like Firefox. That's where Damn Small Linux leaped ahead of the pack for that low amount of memory.

Now with 144 MB, I hope that I will have more choices as to what will run on that Compaq Armada 7770dmt, but if you do have a box stuck with 32 MB (I used to run Windows 98 in that amount of RAM, and let me tell you, it was pure hell), DeLi is a great distro to try out.

I wasn't able to boot Damn Small Linux 4.4 RC1 on the machine I really need it to run on — the $15 Laptop (aka Compaq Armada 7770dmt) — so I booted it on my VIA C3 Samuel test box, the machine that ran my two Puppy Linux torture tests.

I've already written about how the inclusion of Firefox 2 (renamed Bon Echo) in DSL 4.3 has breathed new life into the live-CD distribution as far as I'm concerned.

Two things I like:

Unlike in 4.3, Fluxbox seems to work. I can easily get a menu in the Fluxbox window manager, something I couldn't do running DSL 4.3 on the Compaq.

The DFM file manager is less confusing. It doesn't come up with a right-click, as it did in previous versions, but it is there when you use the folders on the desktop. This way, it should be less confusing to new users. The EmelFm file manager is still there, and since I've gotten used to it, I'm glad it has stuck in DSL.

One thing that was a bit surprising was the length of time it took for Firefox/Bon Echo to start for the first time, even when all of DSL was loaded in RAM. I expected it to be a little quicker, although the speed is more than adequate when reloading it.

I love running low-spec live-CD distros like Puppy and DSL in what I call "torture test" mode -- booting it, running it without any hard drives and leaving to to run for days or weeks at a time. Since I already had DSL 4.4 RC1 loaded entirely into RAM (done by entering dsl toram as a boot code), I decided to disconnect the hard drive that was spinning when I first booted.

I pulled the drive's power plug, then the IDE cable. The drive went silent, and DSL 4.4 continued to run.

Now the box was super quiet.

I had already set a static IP, which was extremely easy to do with DSL's built-in utility.

X was configured perfectly at 1024 x 768 with no intervention on my part.

Nothing new on that count, thankfully. On this hardware at least, DSL really does "just work," as they (and I) say.

My VIA-based converted thin client has, shall we say, "problems" with audio. Many audio applications skip their way through an mp3. Luckily XMMS, the default audio player in DSL, works very well with the shoddy sound chip on this ECS motherboard. I downloaded a few mp3 files, and they played with no problem whatsoever.

I tried to add the Flash plugin by going to a page with Flash on it and clicking the "install Missing Plugins" button that usually comes up in Firefox. Everything seemed to go OK, but Flash didn't work.

While I don't consider a lack of ability to run Flash to be a deal-breaker in a distro, it can be ... inconvenient. I realize all the problems with Flash in the open-source community (principally that it's not open-source), and while I agree in principal, in actuality we all need Flash at various times, and I consider it a necessary evil. And I wish DSL would consider adding it, even as a MyDSL extension.

Speaking of MyDSL, I opened it up to confirm that the Flash plugin was unavailable, and while that turned out to be the case (as far as I can tell), I'm quite impressed with MyDSL itself.

In the process of playing around with MyDSL, I killed the box. Disconnecting the hard drive during the session was what (eventually) did it.

I'll just have to run DSLnthe "normal" way, with the hard drive running. I can seem to boot Puppy from CD without a hard drive connected, but not DSL. Once again, this has no bearing on the actual running of DSL. It's just a point of comparison with Puppy Linux that I always seem to make in the course of these reviews.

But where I really need DSL 4.4 to run is the $15 Laptop, the Compaq Armada 7770dmt. I'm just about to boost the memory from 64 MB to 144 MB, and while I'm not sure whether or not the change will make Debian, OpenBSD or Puppy usable with X (really with Firefox some small X apps work well in all of the distros above), DSL is already quite usable -- with Firefox -- in a measly 64 MB, and it'll only get better with 144 MB.

