Results tagged “The $15 Laptop” from CLICK

I broke out the Compaq Armada 7770dmt, a 1999-era laptop with a 233 MHz Pentium II MMX processor and 144 MB of RAM.

This unusual laptop (the power brick is inside the case, it has that little "eraser-like" pointer — which still works — on the keyboard, which is very nice as far as laptop keyboards go) has run more than a few OSes since I've owned it.

I had OpenBSD 4.2 on it for a long time and recently wiped the drive and installed Debian Lenny.

Lenny is running as well or better than Etch did on the Compaq. I have a very minimal Xfce setup — no office suite, the Geany editor in the GUI and two Web browsers: Iceweasel/Firefox for when I absolutely need it and Opera 10.01 for when I want to browse on this 10-year-old laptop with only a little frustration.

I can't recommend a 10-year-old computer for intensive work on today's Web, but you can still squeeze a bit out of it.

I've been writing updates in my print column of the things I've bought/used/discarded/loved/hated over the past year, and that got me thinking: I got started with Linux in early 2007 and used many a distro on the machines available to me.

But for the last six months, I've pretty much stuck with the same OSes on the same machines. There are two reasons for this:

1) I've found stuff that works

2) see 1)

OK, that's one reason, but it sure feels better as two.

Anyhow, the other reason I've kept the same operating systems on my half-dozen or so active computers is that I need them to run — and run well. And they do.

Here's the rundown:

On my main laptop, the Toshiba Satellite 1100-S101, I've been running OpenBSD 4.4 for nearly six months. The only "sticking" point is not having Flash 9 or 10. Flash 7 works for YouTube but not much else. I have a few things that I do that need more up-to-date Flash, but otherwise the OS and applications in packages and ports have been extremely stable. I just upgraded it from Firefox 2 to 3, and tonight I added Mplayer and successfully played a Quicktime video. (Too bad the sound chip on the Toshiba is broken; the video itself looked great.)

If OpenBSD weren't so good, I'd use the Flash situation as a excuse to run back to Linux. But I've enjoyed using OpenBSD and learned so much over these months that for now I'm going to stick with it.

I have an identical Toshiba Satellite laptop running Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. It, too, is performing very well, although I seldom use it since I have all of my data on the OpenBSD laptop. I have few complaints about Ubuntu 8.04, and before it came out I vowed to stick with the LTS for at least a year, maybe longer. I could be persuaded to upgrade if I needed to get a newer wireless adapter to work, but so far I haven't needed to do that. Ubuntu remains very solid, and with better Flash support than OpenBSD it's nice to have it as a backup.

Our daughter has what used to be known as the $0 Laptop, a Gateway Solo 1450. The Gateway could never comfortably run OpenBSD because of its noisy CPU fan, which Linux can manage most of the time (with a simple shell script). FreeBSD managed the fan even better, but only during the first boot after the install. After that, it all went to hell.

Our girl has all her educational games on the Gateway, which is also running Ubuntu 8.04. I still think that the Debian Project packages Gcompris, Childsplay and TuxPaint just that much better than Ubuntu, but all the problems I had with Debian Lenny and X on both the Gateway and later the Toshiba had me running back to Ubuntu and OpenBSD — both of which run X perfectly on both laptops with no xorg.conf file needed.

I'll concede that installing, customizing and maintaining just about any Linux distro is easier than doing the same in OpenBSD, but as I say above, I'm grateful for the learning experience and most of the time can figure out how to do what needs to be done in OpenBSD.

My Self-Reliant Thin Client, the first test machine that I began running Ubuntu, Slackware, Debian, ZenWalk, Puppy, DSL and other distros on in 2007 has been running Debian Etch on a bootable 8 GB CF card for quite a few months now. I don't have it networked at the moment, so I can't upgrade to Lenny. I'm keeping the converted thin client powered on these days in another informal long-term test, and I hope to have networking hooked up to it soon. With 128 MB of RAM and less-than-great video and sound hardware, it's not the greatest machine, but I love having something with no moving parts and minimal power consumption.

I have the Mac G4/466, aka the Debian Mac, running Debian Etch, which I continue to think is the best non-OS X operating system for this particular hunk of hardware. I managed to get 640 MB of RAM into it, and it's a great machine. Since it's a PowerPC box, there's no Flash Player in any OS that isn't OS X. I'm considering an OS X 10.4 install to see how that runs. We have dual-500 MHz G4s in the office that run OS X really, really well. I wonder how this single-CPU 466 MHz box will measure up. We could use a Mac OS backup machine in the house.

Earlier this week, I pulled out the $15 Laptop, a 1999-era Compaq Armada 7770dmt with 233 MHz CPU and 144 MB RAM and fixed what was ailing it: It wouldn't run X in OpenBSD 4.2 in my user account, but would in root. That's because when it comes to screwing around with X, I don't know what I'm doing some of the time. I had created an .xinitrc file with a single line reading "xset b off" to silence the system bell in X, and that was enough to keep the Fvwm window manager from loading. I killed .xinitrc and all was well with the Compaq. I'll probably do a reinstall of OpenBSD, since upgrading from 4.2 to 4.3 to 4.4 to ... is just too much work. Yep, after a long search for the right OS, the Compaq has run OpenBSD for a long, long time.

The real workhorse of our stable is the iBook G4 1 GHz laptop. In the past year I've replaced the hard drive, pumped 1 GB of memory into it and upgraded from OS X 10.3 to 10.4. We needed 10.4 in order to run Firefox 3 and Flash 10. Yep, that's when I upgrade — only when absolutely necessary.

To make a long story short, until I have a burning desire to watch Web video all the time, or until I need to edit and process video into Flash, I just might stick with OpenBSD on my i386 hardware. Otherwise I'll probably move back to Ubuntu or Debian, the latter only if those nagging video problems somehow go away. (I've had similar issues with Slackware ...).

My next "challenge" will be to run OpenBSD -current instead of -release. Since I already hate waiting for things to compile, I don't know how I'll react to keeping a -current installation up to date. There's only one way to find out.

Here's the deal: I've been fighting with Debian Lenny for months on The $0 Laptop (Gateway Solo 1450), where I have everything running great except for my persistent problem with screen refresh in X. I've replaced the Intel i810 driver with the plain Intel driver, I've tweaked everything that can be tweaked in xorg.conf.

I can't really get work done while my display is slowly disintegrating during the course of a computing session.

I'm already running Ubuntu 8.04 LTS as the main distro on this system, and I've been thinking about what to do for the second distro. I'd go back to Debian Etch, but I had problems with the speed of the USB-connected mouse vs. the Alps touchpad, plus problems controlling the touchpad on its own.

In Lenny, the problems I've dealt with (and mostly solved) over the past six or more months have included suddenly disappearing sound (fixed with manually installed ESS Allegro modules), and an Epiphany browser that would always start in offline mode (fixed with a modification to Gconf2, if I have the name of the app right).

Nothing major — and nothing that couldn't be fixed with some help from either the bug reports themselves or other helpful people on the Web.

But this screen-refresh problem persists. I keep hoping that a routine software upgrade will take care of it, but that hasn't happened in countless xorg, driver and kernel updates. I don't think it's going to happen, either.

If you're running something that's very popular that catches the attention of developers (like the Asus Eee PC), chances are good that issues will be resolved. But I can't imagine any developers anywhere are paying any attention whatsoever to my 2002-era Gateway laptop. I'm no C hacker, so there's nothing much I can do, either.

I love Debian. I'm running two newish Etch installs right now (one PowerPC, one i386), and I could very well add a third with my $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt), or even more to a couple of testing desktops I have waiting in the wings. Whenever Lenny goes Stable, Etch will have another year's worth of patches as Old Stable before it reaches its end of life.

