Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A KDE4 Operating System In Less Than 200MB

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A KDE4 Operating System In Less Than 200MB

    Phoronix: A KDE4 Operating System In Less Than 200MB

    SLAX 7 is now up to a release candidate state and it packs a KDE 4 desktop environment while the entire operating system is less than 200MB in size...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIyMzU

  • #2
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    How much of those 200 mb are the kde actually?
    Less than LibreOffice, and probably comparable to Firefox.

    Comment


    • #3
      KDE is 25MB
      KDE dependencies 60MB
      KDE applications and such are 17MB
      FireFox 20MB
      Xorg 12MB
      The rest is core Linux system tools, 50MB

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TomasM View Post
        KDE is 25MB
        KDE dependencies 60MB
        KDE applications and such are 17MB
        FireFox 20MB
        Xorg 12MB
        The rest is core Linux system tools, 50MB
        Hi Tomas, i'm the "AJSB" that emailed you today (...or was it yesterday ?....)

        So...how about to port it to ARM and my other questions ?

        Really nice work squeezing KDE4, i'm reading your blog from time to time...


        BTW, people, S7RC1 feels really snappy

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
          How much of those 200 mb are the kde actually? 180? Face it, KDE is a pig and this will not change with these feeble attempts to persuade users that it's anything close to efficient.
          As you can see by Tomas' post, KDE doesn't consume 180 mb. And KDE _is_ efficient, if you disable all effects it runs faster than DEs like LXDE(!).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by AJSB View Post
            So...how about to port it to ARM and my other questions ?
            Actually, I answered that one so many times that I'm losing track who got the answer and who didn't
            ARM version was planed for a while, but I discovered that it's not such universal as like x86. There are many ARM devices out there and each one (as far as I understand it) needs different firmware to boot. I can't possibly support all ARM devices, so I would have to pick just few, and that makes no sense to me.

            Else it is actually pretty simple to make Slax for ARM, all sources are available on FTP and Slackware (which is base for Slax) already has official ARM version as well. Unfortunately I don't have any fast ARM device here, just some RaspberryPI which has just 256MB, it's not possible to recompile KDE4 on that... it needs around 4GB of RAM for compilation (yet it runs just fine on 256MB of RAM when compiled).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TomasM View Post
              Actually, I answered that one so many times that I'm losing track who got the answer and who didn't
              ARM version was planed for a while, but I discovered that it's not such universal as like x86. There are many ARM devices out there and each one (as far as I understand it) needs different firmware to boot. I can't possibly support all ARM devices, so I would have to pick just few, and that makes no sense to me.

              Else it is actually pretty simple to make Slax for ARM, all sources are available on FTP and Slackware (which is base for Slax) already has official ARM version as well. Unfortunately I don't have any fast ARM device here, just some RaspberryPI which has just 256MB, it's not possible to recompile KDE4 on that... it needs around 4GB of RAM for compilation (yet it runs just fine on 256MB of RAM when compiled).
              Building on ARM devices is a PITA, sometimes. I'd recommend checking out the various cross-compiling toolchains. I've used scratchbox2 for some cell-phone related Linux development in the past and it worked pretty well.

              A quick google search actually turned up what looks to be a very relevant result (a how-to/script for apt-based distros which will set up scratchbox2, qemu, and a rootfs for raspberry pi cross-compiling):
              http://pastebin.com/4Jp1WPTb

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BitRot View Post
                As you can see by Tomas' post, KDE doesn't consume 180 mb. And KDE _is_ efficient, if you disable all effects it runs faster than DEs like LXDE(!).
                Still not faster than DWM...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by frign View Post
                  Still not faster than DWM...
                  And DWM is not faster than Windows 3.1.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    And DWM is not faster than Windows 3.1.
                    It actually is, ignoring the fact that your example is complete nonsense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      And DWM is not faster than Windows 3.1.
                      even gnome2 2d without effects is faster than win 3.1 de

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by frign View Post
                        Still not faster than DWM...

                        It is on my system.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                          Face it, KDE is a pig
                          for computers from the 90's...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by frign View Post
                            It actually is, ignoring the fact that your example is complete nonsense.
                            Did you really expect anything else from troll RealNC?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by frign View Post
                              Still not faster than DWM...
                              The only thing I would like is upstream to provide/move to xcb, it takes almost 1s before I can open a terminal from cold boot, which doesn't happen with outdated xcb patches/forks or monsterwm-xcb

                              Maybe I could try solving it by mounting dwm with ramfs/tmpfs, but not probably since it's Xlib latency

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X