So even if I have to stick with DSL 4.2, one distro -- and one distro alone -- is at the top of the heap when it comes to running X in low specs. And that distro is, and remains, Damn Small Linux.

I can hardly believe that I'm composing an entry in Movable Type Open Source 4.1 using Damn Small Linux.

Now that version 4.3 of the low-spec Linux distribution has added Firefox 2 to its software mix, I can use the browser -- here named Bon Echo for reasons that escape me -- for many more things than I could the Firefox 1.06 browser included in previous incarnations of DSL.

And on the $15 Laptop -- a Compaq Armada 7770dmt with a 233 MHz processor and only 64 MB of RAM -- Damn Small Linux remains the best operating system and is that much better with a browser that can do so many things FF 1 couldn't handle.

Like Movable Type.

And Google Docs, where I just had a very pleasant writing experience.

There are a few niggly things that don't work as well in DSL 4.3 as they did in DSL 4.0 on this laptop, among them the desktop background, which for some reason is absent (but shows up when I run DSL 4.3 on other PCs), and I can't for the life of me figure out how to get the menu to show up in Fluxbox. All I get is the DFM menu, not the Fluxbox application menu. Since I'm happy using the JWM window manager, that's not a big deal, but having Firefox 2 instead of 1.06 is a big, huge, game-changing deal that makes Damn Small Linux a must have for hardware at this level.

Thanks to Robert Shingledecker of DSL for continually improving his distribution and saving many an old computer (this one in its ninth year of service) from obscurity.

I burned a DSL 4.4 RC1 CD today, but I couldn't get it to boot on the Compaq. I don't know if it's a bad CD or a bug in the release candidate, but I do plan to try again as the development process continues. I'm also planning to give DSL 4.2 a try to see just where the desktop wallpaper stopped appearing on this laptop. Again, it's not a big deal because the extreme responsiveness and stability and usability of this distribution on a PC with these specs cannot be found in any other Linux distribution -- Puppy and Debian included.

When I make the leap from 64 MB of RAM to 144 MB, things could very well change. I might be able to more successfully run Puppy, Debian or OpenBSD with X, but DSL will also be that much better as well.

Quick notes because I've got time for no more:

Debian Lenny: I hadn't updated Debian Lenny in about a week. Bugs are getting fixed all over the place. The latest wave of upgrades includes a couple of fixes for the Epiphany browser, which as a result is running better than ever. Most of what I noticed was cosmetic, but it just adds to the excellent functionality that Lenny already offers users. If you've been worried about running Lenny instead of Etch, I think the time is right to move to Lenny as it makes its way from Testing to Stable.

Preload in Debian: After reading about preload in Linux Journal, I finally installed it. Preload is supposed to monitor what apps you use most and automatically load them into memory, adjusting if your application habits change. Since I tend to run the same apps a lot, and since I have plenty of memory, I'm anxious to see how well preload works.

FreeBSD and the need for speed: FreeBSD 7 is now beginning its life as a stable OS. It's supposed to be up 15 percent faster than the fastest Linux kernels, up to 350 percent faster than FreeBSD 6x under normal loads, and up to 1,500 percent faster under heavy loads. I'm anxious to see how the hardware recognition performs. So far, I've had quite a bit of luck with DesktopBSD 1.6, which is based on FreeBSD 6, and I can only hope for better things with FreeBSD 7, which I plan to test soon.

OpenBSD update: I've been having a lot of fun -- and learning quite a bit -- with OpenBSD. I have the box on the local network, and I've been playing around with the ftp server, Apache Web server and with SSH. First I installed the PuTTY ssh client on my Windows XP box so I could connect from the XP box to the OpenBSD box. I could run any console program I wanted, and while it may not be a huge deal to the more experienced of you out there, it's a huge deal for me.

I wanted to run X over SSH, so I made the appropriate changes in OpenBSD to allow X11 forwarding over SSH. Ahd with the help of my friends over at LXer, I found out about Xming, an X client for Windows.