Etch has been great, and Lenny has made dozens of improvements. But this one regression has made it very hard to keep my favorite distro on my main laptop.

So I have been thinking for months about what to do, all the while hoping that I could fix the X problem in Lenny.

First of all, I need to rewire the power supply plug. I think that is what is responsible for my intermittent freezes in Ubuntu (which don't seem to happen in Lenny, for reasons unknown). When I have the laptop on a desk, it never freezes, but when it's on my actual lap, as it was when I was trying to work on last-minute election programming yesterday morning, those freezes can really throw me off. I moved over to Debian, but I needed the Java runtime, didn't have it installed and didn't have the time to do that.

And then there's the video issue.

So I've been thinking, what should I install in place of Debian Lenny? I'm a big fan of long-term support releases, especially for older hardware, so I strongly considered CentOS 5, a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. But the relative lack of consumer-oriented software had me worried. I could add the Dag Wieers repositories to deal with that issue, but even that repository doesn't cover everything I need.

Mandriva is also on the table, as is one of my favorite distros, Wolvix. The Slackware 11-based Wolvix is due for a new version soon. While its package mix addresses most of my issues, there are a few things that I can't easily find for it. And I worry in Wolvix's case (as well as Slackware's in general) about how long the kernel goes without getting patched.

I almost never see new kernels for older Slackware releases. I don't know if that's because they are unnecessary, but with patched kernels rolling into Debian and Ubuntu fairly regularly, I wonder why Slackware does things differently.

I'd run "regular" Slackware, but I had quite a bit of trouble getting X configured, and I'd rather use GNOME than KDE. I know there are GNOME projects for Slackware, but what I'm trying to do is install something that works well, comes together easily and has lots of available packages.

Given all the Mandriva fans on LXer, I considered it. I've used the Mandriva-derived PCLinuxOS and thought highly of it — and I may in fact go that way. The 2.6.18 kernel in PCLinuxOS 2007 (Debian Etch is also built on that kernel) is perhaps the best ever for the Gateway in that it controls the CPU fan with no intervention. The intervention needed in other kernels is slight (a single line in /etc/rc.local usually does it), but it's nice to have it done automatically.

Again, I'm not a huge fan of KDE, and I find that distros that are either KDE- or GNOME-centric tend to treat the other desktop environment as something of a second-class citizen.

I've had Fedora in the back of my mind for a while. Seeing all the packages available is very encouraging. And the Fedora community looks like a very good resource in terms of getting things working. I imagine that quite a bit of RHEL information would apply to Fedora as well, giving the distro an even deeper bench.

I'm not crazy about the length of support for a given Fedora release, which looks to be 12 to 13 months. I'd feel better with the 18 months that Ubuntu's non-LTS releases get, or even a full 2 years. Compromising on length of support is something I'm willing to do at this time for something that potentially gives me all the packages I want and that runs well besides.

As far as the availability of packages goes, Fedora acquits itself well. I have run it from the live CD before, and it seemed to do well on the Gateway.

In a slightly related matter, my install of Fedora 9 on my Power Mac G4/466 didn't go so well. The X configuration was horrible, and the distro ran much slower than Debian Etch on the same hardware. And Debian did a perfect X configuration for the internal graphics card and huge LaCie electron22blue monitor. Sure I could've used the information from the xorg.conf in Debian to properly modify the same config file in Fedora, but with such a performance hit, it didn't seem worth it.

Since the 1.3 GHz CPU and 1 GB of RAM in the Gateway offers much more power than the 466 MHz and 384 MB in the G4, Fedora seems to run fine on the faster machine.

And now that I have the Ubuntu LTS as my main distro (and hopefully a trouble-free one once I replace that shaky power plug), it's time to try something else.

First I need to keep copies of the xorg.conf, my CPU-fan script and rc.local from Debian Lenny in case I do a reinstall. Then I need to back up the /home files and consider adding a separate /home partition for the secondary distro (Ubuntu already has a separate /home partition).

Again, I'm not happy about the 13-month life cycle of any given Fedora release, and I really don't need a cutting-edge kernel for my not-cutting-edge hardware (unless, of course, it makes a cheap wireless adapter work), but with /home on its own partition, and Fedora installing GRUB on the root partition instead of the master boot record, with the GRUB on the MBR chainloading to the Fedora partition, it shouldn't be hard to roll Fedora out and something else in.

I could change my mind ... or not.

Update: OpenSUSE offers about two years of support per release, and that is enough to get me interested.

I'm downloading new OpenSUSE 11 and Fedora 9 ISOs now, and I'll burn them in the morning.

As of today, here are all the machines I use and what they run:

At the office:

Work box:
Dell Optiplex GX520
Pentium 4 (3 GHz)
512 MB RAM
Windows XP SP2

The Debian Mac:
Power Macintosh G4
466MHz single PowerPC processor
384 MB RAM
Debian Etch

The Self-Reliant Thin Client:
Maxspeed Maxterm 5300(??) thin client
VIA C3 Samuel (1 GHz, running at 500 MHz for some reason)
256 MB RAM
8 GB Transcend Compact Flash module as boot drive
1 GB USB flash drive for backup
Debian Etch

At home:

iBook G4
1 GHz CPU
384 MB RAM
120 GB Fujitsu hard drive (replaced by me in a 3-hour odyssey)
OS X 10.3

This Old PC:
Pentium II MMX (333 MHz)
256 MB RAM
10 GB hard drive
Windows 2000 (I haven't booted this or connected it to the Internet in over a year)

The $0 Laptop:
Gateway Solo 1450
Mobile Celeron (1.3 GHz)
1 GB RAM
30 GB Toshiba hard drive
Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, Debian Lenny, Puppy 3.01

The $15 Laptop:
Compaq Armada 7770dmt
Pentium II MMX (233 MHz)
144 MB RAM
3 GB IBM hard drive
OpenBSD 4.2

I have quite a few machines in various states of repair that I might resurrect over the next year if and when I get the time, but this is what I have right now. With the exception of the white-box This Old PC, all of these get fairly regular use.

My inability to do more-than-simple mathematics at times has really put a cramp in my computing style.

In the case of OpenBSD and the $15 Laptop — the Compaq Armada 7770dmt — it has cost me 32 MB of RAM ever since I upgraded from 64 MB to the maximum 144 MB.

The reason is that in some Compaq's OpenBSD will not address more than 16 MB of RAM without some intervention on the part of the user.

This intervention is described in OpenBSD's installation FAQ. In order to have the system recognize the additional memory in the affected Compaqs, you must create a file called /etc/boot.conf containing one line, which tells the OS about your additional memory.

The example in the OpenBSD FAQ is for a system with 64 MB of RAM but with the aforementioned 16 MB being recognized.

To get the additional 48 MB recognized by the system, the following line should be in your new /etc/boot.conf file:

machine mem +0x3000000@0x1000000

That worked perfectly when I, also had 64 MB of RAM.

But when I added 128 MB to the 16 MB on the motherboard (removing the 48 MB of RAM that the laptop had when I originally got it working), I had to change the value in /etc/boot.conf.

And I didn't do my math correctly. This is what I had:

machine mem +0x6000000@0x1000000

I suspected that the machine wasn't using the entire 144 MB, but I'm not conversant enough in OpenBSD as opposed to Linux to a) figure out exactly how much memory the system was recognizing (a number available in the dmesg output) and how much the system was using and how much was still "free" (which can be seen in the output of the top utility.

I've been looking at OpenBSD's installation FAQ again recently because I'm eager to try the OS on my new/old Power Macintosh G4/466, and I looked at the section on Compaq memory again and realized my error.

I realized that if 48 MB is recognized with +0x3000000, then each +0x1000000 represents 16 MB of additional memory. And following that logic, 48 MB is 16 MB times three, yielding the FAQ example of +0x3000000.

And since I was adding 128 MB, that was 16 MB times ... how many? Eight is the answer. So instead of the +0x6000000, I needed the following line in /etc/boot.conf:

machine mem +0x8000000@0x1000000

I booted OpenBSD 4.2 (I don't have enough space in /usr to upgrade to 4.3 — such is the problem with making that partition only 1 GB in size when it needs to be, as the FAQ says, 5 GB). Then I changed the value in /etc/boot.conf, rebooted and saw the dmesg roll by during the reboot with the entire 144 MB being recognized.

Missing 32 MB all this time represents a very large performance hit, and I'll be anxious to see how gaining access to that memory changes performance under X.

For those keeping score, here's the relevant part of my OpenBSD dmesg AFTER doing the /etc/boot.conf fix:

real mem = 150564864 (143MB)
avail mem = 137732096 (131MB)

(This post was originally written on May 22, 2008; since that time, I've added the RAM, and it does indeed make a difference. It's still not easy to live with 144 MB of RAM and 233 MHz of CPU, but it's easier than having less than half of that M. What I can say is that 500 MHz of CPU and 256 MB of RAM is positively picnic-ish. Also, I finally did the OpenBSD 4.2-to-4.3 upgrade on the VIA box. It wasn't easy, but I did get it done.)

If the question is "how low can you go" in terms of computer memory, it's all about applications.

If you stayed in the Linux console and never ran X, just about anybody could be happy with 32 MB of RAM. It might be hard to actually run Linux or a BSD in 16 MB, but I've heard of Linux distributions that will do it, Damn Small Linux, Tom's RtBt (is that the right spelling?) and DeLi Linux among them.

But as much as the hard-core users talk about how they stay at the command line all the time, it's hard to get much done strictly in a console when you're a regular person. Sure you can use Lynx for text-only Web browsing, you can set up Mutt (and Postfix/Sendmail/msmtp/esmtp, Procmail and whatever other helper apps are needed) with highly customized configuration files designed to handle and filter multiple mail accounts, use Vi or Emacs for text editing and all that.

But the bottom line for me is that I need a Web browser. A "real" Web browser, something that works with Movable Type and Google Docs, and that pretty much means Firefox or some Iceweaselish derivative.

I don't tend to use OpenOffice very much (although it runs better in Debian with 64 MB that you'd think), I barely even use AbiWord these days. I'm not saying that I won't need OpenOffice in the future, but at present I'm most comfortable using various X text editors, including Geany in most Linuxes and BSDs, Gedit when I'm in GNOME, and Google Docs half the time just for the easy portability of my copy.

And while Geany doesn't load super quickly from a "traditionally" installed distribution (but is quite quick when loaded into memory as it is in Puppy Linux, once it's loaded it runs very well indeed.

And the Dillo Web browser -- which looks better in its OpenBSD incarnation than it does anywhere else -- performs quite well in 64 MB of RAM. The only problem is that Dillo can't do everything I need to do on the Web. At least the Dillo in Puppy and DSL has https support. That's not turned on in OpenBSD, and the app needs to be recompiled to add it. I can manage to turn on cookies in OpenBSD, which helps me with some sites, but for anything remotely complicated, Firefox is essential.

And while Firefox will run in 64 MB of RAM, it does so very poorly. There just isn't enough memory to keep the program from swapping to the drive incessantly whenever doing just about anything.

In this very 64 MB, I've run just about everything that will load on this Compaq laptop: Puppy, DSL, Debian (the Xfce install, plus a "standard" install with Fluxbox), Slackware (without KDE) and OpenBSD.

Truth be told, Almost all of these OSes run just about the same. Damn Small Linux has a bit of an edge, and if DSL 4.3 ran as well as 4.0, its inclusion of Firefox 2 would put it over the top. As it is, I've lost my desktop wallpaper, and I can't figure out how to display the menu in Fluxbox (even though I prefer to run JWM).

Puppy definitely needs more memory, especially to run the Mozilla-derived Seamonkey Web suite.

Debian Etch was OK. While the Xfce install is odd in many ways, as I say, I was surprised to see OpenOffice run at all -- and not too badly at that. Iceweasel was, again, an exercise in frustration. But Debian remains a distinct possibility for this machine.

It's main OS for awhile has been OpenBSD, with a partition set aside for the Linux files generated by the Puppy and DSL live CDs.

OpenBSD runs pretty well, but as I said, Firefox remains an issue.

The question: Will things improve with the boost of RAM from 64 MB to the Compaq Armada 7770dmt's maximum 144 MB? From my past experience, I know that Puppy can run in 128 MB if you have swap space, and DSL is certainly comfortable with 128 MB.

To answer the question, I could reduce the memory in my Via test box from 256 MB to 128 MB and see how OpenBSD (now version 4.3) runs in that configuration. But I'd have to pull the cover from my converted thin client and find a 128 MB SIMM. I've probably got one ... somewhere.

Better to just wait for my Compaq memory to come in the mail (luckily it's cheap).

I've know for awhile that 256 MB is a significant sweet spot for Linux, but I'd love for 144 MB to be just sweet enough to give this laptop a new lease on open-source life.

And while I managed to upgrade my VIA box from OpenBSD 4.2 to 4.3, it takes a lot more work than a simple apt-get, and I'm reluctant to do it

(This post was originally written on April 24, 2008. In the days following, I was able to tweak xorg.conf and run Wolvix on the $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt, on which it runs quite well.)

Finding my long-lost Wolvix post got me itching to run it again. I haven't had it on the $0 Laptop (Gateway Solo 1450) in some time. It did a good job there, but I wasn't able to turn off the annoying tap-to-click feature on the laptop's Alps touchpad, and I've been pretty happy with how Debian Lenny is doing that and more, so my use of Wolvix has dropped quite a bit.

If I could manage to get X configured properly on the $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt) now running OpenBSD 4.2, I'd be running the smaller Wolvix Cub (smaller than Wolvix Hunter, which I run otherwise) on the aging PC right now. The combination of the Xfce and Fluxbox window managers, plus the excellent choice of apps (it has pretty much everything I use day to day) makes the Slackware 11-based Wolvix Cub and Hunter two of the best choices out there — for me anyway.

Adding to Wolvix's flexibility, it can run as a live CD, or be installed in a traditional or "frugal" manner. I've chosen traditional installs, and the install process in Wolvix is excellent. It's easy to create as many partitions as you need, you get a choice of GRUB or LILO bootloaders, and once you do have it installed, slapt-get and Gslapt are ready to bring all the apps up to date from both the Wolvix and Slackware repositories. And the Slackware team continues to update version 11, which was first released in October 2006. Even Slackware 8 (circa 2002) seems to get an update every once in awhile.

All of this makes me very comfortable running Slackware and ... well ... Wolvix, because the two "big" Slackware-derived distros, Zenwalk and Vector, use their own repositories, and they don't support a given release for very long before moving on to the next one. This burned me pretty good one time; I was running Zenwalk 4.4.1, and it was working great, but an unfortunate invocation of the distro's update manager completely broke the thing after 4.6 came out. My machine wouldn't boot the 4.6 CD, so it was the end of Zenwalk for me.

I like Vector, but I like Wolvix even more. And I really like having Slackware's security team watching out and sending patches that flow right into my Wolvix installs with a few easy clicks.