It took me awhile to figure out that I had to enable X in PuTTY to make it work. Xming runs in the background on the Windows box, and when I open an X program from the PuTTY console:

$ rox &

... A window opens on my XP desktop with the OpenBSD X program in it (which, in the case of the line above, is the Rox-filer). Pretty slick. (The & after the app name makes the process run in the background. I had one snag: I couldn't run the Dillo browser over SSH until I installed all the X fonts for Xming. There's a way to just use Xming to enable the SSH session, but that hasn't worked for me thus far. But since the PuTTY/Xming combination is working, that's what I'm going with.

I'd like to run a full X session with a full window manager running in a window on my XP box, but besides being slower than running single apps, I get the feeling that such a thing isn't exactly looked upon lovingly by the hard-core Unix geeks out there.

But being able to run any OpenBSD (or Linux) app on a network-connected box from a Windows-only PC is so totally cool that I should be sated in my dose of geekdom for the next week at least.

The $0 Laptop and its CPU fan discontents: I've been working with controlling my Gateway Solo 1450's CPU fan for months now. In Linux, I've had it controlled pretty well with a cron job, and in the case of Puppy a few added kernel modules.

But since then, I've come to realize that the cron job, which checked the CPU temperature every five minutes and turned the fan on or off depending on that temperature, is unnecessary.

All you need to do is turn the fan off at boot, and then ACPI will manage it just fine. This revelation comes after considerable work in the console, checking the temperature, running commands, running scripts and generally seeing what happens during the course of a computing session.

So I turned off my cron jobs, and now all I need to do is add the following line to /etc/rc.local:

echo 3 > /proc/acpi/fan/FAN0/state

That turns the fan off. I initially thought that only this line -- echo 0 > /proc/acpi/fan/FAN0/state -- would turn the CPU fan back on, but that is most definitely not the case. Once the fan is turned off with the "echo 3" command (which you can run from the console, just as you can the "echo 0" line), when the CPU gets warm, the fan turns on and then turns off when the CPU cools down.

So that one line added to /etc/rc.local is enough to get ACPI management of the fan working, at least in the Gateway Solo 1450.

Now there's the matter of OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD and this same CPU fan. So far nothing has worked, but I will keep trying.

What version of Linux has been at the top of the Distrowatch rankings for months now that I've never tried until today? PCLinuxOS.

Everybody I know who has runs PCLinuxOS has good things to say about it. Scott Ruecker of LXer and the Los Angeles Daily News' own City Hall reporter Rick Orlov are among those who have used and liked it.

I couldn't boot the CD on my test machine (VIA C3-based converted thin client), but on the $0 Laptop (Gateway Solo 1450) it's booting just fine.

To start with the live CD, I selected the "copy2ram" option because I have 1 GB to play with on this machine. It takes quite a while to copy the system files to RAM, but once that's done, the system should run very fast.

The 2007 version of PCLinuxOS has received continual updates and is a sort of rolling release -- the coders behind it don't create new ISO images on a continual basis like we get from Ubuntu, for instance. Once you install PCLinuxOS, it's easy to bring it up to day. Actually, I prefer it this way. I'd rather do a bunch of updates than continually burn new CDs.

Google "linux vs. bsd," and this comes up. Written by BSD user Matthew D. Fuller, there's a lot of information to absorb.

Here he is on "Chaos vs. Order":

One common generality is that the Linux methodology is the living incarnation of chaos, whereas the BSD methodology is far more about control. To a large extent, it's true. Linux grew out of a spare-time hacking background, while BSD grew out of a controlled engineering background. Of course, there's plenty of weekend tinkers writing BSD code, and plenty of full-time professional programmers sloughing away at various parts of Linux. But the feel of the systems still does reflect that sort of schism.

We've already discussed the construction methodology; BSD builds up a core system which is uniform, whereas Linux distributions takes pre-existing pieces and pretty much puts them together helter-skelter. Naturally, the BSD method is far more amenable to keeping things ordered, while the Linux method practically necessitates utter chaos. That's not to say that chaos is inherently bad, or order inherently good. They're just different environments.