I also like a Slackware-based setup that doesn't depend on KDE. If you have a fast-enough box, KDE is great. My Gateway laptop handles KDE very well, even though I prefer to use GNOME on it. But on my older, slower, less-memory-rich boxes, KDE is a bit too sluggish, and I like a well-appointed Xfce or Fluxbox setup much better. (Note on 9/15/08: My most recent Slackware 12.1 install on the Gateway, though not without problems related to X configuration, again showed KDE to be quite spry and Slack's default lineup of applications to be more than adequate.)

Ever try installing Slackware without KDE? It's easy to do. In fact, the excellent Slackware installer offers complete control, on a package by package basis, over what gets put on your box during the intallation. If you elect to leave out all of KDE, you can run Fluxbox or Xfce, but you get very few apps. And the install still takes up over 2 GB of space. No Abiword, no OpenOffice. I guess that would be a good time to add one of the many GNOME-for-Slackware packages out there, like Dropline GNOME (which wouldn't work on this non-686 CPU, I think, but one of the others will).

But again, Slackware's KDE-centricity doesn't leave the Xfce or Fluxbox user with a whole lot of applications. Sure you can build the system you want with Slackbuilds, Linux Packages or Robby Workman's packages, but I don't think it's a coincidence that there are three major Slackware-based distros (Wolvix, Vector and Zenwalk) that use Xfce as the primary desktop environment.

And being able to use a Wolvix CD to get literally dozens of applications I know and love makes things that much easier. Add to that my seeming inability to get GRUB to boot Slackware 12 (I'm sure using Slack's own GRUB package and script would solve my problem), and Wolvix has solved quite a few problems for me.

(Note on 09/15/08: While Wolvix does an excellent job setting up the LILO or GRUB bootloaders, I've since adopted a policy for dual- and triple-booting in which one distro, using GRUB, controls the Master Boot Record and chainloads into all the other bootable partitions on the drive, with every one of those OSes using their own bootloaders — whatever they may be — on their own root partitions. It makes swapping OSes easier and makes automatic updates of the various /boot/grub/menu.lst files work every time — not always the case with everything stuffed into the /boot/grub/menu.lst controlling the MBR.)

(This post was originally written on April 24, 2008; since then, I've bumped the system up to 144 MB. This entry should set the scene for how much better things are working with the additional memory).

When you're not running X, 64 MB of RAM is plenty. In OpenBSD, or just about any version of Linux for that matter, you just don't need a lot of memory to use the console. Of course, you can't do a whole lot either.

I know, I KNOW, that real geeks use the command line as much as possible. E-mail with Mutt or Pine (and fetchmail, procmail, sendmail, procmail ... did I miss anything (maybe msmtp, which I prefer, or esmtp, exim, postfix ...), text entry with vi (or nano, joe, emacs), text-only Web browsing with Lynx or Elinks.

OK, I do all this stuff, though I did give up on Mutt; it just didn't work for me as well as I needed, and while I put in plenty of time on the configuration, I needed to be way more of an expert than I'll probably ever be). But I really prefer to run X. I get the apps I want, real Web browsing, and a whole lot more overall productivity.

But X takes memory, and while OpenBSD with the Fvwm window manager can run in 64 MB, things take forever and a day due to all the swapping. Unfortunately, my 1999-era laptop -- a Compaq Armada 7770dmt -- maxes out at 144 MB. That's 16 MB on the motherboard, plus two 64 MB EDO SODIMMs.

The memory is on the way (I hope). Right now I have two smaller SODIMMs, a 16 MB and a 32 MB, in the laptop. And yes, I had to do the Compaq memory fix from the OpenBSD FAQ to make the OS recognize the "extra" memory. But it does work.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that OpenBSD will perform dramatically better in X with 144 MB. Since this is a pre-ACPI laptop, I don't have the problems that plague me with my Gateway Solo 1450, on which only Linux, it seems, will turn the fan on and off in response to CPU temperature. In OpenBSD, it's all on. In FreeBSD, it works for a day, and then that's the end of it. Can't figure out that one.

But I'd love to have a laptop devoted to OpenBSD (I'm using vi now ... but I miss Geany, Firefox and the rest of the junk I've got loaded on here). And if OpenBSD can work well on the desktop with only 144 MB, that will be a significant achievement for all of us with hardware in the 10-year-old range.

I'd love to roll OpenBSD onto my 10-year old PC that now runs Windows 2000. It would Do OK with Linux, for sure, but getting OpenBSD on there would be really great. And I have a full 256 MB of RAM on that box. I'm already running that much memory on my test box in the office, and I have no complaints there when it comes to running X apps in OpenBSD.

I started X to finish this post. First I ran Firefox, even though this laptop has only wireless 802.11b networking (and no wired Ethernet, although I've been meaning to get a PCMCIA Ethernet card). Yep, still takes a dog's age to start Firefox, and it's not all that responsive when it's running.

Again, I would love for that NOT to be the case after the memory upgrade.

I started Geany to continue writing. Geany runs pretty well with this 233 MHz processor and 64 MB of RAM.

So does the Dillo browser. And everytime I write about Dillo in OpenBSD, I like to mention that, for some reason, the Dillo menus and buttons look way better in the OpenBSD version of the app (I'm using the package, not the port) than they do in any other operating system in which I've tried it. And I've tried many.

I've had a bit of a difficult time with my OpenBSD 4.2 installation on the $15 Laptop — a Compaq Armada 7770dmt with 144 MB RAM, a 233 MHz Pentium II CPU and 3 GB hard drive. I use PCMCIA cards for networking, an Orinoco WaveLAN Silver for 802.11b wireless and a TRENDnet TE-100PCBUSR 10/100mbps for wired Ethernet.

Since I upgraded the memory from 64 MB to the 144 MB maximum for this machine, things are running much, much better.

But I'm running out of room in the /usr partition. I'm not sure whether or not OpenBSD can be installed in a single partition, but since the install FAQ tells you to set up separate partitions for everything, that's what I did.

On this drive, I set aside about 600 MB for Linux filesystems to create swap and a place to store files for Puppy Linux, leaving 2.4 GB for OpenBSD.

At the end of the OpenBSD partitioning, I had 1 GB for /usr, which is where applications are stored in the system.

For awhile things were going fine. I had our daughter's Gcompris, TuxPaint and Childsplay games on here, Firefox, the Geany text editor, plus a few console apps like nano, mc and mutt.

But it's not console apps that are taking up all the space.

I pulled the games and their libraries in order to fit the Opera Web browser and the Linux compatibility package needed to run it. That was the best thing I've done for this install since I did it. On this old hardware, the Linux build of Opera runs much faster than Firefox.

That speed really shows up when blogging with Movable Type. For some reason, even in Linux, scripts keep timing out in Firefox and the Mozilla-based Seamonkey. Now that I have Opera installed in both OpenBSD and Puppy 2.13, I'm a lot happier on this old laptop, which is about as challenged as it gets when it comes to old hardware working with modern operating systems and applications.

Anyhow, I needed to do some more "formatted" writing, and I did have the Ted word processor installed. But Ted isn't great when it comes to centering type, print previews or generating PDF output.

I needed Abiword. But I didn't have enough space.

The only thing big enough: Firefox.

Yep, I got rid of Firefox. One thing about the OpenBSD package manager that isn't helping me out here is that when you install a package, all the dependencies are checked, and the additional packages needed are downloaded and installed. But when you remove a package, the system doesn't check its dependencies for whether or not they're still needed by other applications in the system.

I'm sure there's a reason for this, and there's probably even a way around it (like the great deborphan app that I use in Debian), but I know nothing about it.

Anyhow, I managed to get Abiword installed, and I have 500 MB left in my /usr partition. Unfortunately, the spell-check in Abiword doesn't work in the OpenBSD build. Abiword spell-check doesn't work in Puppy either.
The spell-check installs and works most of the time in Debian (especially when you install it with Aptitude and get all the packages you need, rather than with apt-get, where at least sometimes you don't).

I found an old OpenBSD mailing-list hack about how to fix Abiword's spell-checking capability, but it didn't have enough information, and it didn't look like it would work anyway.

But the good news is that with this amount of memory, Abiword 2.4.5 runs extremely well in OpenBSD 4.2. Additionally, for some reason the fonts in Abiword look better in OpenBSD than then do in most other Linux/Unix systems.

So now I have Abiword, Geany, Opera and the Dillo browser as my "main" applications on this system. I don't want to forget the Rox-filer file manager. I put that on the box awhile ago. I still need space to add the Flash plugin for Abiword, and Rox is a prime target for removal so I can get that space ... or the space to install Gaim/Pidgin for IM.

But I just can't do it. I've loved the Rox-filer ever since I first used it in Puppy, and I just can't give it up.

I probably should. I removed mc (Midnight Commander) for space reasons, even though it probably doesn't take up all that much space, and since I had Rox. If mc didn't have problems with the function keys in the console (it misreads the keys for some reason), I'd be able to fit one more app in. (Note: mc works perfectly in an xterm window, just not in the console).

What I'm going to have to do eventually is reinstall OpenBSD. I need a bigger drive so I can have a big /usr partition, install everything I want on it, as well as have room for a full Linux install as well, something I could use in addition to Puppy.

So the OpenBSD install is really tight, in terms of space for applications, but it's working extremely well. I now have the ability to share files between OpenBSD and Linux via an ext2 partition, and that has added tremendous value to this laptop.

I could be using my Gateway laptop a lot more. It's got way better specs (1 GB RAM, 1.3 GHz CPU) and runs Linux way faster. But it isn't so hot with OpenBSD due to the noisy, uncontrollable-by-BSD CPU fan. And its PCMCIA slot still isn't fixed, so I can't run wireless with it.

The Compaq may be underpowered, but it has a very clear, very bright screen, an excellent keyboard, working wireless, no ACPI issues (since it has no ACPI), and there's just something about getting it to work and keeping it working that I find compelling.

And there's also something about OpenBSD that keeps me coming back to it, even on the desktop.

You might ask why I'm spending so much time figuring out how to best configure a Compaq Armada 7770dmt — a laptop with an ancient 233MHz Pentium II MMX processor, feeble 144MB of RAM and smallish 3GB hard drive.

For one thing, I almost never abandon a machine that can be used. And this one definitely can be.

Plus, I like the Compaq. It has a nice screen and keyboard, I like the fact that its power supply is totally contained in the laptop case. The thing's pretty solid.

And I remember my long search for a laptop. Just about everything I saw on the used market was overpriced and lacking essential parts (hard drive, power brick, CD drive, memory ...) but still selling for too much.

When I found this laptop for $15 and only had to add a CD-ROM drive that cost an additional $10 and a WiFi card I already had, I was hooked.

The build quality of this 1999 Compaq is much better than my 2002 Gateway, and I expect the Gateway to die long before the Compaq.

And with Linux, I've learned that a nearly 10-year-old PC can be quite usable. That means This Old PC, with a faster Pentium II processor (333MHz), more RAM (256MB) and which uses cheaper desktop IDE drives — and which at 11 years old is even longer in the tooth than the Compaq — is also still quite usable.

The fact that I searched long and hard for one laptop, came up with nothing from Craigslist and eBay, but then ended up with two laptops within months, getting each for next to nothing, was an opportunity to learn about hardware, software and what it takes to get things done in a variety of operating systems (I've run many versions of Linux, plus FreeBSD — including offshoots DesktopBSD and PC-BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, a couple of projects based on OpenSolaris, and yes, even Windows).

Even if I had $500 or so to buy new laptops every couple of years — and believe me, I don't, there's a lot of nobility, fun and plain old value in keeping these PCs running. And running well.

I guess you could call it a hobby.

I could do a lot worse, no?

Previously:
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part I — Puppy or Damn Small Linux
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part II — OpenBSD or Debian?
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part III — Browsers and wireless
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part IV — Wolvix Cub is surprisingly strong
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part V — Where I'm headed
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VI — Younger Puppies
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VII — Debian with Xfce and Fluxbox calls

I know I said in a previous entry that Debian's Xfce installation didn't exactly provide what I wanted, but looking at what I need, Debian rises to the top of the pack.

Top of my list: Installing Debian with encrypted LVM. Especially in a laptop, encryption is a must to secure your data from prying eyes, should the laptop be lost or stolen.

And any little utility that Wolvix has can probably be added in Debian. And Aptitude is very good. It's not graphical, but it represents the best of Debian.

And I still trust the security team for Debian more than I do most others — this despite the OpenSSL problem that has recently plagued every Debian-based distro in recent weeks. (At least somebody figured it out, and the whole incident should tighten up things considerably in the Debian Project).

And in Debian, I can easily install all of our little girl's educational programs, although she is fairly vocal about preferring to use the newer, faster $0 Laptop, a 1.3GHz Celeron-based Gateway laptop with 1GB of RAM.

The only "stopper" is Google's lack of willingness to easily let users install Google Gears in Mozilla-derived browsers not named Firefox. That means it's a pain in the ass to install Gears with Iceweasel, the Debian-derived, noncopyrighted equivalent to Firefox.

And I haven't tried Debian on the Compaq Armada 7770dmt since I boosted the RAM from 64MB to 144MB. Responsiveness in X could be a lot better with such a relative overabundance of RAM.

So as far as the Compaq goes, I'm down to running Debian or Wolvix on the hard drive and Puppy as a live CD. Like I said previously, I don't want to kill out OpenBSD just yet, so I'll need either a second hard drive or a 4GB Compact Flash card with CF-to-IDE laptop adapter (the latter available for a quite-reasonable $10 at LogicSupply.com). I might even spring for a second hard-drive caddy for the Compaq, should I be able to find one, to make swapping the drives that much easier.

Or I could bite the bullet, get rid of OpenBSD for the time being, try out Debian and Wolvix on the hard drive, and narrow things down. I'll continue to run Puppy, with a separate partition for its encrypted pup_save file.

I've taken to using the Leafpad text editor in Puppy (I'm using it now), and the Leafpad-derived Mousepad editor in Xfce is just as fast, if spartan. Xfce's Terminal app has similar attributes. And I have no problem running xterm or rxvt.

It's really about the text editors and browsers I use, the software my daughter likes to run, stability, security, encryption and ease of maintenance.

Moreover, it's about speed on old hardware. These things look very different on newer computers. My 2002-era Gateway laptop runs Ubuntu very well. I doubt I could even boot Ubuntu on this Compaq. Even the Xubuntu live CD won't boot. With Debian, I have no problem.

On the Gateway, Ubuntu's polish as compared to Debian makes Ubuntu a better choice. But on this older Compaq, Debian's flexibility and added speed (don't ask me why it's faster, it just is) are much needed.

Next moves: I need to get a PCMCIA Ethernet card since I don't have regular access to WiFi. While I'm at it, a PCMCIA card for USB is something I should also look into. Sure, I could transfer files over the network, but USB is ... easier. (Note: Since this post was originally written, I have gotten an Ethernet card for the Compaq).