Linux will also generally chase new versions of other programs much more closely, adopting particularly more major changes like Apache 2 much sooner than BSD will move that way. Now, the stricter separation of "base" vs "ports" in BSD, as well as the structure of the ports tree itself, make it easier to have multiple parallel versions of packages in BSD. Sometimes, it's even possible and easy to have multiple versions installed at the same time. Linux, by not having that sort of separation, makes it very difficult to have parallel versions, and instead almost requires a single "blessed" one.

And the primacy of source-compiling in packages also makes it easier to handle multiple versions. For instance, PHP must be compiled differently depending on whether you're using Apache 1.3 or Apache 2. With from-source packages like ports, I can define an environmental variable when I compile and install PHP to tell it whether to use Apache 1.3 or Apache 2. With binary packages, you'd have to have 2 separate packages available, which will lead to confusion sooner or later.

Followed by "Right vs. Wrong":

The difference can also be seen in the way core code is integrated. BSD tends to always shy away from hackish solutions when there's even a hint of a proper solution in the wings. The theory is that it's far easier to wait for the clean answer, than to integrate the dirty answer now, for several reasons. For one thing, if you integrate the dirty answer, that reduces the incentive to implement a better one. For another, once you dirty up the architecture to integrate something it'll never get cleaned up again. You know it as well as I do. Oh, sure, you'll say it's temporary. But you know there's nothing quite as permanent as a temporary stop-gap. And things grow. The only way to avoid giving a mile is to refuse to give the first inch. It's just like taxes; when was the last time you saw a temporary tax that ever went away?

You also see it in what is there. Traditionally (though not universally), Linux integrates support for a piece of hardware before BSD does. But when BSD integrates it, it works. It's solid. It's stable. Linux drivers tend to have a lot more variance, because they'll be brought in earlier. In many ways, this mirrors the add-on case above, but in reverse. BSD has a very tightly controlled base system, and can be very free with setting up add-on software, since it's all added on by the user independently. Linux has a very loose and fluid coupling between the kernel and the userland, but the userland as a whole, due to not having a base/addon separation, requires a lot more work to keep consistent, which places a much higher requirement for a central "blessing" of various versions of packages. The extensive use of binary, rather than source distribution just makes it that much more so.

There are plenty of other "BSD vs. Linux" items out there, but this is the most detailed and well-reasoned of those that I've seen.

My process goes something like this: If you're starting with the hardware, test everything and see what runs best, what you like best and what fits the task the best. It might be Debian GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, Slackware, even Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux. It could also be FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD.

I'm reluctant to give up on the Linux distributions I've come to know over the past year and then some, but in the BSD projects I see an opportunity to learn something new and do things a little differently. And since that's the spirit in which I began use of open-source operating systems and software, it's just part of the continuum of what I'm doing, the path I'm on, if you would be so kind as to indulge such thoughts.

That there's more than one or two -- or more than a hundred -- ways to skin the proverbial cat is a very good thing.

Debian tip: Here's a way to speed up booting of Debian when you're not connected to a network:

If you ever wondered, why exim4 needs so long to start when you have no net access, though you were sure that configured as satellite for a smarthost it should have nothing to lookup as the smarthost in in /etc/hosts, you might just have forgotten to put a

disable_ipv6 = true

in your exim4.conf. (I'm not sure, but that might also help
to actually deliver mail to hosts which also have ipv6 addresses
on servers with outgoing smtp when you forgot to blacklist the
ipv6 module).

Thanks, Bernhard R. Link, who works on Debian, for the tip. And read all of the Debian developer/bloggers at Planet Debian. Ubuntu does the same thing here.

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS will be upgradeable to 8.04 LTS: I've made no secret of my admiration for the 6.06 LTS version of Ubuntu, even though it's over a year and a half old. I like the way it runs, I've never had a problem with it ... and I like the fact that it will have support for three years of life on the desktop, even more on the server (until June 2009 on the desktop, June 2011 on the server).