Previously:
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part I — Puppy or Damn Small Linux
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part II — OpenBSD or Debian?
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part III — Browsers and wireless
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part IV — Wolvix Cub is surprisingly strong
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part V — Where I'm headed
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VI — Younger Puppies

Coming up:
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VIII — Final thoughts (aka "Why?")

As I say in a previous post on this very topic, there are many reasons to choose Puppy Linux as the primary OS on the nearly 10-year-old Compaq Armada 7770dmt laptop.

For one thing, Puppy is ideal — and explicitely designed — to run as a live CD or easily upgraded frugal install, the latter either on a traditional hard-disk drive or a Compact Flash memory card mounted in a CF-to-IDE adapter inside the Compaq's hard-drive caddy.

With recent versions of Puppy (2.17 onward, I believe) the ability to encrypt the pup_save file that holds all of the user's files and configurations adds both a needed measure of security to a laptop installation as well as providing an equally easy way to back up the entire system by copying a single large file to just about any storage medium, from USB flash drive to CD-RW to hard disks in formats ranging from old-school FAT to NTFS to Linux's many types of filesystems.

Also in Puppy's favor is that recent versions have heightened compatibility with Slackware 12 packages, promising a greater number of sources for additional applications, should I ever want or need to add anything beyond what Puppy and its own repositories already provide.

To recap, in the time I've had the 1999-era Compaq Armada 7770dmt laptop (again, with a 233MHz Pentium II MMX processor), I've taken it's RAM from 64MB to the maximum of 144MB, kept the original IBM-made 3GB hard drive, and run the following operating systems:

• Debian Etch "standard," with X and Fluxbox added
• Debian Etch Xfce desktop install
• Slackware 12 without KDE
• Puppy Linux 2.13
• Damn Small Linux 4.0, 4.3 and 4.4
• OpenBSD 4.2
• Wolvix Cub 1.1.0

Truth be told, I liked every one of these installs to one degree or another. While Slackware (installing without KDE but with everything else) took up too much space and offered too few applications I wanted, it still ran great.

Rolling my own X installation into Debian's "standard" install was an excellent exercise, but I just didn't have the expertise to really build it out. The Debian Xfce install was nice, but somewhat curious; all of the Debian desktop installs, even KDE, feature OpenOffice. Surprisingly, OO ran fairly well in 64MB of RAM and 233MHz of CPU. Strange, however, was the lack of GUI package management in the Xfce install. It did get me using Aptitude, so there was nothing lost there, but I got the feeling that Debian's Xfce just didn't offer what I wanted.

However, with Aptitude, Abiword actually installs the dictionary that makes spell-check work. At last look, neither Puppy nor OpenBSD do that.

I continue to enjoy Damn Small Linux, but the most recent versions just don't run as well as they should on this laptop. And little things like having Firefox renamed Bon Echo (why??) made it difficult to use Google Docs with Gears, which is one of the things I want to be doing fairly intensively, made DSL fall behind Puppy in the running.

Puppy has a great selection of apps, is fairly easy to configure, extremely familiar to me and runs great on this hardware. I find myself using this live CD more and more of the time.

Much of my feeling for 2.13 over other versions of Puppy is nostalgic. I first encountered Puppy with this very release, and most likely a simple move of the cute 2.13 desktop wallpaper to a newer version of Puppy would make me extremely happy. The fact that everything in 2.13 continues to work flawlessly, however, is a strong testament to how very well Puppy is put together. I probably will test and subsequently adopt a much newer version of Puppy for use on this laptop, if for no other reason than to use the encrypted-pup_save feature that will greatly add to the security of my data, since laptops — even ones well past their prime — have a way of falling into the wrong hands.

OpenBSD doesn't install with as anywhere near as many GUI features as ... any Linux distribution. Not that any of the BSD projects can't be configured to be as full-featured as any equivalent Linux distribution. It just takes time and effort. With a faster processor and a bit more memory, I'd really consider running OpenBSD as the primary distro on this laptop. On the other hand, hardware detection in OpenBSD excellent. It remains the only operating system to correctly auto-configure sound on this Compaq.

OpenBSD has well over 4,000 precompiled binary packages for i386 and even more software available through ports. It offers fewer packages than Debian or Ubuntu but way more than Slackware. And with the quality of the packages being so high and the tools used to manage them equally high in quality, OpenBSD remains an attractive alternative.

But again, Linux is just that much easier to use on the desktop. OpenBSD is no speed demon in X, and speed is more important when you're running ancient hardware than it is when you have, say, a PC from the past five years at your disposal.

And with OpenBSD, things like Adobe Flash are hard to deal with. And I don't think Google Gears will ever run in OpenBSD. I could be wrong on both counts (since OpenBSD can run Linux apps), but I do know that both are easier to do in Linux.

A bigger drive that could multiboot Debian, Wolvix and OpenBSD, with Puppy running either in a frugal install or as a live CD, is one way to go.

But running only one or two of these systems at a time seems to be more realistic, manageable and ... sane. Using multiple hard drives, like I do with my test box, is another way to go. That way the pain of dual-booting is avoided, as is the tedium of continual reinstalls.

Since OpenBSD offers much of the software I want and is an intriguing diversion from Linux, I could 'll probably leave it on the drive for the near future. In my 500MB or so Linux partition, I will probably grow my pup_save file and update Puppy. Now that I have Firefox 2 running on one of my other Puppy installs, I'll probably begin doing the same with this laptop, and that way I'll be able to use Google Docs with Gears. I can probably even figure out how to make Gears work with Seamonkey, but it's not imperative.

Previously:
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part I — Puppy or Damn Small Linux
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part II — OpenBSD or Debian?
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part III — Browsers and wireless
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part IV — Wolvix Cub is surprisingly strong

Coming up:
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VI — Younger Puppies
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VII — Debian with Xfce and Fluxbox calls
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VIII — Final thoughts (aka "Why?")

I didn't have high hopes for Wolvix on the $15 Laptop — a Compaq Armada 7770dmt built in 1999 — since previous attempts to load the live CD resulted in an X configuration that needed a little work.

Since then, I've had quite a bit more experience working in the xorg.conf file, and I was able to get a halfway decent X configuration going so I could test Wolvix Cub (the smaller of the two Wolvix distributions, with fewer packages than the larger Wolvix Hunter).

As I've written on many occasions, I consider Wolvix to be one of the best Slackware-based distributions available. Both the graphical configuration utility and the very flexible installation utility — also an X application — add considerable functionality to a solid Slackware 11 base.

And with Wolvix (and the rest of the Slackware-derived distros such as Zenwalk and Vector), all of the helpful Slackware console utilities are still there. Xwmconfig, netconfig, mouseconfig, even pkgtool can be used in any of these Slackware-based systems. You might not need them as much as you would in a standard Slackware installation, but they do come in handy.

Wolvix also includes slapt-get and Gslapt, the Debian-apt-like utilities that changed the way I look at package management in Slackware.

Before Wolvix, when running Slackware I dutifally downloaded updates from the Slackware FTP site, then used updatepkg to install them. One by one. By one.

One time I figured that using pkgtool for updates would enable me to save time and avoid all that typing of long filenames, or the almost-as-long procedure of copy/pasting them in the file manager for each and every package than needed updating.

I ended up with "doubles" of every updated package, since pkgtool didn't know I was doing an update and just installed the new packages without removing the old ones. So when you're talking about doing updates of Slackware packages with Slack's default tools, it's updatepkg or nothing.

All it means is that slapt-get and Gslapt, which are included in Wolvix and easily added to Slackware itself, are essential for the person whose life doesn't revolve around using the updatepkg utility.