But now that a new LTS is about to be released -- April's Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (if you haven't yet figured it out, the 8 is for 2008, the 04 for FebruaryApril) -- it's a good time to give it a try. If it works well on one box or another, Ubuntu 8.04 might be a good OS to install and stick with for a year, two or three. Now I've learned that there will be an upgrade path from 6.06 to 8.04.

I recommend a separate /home partition so a full reinstall can be done easily (but don't do it without a backup of /home), and I will probably do a full install instead of an upgrade, but it's nice to know that 6.06-8.04 can be done without a full reinstall.

Hardware configuration in OpenBSD is better than I thought it would be. My optimism largely stems from the fact that OpenBSD boots at all on this computer, which won't even get you to a boot prompt in NetBSD, FreeBSD, any variety of Red Hat past version 3, PCLinuxOS ... it's a long list.

Another good thing about the way OpenBSD installs is that while it begins in a minimal configuration, you do have the choice of running with or without X. I chose to install everything, which included X and the Fvwm window manger. While the 15-inch CRT monitor and video chip I have on this converted Maxspeed Maxterm thin client (with VIA C3 Samuel processor) can do 16-bit color and 1024 x 768 resolution, X autoconfigured at 800 x 600.

I tried "forcing" 1024 x768 and 16-bit color, but it kept reverting to 800 x 600. I got the same resolution on the OliveBSD live CD based on OpenBSD. I didn't necessarily need to see another version of OpenBSD, but since I had one -- Anonym.OS -- that autoconfigured at 1024 x 768 and looked great in Fluxbox, I loaded it and looked at the xorg.conf.

What it had that my OpenBSD install didn't was specified values for HorizSync and VertRefresh.

I entered those values:

Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Monitor Vendor"
ModelName "Monitor Model"
HorizSync 31.5 - 48.5
VertRefresh 50.0 - 90.0
EndSection

Then I restarted X and had 1024 x 768 resolution.

But ... after only a few minutes, X crashed. I could ctrl-alt-backspace out of it and start X again, but it kept happening.

I had already turned on "screen blanking" in the console, so I turned it off. Still X crashed.

Then I rebooted and loaded Puppy Linux 3.01. In Puppy, you generally have to choose your color depth and monitor resolution, and I did so, started the system and looked at xorg.conf.

The HorizSync values were the same, but the VertRefresh was different. I made the following modification to OpenBSD's xorg.conf, and now X has been running continuously for over 12 hours:

Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Monitor Vendor"
ModelName "Monitor Model"
HorizSync 31.5 - 48.5
VertRefresh 56.0 - 72.0
EndSection

Again, it pays to know what your monitor and video card is capable of before you start hacking into xorg.conf. It's always a good idea to copy the original and each configuration that's in any way promising so you won't lose it.

After not succeeding in getting the Airlink 101 AWLL3028 USB wireless adapter working in Debian Lenny and Wolvix Hunter 1.1.0, my first thought was to install Ubuntu 6.06 LTS on the $0 Laptop (Gateway Solo 1450), since I had a trouble-free ndiswrapper experience on my test box in Ubuntu 6.06, but since there's no WiFi in this building, I can't really see if it works, short of hauling the converted Maxspeed Maxterm thin client home ... with all the drives haphazardly connected to it. No, not going to do that.

I'm disappointed that I couldn't get the wireless adapter working in Wolvix. I could see the network with iwconfig, but I just couldn't get DHCP running properly.

So I went back to my Linux roots: Puppy.

I've been running Puppy 3.00 on this laptop for awhile -- I have the CPU fan managed by a cron job (Gcrontab is a bitch ... I'd rather have regular crontab anyday ... and I wish the Puppy people would fix it so crontab works with the e3 console editor ... it's hard-wired somehow to vi, which isn't part of Puppy).

So I hooked up the Airlink adapter, fired up Puppy, used the network setup wizard ... navigated to the "more" part of searching for networking drivers, selected ndiswrapper, navigated to the part of the drive on which I have a copy of the Windows 98 driver for the Airlink ... and the thing lights up.