Just the fact that Wolvix — which can operate as a live CD with a Knoppix-like save file, or in "frugal" or traditional hard-drive installs, can be brought up to date in minutes with Gslapt in much the same way that apt and Synaptic work in Debian continues to be a revelation.

Put it this way: How many longtime Slackware users don't have and use slapt-get/Gslapt? I bet not many.

Once I had Wolvix Cub running as a live CD with X properly configured on the 144MB/233MHz Compaq Armada 7770dmt, I used xwmconfig at the console to switch between the Xfce and Fluxbox window managers.

Not surprisingly, both WMs ran quite well, even with only 144MB in the live CD environment.

What astounded me were the extremly quick application-load times. In previous tests of Wolvix, it was quick but not so quick as to beat Debian Etch or Slackware 12 under Xfce and Fluxbox.

In Wolvix Cub running on live CD on the Compaq, a number of text editors, the lightweight Abiword and not-so-light Firefox all loaded relatively quickly. I need to do more tests, but Firefox seemed as responsive or more so than the Mozilla-based Seamonkey browser is in the ultra-fast Puppy Linux.

I wouldn't want to run Wolvix, even the Cub edition, as a live CD in the same way as Puppy or Damn Small Linux — especially in only 144MB of RAM, but when it comes to a traditional install, Wolvix Cub or the more application-rich Hunter would seemingly make an excellent candidate to permanently run on the Compaq.

In contrast to Debian and Slackware, Wolvix installs with just about every application and utility I like, from Abiword to Bluefish, Dillo to MtPaint, and with extremely well-organized menus in both Xfce and Fluxbox. In fact, the Fluxbox menus even include little icons next to each category of applications, something I've never seen before.

I'm "sure" I could replicate all of this goodness in standard Slackware of Debian, but the former's KDE focus and the latter's devotion to GNOME mean that it would take quite a bit of work on my part to have as good an experience in Xfce and Fluxbox as I already enjoy in Wolvix by simply loading the live CD and doing an easy installation from what I consider to be among the best installers of any Linux distribution.

Previously:
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part I — Puppy or Damn Small Linux
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part II — OpenBSD or Debian?
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part III — Browsers and wireless

Coming up:
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part V — Where I'm headed
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VI — Younger Puppies
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VII — Debian with Xfce and Fluxbox calls
In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VIII — Final thoughts (aka "Why?")

I've been using OpenBSD 4.2 for a few months now on the $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt), and I'm leaving it on the hard drive for now. It does run better with 144 MB of RAM. I may even upgrade the OS to the current version 4.3.

OpenBSD with X is nowhere near as fast as the fastest Linux systems, but the added security and overall quality keeps me using it.

However, I'm considering swapping out the hard drive (to retain my OpenBSD installation) and trying Debian again.

Back when I ran Etch on this laptop, I remember it being slower than Puppy and Damn Small Linux, especially when it came to refreshing the screen. That was with 64MB, and I think Debian deserves another try in 144MB.

I have to gauge how important it is to have a traditional, easily updatable hard-drive installation vs. the live CD environment of Puppy and DSL. In many ways, live CDs are ideal for older machines like this one. The way they mostly run in RAM speeds things up considerably, and "upgrading" is as easy as using a new CD.

I have upgraded OpenBSD from 4.2 to 4.3 on another one of my boxes. It wasn't impossibly hard. Still, it was nowhere near as easy as using apt to upgrade a Debian install, and when it comes to binary-package updates to OpenBSD's stable releases, there aren't any between releases.

My feeling after using OpenBSD for six months is that daily updates a la Debian aren't as necessary as any of us might think, and updating the box every six months is a reasonable solution.

And here I am using Puppy 2.13, which is well over a year old but has nice-looking desktop wallpaper and a bunch of apps that work very well.

Previously:

• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part I — Puppy or Damn Small Linux
  

Coming up:

• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part III — Browsers and wireless
  
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part IV — Wolvix Cub is surprisingly strong
  
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part V — Where I'm headed
  
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VI — Younger Puppies
  
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VII — Debian with Xfce and Fluxbox calls
  
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VIII — Final thoughts (aka "Why?")

In the battle for which operating system runs best on the $15 Laptop, Puppy Linux has pulled out front as the fastest system with the most features I need and best functionality on this 1999-era Compaq Armada 7770dmt.

In case you're wondering, here are the specs of the Compaq:

233 MHz Pentium II MMX processor
144 MB RAM
3 GB hard drive

I recently bumped the RAM from 64MB to the maximum of 144MB. Before this increase, running Linux or OpenBSD (which I have installed on the hard drive) with the X Window System was difficult at best.

Smaller applications like the Dillo Web browser, the Abiword and Ted word processors, the Geany and Beaver text editors ran pretty well in 64MB of RAM.

But the 500-pound gorilla of graphical applications is Firefox.

It would be nice to get by with Dillo, but many — if not most — of the things I need to do with a computer these days require a fairly modern browser.

Whether it's blogging, working on Dailynews.com, or on the Movable Type back end, it all happens in the browser.

And for that I need, at a minimum, Firefox 1.5.

Now that Damn Small Linux offers Firefox 2 (under the name Bon Echo, but for all intents and purposes an early release in the FF 2 series), that system is more than fair game for use on this laptop.

Unfortunately, while the browser runs great, other things in DSL have not been working so well.

For some reason, the desktop wallpaper doesn't work. Instead, I have a plain, gray X Window background. And while JWM (Joe's Window Manager) is the default in Damn Small Linux like in Puppy, switching over to Fluxbox in DSL has been problematic. Some builds have allowed me to use the Fluxbox menu, but others don't seem to work at all.

I could live without desktop wallpaper (or I could figure out a solution to the problem), but with Puppy Linux (I'm currently using version 2.13 but could easily upgrade to the newer 4.00 at any time) I get a nice-looking desktop, the Mozilla-based Seamonkey Web suite, Abiword (about as fast as DSL's Ted word processor but with the added ability to read and write .doc files), the Geany text editor, the ROX filer and quite a few other applications I've grown to like very much over the year and a half I've been using Linux.

And as far as speed goes, Puppy and DSL are quite equal on this hardware.

Coming up:

• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part II — OpenBSD or Debian?
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part III — Browsers and wireless
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part IV — Wolvix Cub is surprisingly strong
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part V — Where I'm headed
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VI — Younger Puppies
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VII — Debian with Xfce and Fluxbox calls
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VIII — Final thoughts (aka "Why?")

Since I shocked it back to life, the $15 Laptop (1999 Compaq 7770dmt with 233 MHz Pentium II MMX CPU, 144 MB RAM and 3 GB hard drive) has relied on an Orinoco WaveLAN Silver 802.11b wireless PCMCIA card for networking.

The WaveLAN is truly a wonder, working in both my 1996 Apple Macintosh Powerbook 1400, plus just about every damn thing made thereafter, and it has served me quite well in the years since I fought and scratched for it on eBay.

But I don't really have a lot of wireless networking in my life. My Netgear router used to pump out 802.11b, but the radio died about a year ago, and the router is now wired-only, where it continues to work wonderfully.

And at the Daily News offices, no WiFi penetrates the hallowed halls of Editorial, where all I have at my disposal is wired Ethernet.

The wide-open WiFi signals I sometimes "borrow" from my neighbors are weak at best and usually don't work. The best WiFi I've tried is at the Los Angeles Public Library's many branches, but I don't have time to linger.

And the now-free WiFi for Starbucks cardholders works great with the Compaq in Linux but not at all on OpenBSD (I know this because OpenBSD wireless on this very laptop does work at the library).

So I've been contemplating purchase of a PCMCIA/Cardbus Ethernet card for some time. They're cheap. But do they work on my ancient hardware and many and varied operating systems?

I picked up a TRENDnet TE100-PCBUSR 10/100Mbps 32-Bit CardBus Fast Ethernet Card last week and finally got a chance to remove the Orinoco WaveLAN card, insert the TRENDNet and give it a try.

It works!

The TRENDnet uses a tried, true and otherwise compatible Realtek chipset with the 8139too Linux driver.

I had no trouble loading the driver and configuring the card in Puppy Linux 2.13 (where I had to select the driver on my own) and Puppy 4.00 (where the system detected the card and correctly chose the driver for me).

So for the first time in the year or so that I've had the Compaq Armada 7770dmt, I have reliable networking for the aging but still sturdy laptop at both home and work.

The next thing I'm going to try is seeing if the laptop can physically accommodate the TRENDnet wired and Orinoco wireless cards at the same time, and if I can in turn configure both to work without having to pull one and plug in the other.

$15 Laptop note: The eight-part series on finding the right OS for the $1Compaq Armada 7770dmt is ready to run. All I need to do is get the entries into Movable Type and queue them up to run. I hope to do that in the next few days.

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.

The extremely lightweight Swiss GNU/Linux distribution Slitaz burst upon the scene in March of this year promising to be easy on system resources yet possessing enough power in the form of basic applications to actually get things done.

In my original non-review, I couldn't really get Slitaz running on any of three PCs, so I ended it this way:

Hopefully they'll get it right with SliTaz 1.1 (or 2.0), but for now, it's a distro with a lot of promise but not a whole lot of delivery -- at least for me.

But there was also this:

I'll try it in the $15 Laptop (based on a Pentium II MMX and with the Orinoco WaveLAN wireless card) ...

Coincidentally, I've been looking for new distros to run on the $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt), and I decided to finally give Slitaz a spin in it.

It works.

And so far, it's quicker than anything I've tried on it before. The closest thing I can compare it to is Damn Small Linux.

As of DSL version 4.4, both have the "Bon Echo" version of Firefox, with Slitaz using a more-recent build of what basically is Firefox.

Having Firefox named Bon Echo presents one problem: It's harder to install Google Gears, which would enable Google Docs to function in offline mode. I'm sure there's a way to do it, but so far that's been the big stopper for me with DSL (and now Slitaz).

Another stopper: Slitaz seems to want the user to store data on a USB-connected drive. But this laptop, made somewhere around 1999, doesn't have USB. Hell, it doesn't have Ethernet. My connectivity comes via a Orinoco WaveLAN Silver PCMCIA card, and even if I did have a WiFi signal, which I don't, I'm not sure Slitaz 1.0 supports wireless connectivity. Otherwise, I'd be trying some packages from the Slitaz repository.

But in its "raw" configuration, Slitaz is a 25 MB ISO — smaller than Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux, and with fewer apps as well.

The beauty of it is that Slitaz 1.0 is running entirely in RAM — and I've only got 144MB on this laptop.

Again: 144MB and running entirely in RAM. I don't think there's a system out there with X that'll do this without tapping into Linux swap (although Damn Small Linux might be coming close).

Like Puppy and DSL, Slitaz is based on the JWM window manager, which has plenty of features and lots of speed to go with it. Right-clicking gets you a small menu, but for the full menu, you need to left-click on the Slitaz spider icon at the top of the screen.

Slitaz is lean but does have enough apps to get by.

Besides Firefox/Bon Echo (version 2.0.0.12 on the live CD), there's:

• My favorite development editor Geany
• The mhWaveEdit audio editor (at least that's what I think it is)
• emelFM2 file manager
• Clex File manager
• mtPaint image editor (one of my favorites)
• Grab screenshot
• GPicView Image Viewer
• Gparted partition manager
• Htop processes viewer
• Lighttpd Web server
• gFTP client
• Grsync
• LostIRC
• Retawq Web browser
• Scpbox secure copy app
• Transmission Bittorrent app
• ePDFView PDF viewer
• Listpatron (I can't figure out what this does, but it appears to "make lists")
• OSMO personal organizer
• SQlite database
• Wikiss PHP Wiki
• Bc calculator
• Burn ISO
• ISO Master
• Leafpad editor
• Nano editor
• Xpad sticky note editor
• Xterm

I'm not sure yet how extensive the Web-server capabilities of Slitaz are as yet, but it does have the Lighttpd server, SQLite database, along with PHP, so you can seemingly roll out a dynamic Web page on the system as configured.

Once I get to a live Internet connection on the Compaq, I plan to check out the Slitaz repository, which has some applications that aren't on the live CD, including Abiword and the GIMP.

I'll have to deal with how to save my settings in Slitaz without USB, but in that quest, I found a great utility called Mountbox that enabled me to easily mount partitions from my hard drive and then look at them with emelFM2. Not that it's hard to mount partitions from live CDs, but this app is as good as the mount tools in Puppy or DSL, and I'm glad to have it.

However, upon mounting a hard-drive partition, I could see all the files there, but I was unable to write a new file to it. That's something I'll have to work on.

(Hint: When you boot Slitaz, the standard user is hacker, with no password. Root's password is root.)

After a read through the online documentation, I settled on the following boot codes for my laptop:

boot: slitaz vga=788 lang=en kmap=us home=hda3 sound=noconf

I was still asked by the system (in French, no less) what resolution to use for X. But the boot process was a bit quicker, since I wasn't asked this time to choose a language or keyboard, nor was I asked to configure sound, something that didn't work automatically (and never does for this laptop in Linux).

I created a file, saved it in the Slitaz filesystem and rebooted without the cheat codes. The file wasn't there. I tried again with the boot codes, and my file was there. The same thing worked for a Firefox bookmark. As long as I used the home=hda3 boot code (since hda3 was the hard drive partition I chose on which to put my Slitaz save file) when booting, everything works.

So it turns out you don't need a USB drive to save files in Slitaz.

There's a "Cooking" release of Slitaz that looks much changed from the 1.0 release, and I will try it soon and hope that perhaps some and hopefully many of my problems will be addressed. It uses Openbox instead of JWM, features desktop icons, uses HAL to automatically mount media and even has Firefox 3.

Another addition, among many, to the latest build of Slitaz is wireless support. Again, I'll have to burn a disc tonight and give it a try when I'm near a WiFi signal.

Thus far, Slitaz 1.0 is absolutely the fastest operating system I've ever used. While it's still fairly young, it boasts of a lot of functionality, and if it runs on your particular hardware, it's a live CD that's well worth having in your laptop bag.

I'd love to have another alternative to Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux, both extremely lightweight — and extremely well-formed — distributions designed to be run as live CDs (but also capable of being installed to the hard drive). And again, running entirely in RAM with only 144MB is as lightweight as they come.

Right now, I can't use Slitaz with the same "expertise" with which I can use Puppy or DSL. But for a quick-booting, quick-working live CD, Slitaz does exceedingly well for such an early stage in its life.

I'll be watching Slitaz very closely, and I expect big things for it in the future, should development continue — and I really do hope it does.

Point of order: According to the boot screen, Slitaz stands for "Simple, Light, Incredible, Temporary Autonomous Zone."

So far, Slitaz lives up to that name.

More on Slitaz:
Slitaz on Distrowatch
Distrowatch review of Slitaz
My first Slitaz post from April 2008
K.Mandla's review of Slitaz
TechieMoe review of Slitaz
TechSource review of Slitaz

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.

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.