It's the clearest, easiest configuration with ndiswrapper I've tried so far. Let's see if it works. (I'm not above trying Ubuntu, and I'll probably do that at some point).

Now all I have to do is get the laptop somewhere there's a live WiFi connection to see whether or not I can actually get wireless networking flowing.

I've been toying with removing Debian Etch from the $15 Laptop -- the 1999 Compaq Armada 7770dmt with a 233 MHz Pentium II MMX processor and 64 MB of RAM. When most computer users -- even those partial to Linux -- talk about "old" hardware, they mean either things in the 1 GHz range, even 3 GHz single-core CPU computers with 512 MB of RAM.

For me, a 1.2 GHz Celeron laptop with 1 GB of RAM is good enough to run just about any Linux distribution out there. And my main Windows machine at the office -- a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with 512 MB of RAM is way more than adequate for desktop use.

As far as the 233 MHz Compaq laptop goes, I'm probably going to bump up the RAM from the current 64 MB to the maximum of 144 MB, but that's pretty much besides the point.

When I first got this laptop (yep, it cost me $15, though I had to shell out $10 for the CD-ROM drive on eBay) I ran into a lot of luck, because it wasonly supposed to have 32 MB of RAM but had double that. It wasn't supposed to have a hard drive, but not only was the hard-drive casing intact, but there was a 3 GB drive inside it. It was loaded with Windows 98 but wouldn't boot. Once I had the CD drive (the incoluded floppy drive doesn't work, and I could get another one for $10, but I really don't need it), I was able to run Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux from live CDs.

At first I loaded Windows 2000 just to see how it ran. Win 2K ran alright, but I'm not in this to run Windows. I had pretty good luck with both Puppy and DSL, but Damn Small Linux is really the more suited of the two for a computer with 64 MB of RAM.

Anyhow, I eventually wanted to try Debian Etch on the Compaq. I've done at least four installs of Debian on this computer, but my first began was the "standard" install, which means no X. After that, I added X and Fluxbox, plus all the apps I though I'd need. ROX-filer, AbiWord, Leafpad, Dillo, Lynx, Elinks, Sylpheed (which didn't work), MtPaint for image editing, and eventually even Iceweasel (aka Debian's renamed Firefox).

I was able to actually get work done on the laptop, which can connect to the outside world only through the Orinoco WaveLAN Silver 802.11b wireless PCMCIA card I had previously bought for This Old Mac (aka my 1996 Powerbook 1400cs). And since the PCMCIA slot in the much-better $0 Laptop (Gateway Solo 1450) is inoperable ("busted" is the technical term), the wireless card has remained in the Compaq, which has no Ethernet port or USB capability (though it does have a serial port, parallel printer port, built-in telephone modem and a power supply fully enclosed in the case -- yes, a 120-volt power cord plugs right into the back). They made these Compaq's well -- this one still runs great.

Anyhow, my "roll-your-own-X" Debian install did OK. The display was a bit slow in Abiword, but I had everything running fairly well. Just not well enough.

Since then, I spent quite a bit of time testing DSL 4.0 on the Compaq. Damn Small Linux runs great on this thing, that much I can tell you. And I even ran Puppy 2.13 for a couple of days this week.

But I always had Debian on the hard drive. Just not the original Debian. I had wiped the drive and experimented with Debian Etch and the Xfce desktop install (desktop=xfce as a boot parameter in the installer) as well as Slackware 12.0 without KDE (Xfce and Fluxbox).

Well, Slackware without KDE means you don't even get an office suite, and I still had barely any disk space on the 3 GB drive. (I know, I just need to get a bigger drive ... I know.)

So I went back to Debian Etch, again the Xfce desktop. Surprisingly, this install includes the full OpenOffice suite and I still have about a full GB of space left on the hard drive. I have a separate /home partition with 800 MB in it, and a root partition with 2 GB, with about 150 MB left. The rest of the space is swap -- about 120 MB.

And while on the Gateway laptop (1.2 GHz Celeron CPU) I cannot detect a performance difference between the Xfce and Fluxbox window managers, on this 233 MHz CPU, there's quite a difference. I was about to give up on Etch altogether when I decided to again install AbiWord (I tried Ted ... again ... but the RTF word processor still doesn't work, at least in any Etch install I've had), as well as Fluxbox.

Fluxbox makes it a lot snappier. I still have all the Xfce apps, including Thunar, Mousepad and the great Xfmedia.

In fact, I finally got sound working tonight. I don't think it'll survive a reoot, so I'll have to run this line on startup, but for today it did work:

# modprobe sb io=0x220 irq=5 dma=1 mpu_io=0x330

I can't run alsamixer, but I can play an MP3 in Xfmedia, and it sounds great even on the built-in speakers on this 9-year-old laptop.

I didn't think I could get sound working in Debian Etch, but since I did, Etch will definitely live to fight another day on this laptop.

Before I close out this entry, let men emphasize that the Xfce install of Debian is a quirky distro, to be sure. It's nowhere near as complete as Ubuntu's Xfce variant, Xubuntu.

Etch in its Xfce incarnation includes the full OpenOffice suite, but not Abiword or Gnumeric (which would be good substitutes). There's no Synaptic or Update Manager, so I've been doing what Debian aficionados always tell me to do: use Aptitude. I was running aptitude in a terminal for awhile, but it's much easier to just run it at the command line:

# aptitude update
# aptitude upgrade
# aptitude install abiword

Yep, just like apt-get and apt-get install, but Aptitude is supposed to do an even better job with dependencies and it keeps track of your changes to the system, should there be any problem.

I also need to do a dist-upgrade -- without moving away from Debian Etch -- to get a couple of packages that have been held back, including a new kernel image, but I'm holding off until I repartition the drive somewhat to put more space in the root partition (taking it away from /home):

# aptitude dist-upgrade

Final note: The fact that Debian Etch -- a modern, up-to-date Linux distribution -- can run so well in 233 MHz of CPU and 64 MB of RAM is something truly to behold. Again, my thanks to everybody at the Debian Project, past and present, for all they've done for the rest of us.

Post-final note: If Debian continues to perform so well, I just might blog the SCALE 6x convention with this 1999-vintage laptop.

Positively the last note: Iin case I only mentioned it once above, Fluxbox is really flying on this setup ... but the ROX-filer is only a bit faster than Thunar. And since the 1999 Compaq with Debian Etch and Movable Type 4.0 are playing nicely, I think this laptop is definitely going to SCALE 6x ... unless I succeed in getting wireless working over USB on the $0 Laptop (more to come on that).

Sorry, just one more note: Look for a SCALE 6x feature on Click in the days ahead.

I've complained numerous times in the past about the Ted word processor being broken in Debian. On my many Debian installs, I could neither create a new file in Ted nor open an old one.

But on my Gateway Solo 1450 (the $0 Laptop), after doing my big Debian Lenny update yesterday -- which fixed an annoying Nautilus bug by updating to Nautilus 2.20 -- I decided to give Ted another try.

It works.

I can create new files in Ted and open old ones. I tried Ted again on my Compaq Armada 7700dmt (the $15 Laptop), now a Debian Etch machine (with Xfce and, since last night, Fluxbox) that could really benefit from Ted working. No go.

I figured that it was maybe a Lenny-only thing -- some other dependent package got updated and magically made Ted work. Here's Ted's bug status in Debian. I remember trying this "transcoded fonts" solution and having it not work.

So this morning, on my desktop Debian Lenny install, I tried Ted again, and it didn't work. I even installed the transcoded fonts. Nothing.

Yes, I have three Debian installs (two Lenny, one Etch), and Ted works on one (Lenny) of them. That's better than Ted working on none ... but.

I'm wondering if I should even be running Debian on this 233 MHz Pentium II MMX, 64 MB RAM, 3 GB hard-drive laptop. The Compaq performs OK with Puppy Linux and a bit better with Damn Small Linux. And while on my faster, 1.2 GHz laptop I detect almost no difference in response time between Xfce and Fluxbox, on the 233 MHz box, Fluxbox is much snappier, so I take back my previous assertion that Fluxbox doesn't give you much of a performance edge. When you're running really old hardware, Fluxbox can really help.

The problem: I want to have a "full" command-line system in addition to X, and that's harder to do in Puppy or DSL. And I like the fact that Debian and Slackware stay on top of security issues and frequently issue patched packages. And Debian (or Slackware, for that matter) makes it relatively easy to install any console app I want. However, I put a lot of stock in doing as little modification as possible; in my experience, things can get mucked up pretty quickly. And while both Puppy and DSL offer command-line features, neither is a full, modern, updated Debian or Slackware.

And just to provide a little background, Debian, Slackware, Puppy and Damn Small installed just fine on this old Compaq. I can't say the same for Xubuntu, which I did try.

And while I'm mentioning Xubuntu and Debian with Xfce in the same post, let me just say that of the two, Xubuntu is way more ready for prime time. Debian's default Xfce install is missing too many things; I stick by my assertion that Debian is great with the default GNOME, less so in the Xfce and KDE installs that you can do with the Xfce and KDE Debian disks (or desktop= boot parameter in the netinstaller).

Back to the Compaq. Both Puppy and DSL are way better at recognizing and configuring the hardware of this old Compaq laptop. At this point, I'm considering running both Puppy and DSL as live CDs with no OS on the puny hard drive, which would only be used for swap and storage (I could even replace the spinning hard drive with a Compact Flash chip or disk-on-module).

I hate to give up running Debian or Slackware on this laptop -- I've tried both. But when I try to build up the apps on my own, I can never do as well as Puppy and Damn Small Linux -- both of which I've used extensively over the past year and which I value very highly. The people behind Puppy and DSL really know what they're doing.

And while I'm grateful to get Ted running on my Lenny laptop (where I don't really need it), can't Debian just make Ted work everywhere, all the time? Like I've said before, there's probably a good reason that Ubuntu doesn't have Ted in its repository, and I'd say the package not working is a pretty good reason.

I haven't even complained about Ted not showing up where it should in the menus and my not being able to figure out how to put Ted where I want it in GNOME (yes, I used alacarte (here's the Debian bug situation), and no, it didn't let me add menu items (another Lenny bug, perhaps?) -- it almost makes me want to run straight toward Xfce and Fluxbox ... or Ubuntu).

Moral: Debian giveth and taketh away, but it remains damn good.

After yesterday's post on sharware vs. freeware vs. free, open-source software, I decided to install Geany on my Windows box. I've always liked Geany in Puppy Linux, and when I learned from the Geany Web site that the full-featured text editor was available for Windows, I had to try it.

To run in Windows, Geany needs the GTK 2 runtime libraries. Since I already have the GIMP image editor installed on this XP box, I already had GTK 2, so I was able to choose a version that didn't include the libraries.

I just started using Geany in Windows. I opened all the files I was working on last night in EditPad Lite, and now I'm not violating the EditPad license by using the program for "commercial" purposes.

So not only do I feel wrong about using pirated copies of commercial software, I'm not even comfortable running shareware or restricted freeware without paying. And with great FOSS alternatives like Geany, I don't have to.

As I say above, I first used Geany in Puppy Linux, where it is the default GUI text editor. And besides the Windows version, Geany is offered in source code as well as in packages for Gentoo, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Suse, Slackware, Mandriva, ArchLinux, AltLinux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Solaris.

And it looks like Geany can run in OS X (if you have the GTK libraries, I presume).

I have plenty of text editors on my Linux boxes, but I just can't work with Microsoft's Notepad. I'm no fan of Apple's text editor in OS X, either -- I'd rather open a shell and use Nano (or is it Pico that's included ... I can't remember).

I've barely begun to scratch the surface when it comes to text editors. There are dozens out there, and Wikipedia does a fairly good job of attempting to categorize and compare them.