64 bit AntiX iso

rokytnji · posted: 2013-03-18 07:46

Now excuse me for being a PITA.

It is late night here and I have been installing things in 64bit base install like comix, calibre,unrar, and some other stuff like gdebi and synaptic.

My point being. I know we are lean and mean and that AntiX is the chopper vs bagger of linux distros.
I wish to read comic books and ebooks with my install so I know how to search and install to do this.

I figured. Remember, I am up late so the worst ideas come to mind then so take what I am saying with a grain of salt. What do other members think should be included into the 64bit
iso since we have dvdrw or usb bootable computers and iso size is not a factor like on i686 cdrom older pcs.

I am just wondering why we have to put up with i386 size isos on a 64bit machine. I have been playing with Mint Mate 14 64bit humungous iso download based on Ubuntu 12.10 and it is a Kitchen sink type of distro. Too bad it is not a rolling release but I am familiar with Ubuntu version terminal upgrades on a expired End of Life installs. It worked out of the box on my new Samsung 64bit Laptop.

We can take the kitchen sink and everything else on a initial installation on a 64bit computer. Things like Audacity and other applications left out
on a Full 64bit install might make us more attractive (or not) to other Linux users.

Keep Icewm and Fluxbox and wicd and ceni. Throw away rutilt because it never works in live with a self populating dbus error pop up every where..
Just poking around for ideas I guess. I suggested comix and calibre which adds tons of mbs to a iso.

What does everyone think of my idea. Especially Anti and the other developers, (sorry members, only real coders can be true distro tuners). Shut me down if I am just adding more rocks to the wheel barrow and tell
me"screw you and the horse you rode in on". It won't hurt my feelers and I know how easy it is to delegate but when it comes to wrenching.
That is a different story entirely .

Time to pop my last beer for the night. Happy Trails, Rok

Code: Select all

harry@biker:~
$ apt-cache policy comix
comix:
  Installed: 4.0.4-1
  Candidate: 4.0.4-1
  Version table:
 *** 4.0.4-1 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
harry@biker:~
$ apt-cache policy evince
evince:
  Installed: 3.4.0-3.1
  Candidate: 3.4.0-3.1
  Version table:
 *** 3.4.0-3.1 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
harry@biker:~
$ apt-cache policy calibre
calibre:
  Installed: 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1
  Candidate: 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1
  Version table:
 *** 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
harry@biker:~
$ apt-cache policy unrar
unrar:
  Installed: 1:4.1.4-1
  Candidate: 1:4.1.4-1
  Version table:
 *** 1:4.1.4-1 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/non-free amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
harry@biker:~
$ inxi -F -z
System:    Host: biker Kernel: 3.2.0-4-amd64 x86_64 (64 bit) 
           Desktop: Fluxbox 1.3.2 Distro: antiX-13-beta1_x64-base Ahmad Sami 7 February 2013
Machine:   Mobo: Acer model: Aspire 5534 version: V1.10 Bios: Acer version: V1.10 date: 08/26/2009
CPU:       Dual core AMD Athlon X2 L310 (-MCP-) cache: 1024 KB flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 svm) 
           Clock Speeds: 1: 1197.176 MHz 2: 1197.176 MHz
Graphics:  Card: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI RS780M/RS780MN [Mobility Radeon HD 3200 Graphics] 
           X.Org: 1.12.4 drivers: ati,radeon (unloaded: fbdev,vesa) Resolution: 1366x768@60.0hz 
           GLX Renderer: Gallium 0.4 on AMD RS780 GLX Version: 2.1 Mesa 8.0.5
Audio:     Card: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SBx00 Azalia (Intel HDA) driver: snd_hda_intel Sound: ALSA ver: 1.0.24
Network:   Card-1: Atheros AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) driver: ath9k 
           IF: wlan0 state: up mac: <filter>
           Card-2: Realtek RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller driver: r8169 
           IF: eth0 state: down mac: <filter>
Drives:    HDD Total Size: 250.1GB (0.6% used) 1: id: /dev/sda model: TOSHIBA_MK2555GS size: 250.1GB 
Partition: ID: / size: 7.7G used: 3.8G (52%) fs: ext4 ID: /home size: 88G used: 1.5G (2%) fs: btrfs 
           ID: swap-1 size: 2.10GB used: 0.00GB (0%) fs: swap 
Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 63.0C mobo: 0.0C 
           Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: N/A 
Info:      Processes: 109 Uptime: 5:09 Memory: 406.7/3711.2MB Client: Shell (bash) inxi: 1.8.45 
# apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

masinick · posted: 2013-03-18 14:21

Good thinking, Roky! I do not have any strong preferences here, nor do I have a 64 bit machine at the present time. Assuming we have the resources in place to do several different things (and that is a significant assumption) then I have no objections to having several different sizes and offerings.

Personally, I really like both the Core and Base approaches. Base is a little bit easier because you get stuff to start with, so it's great for first time hobbyists who want to select their own software, and it's also a time saver for veterans too. Core is great because with just a little more effort (especially if you put a script or two together to acquire what you want, and/or use smxi or the metapackage installer to grab stuff), I've found that you can build your own custom system in under an hour.

Full does a nice job of providing a complete system, but one that is light and efficient.

Getting into the 64 bit space, it makes sense to consider approaches that differ from our previous ones. I'd be interested in reading and considering what others may think about this.

I do hope that our primary focus continues to be what we've done for over half a decade with our main distributions: provide something that helps to provide a fast framework for an easily customized system that runs well on older hardware. To me, that is our"core competency", one that I think we achieve as well or better than other distributions. I have no objection to adding other competencies, but I hope that we keep our primary competency intact; that's where we really stand out as far as I am concerned.

rust collector · posted: 2013-03-18 19:24

I think I think it is a good enough idea, as long as people have time to work on all these different versions.
Hmm, just how long has 64 bit computers been around anyway?

So you want a antix 64 bit, extra-full...
I think it kinda makes sense

BitJam · posted: 2013-03-18 20:11

Well, there was the promise to always keep anitX-full small enough to fit on a cdrom. I expect that someday this may have to change. The first hard drive I had on a personal computer was the size of a shoe box and held 20 Meg. Back then 20 Meg seemed like infinity. The question is: is today that day?

I wonder if there might be ways to satisfy your desire without breaking the cdrom-size promise? Would meta-packages that download and install collections of applications be a solution? Another problem is that greatly enlarging the number of apps which are provided by antiX increases the work anti must do to make sure all the packages play nice with each other. One idea would be to have meta-package maintainers who are responsible for making sure all the packages in their meta-package(s) play nice on antiX.

Aside from the promise, my biggest concern would be that an antiX-grande might distract us from the lean and mean! mission plan. What if we made it easy for you to make and distribute an antiX-roky version? We've already been moving in this direction with the various remaster options.

I think there is a growing tension between general appeal and keeping antiX cdrom-sized. It's good to acknowledge this tension. Maybe we can combine the ideas of meta-packages and remastering to create a Smörgåsbord of antiX flavours in addition to the official ones: core, base, and full. There could be"unofficial" flavoured iso's alongside the official ones and/or the ability to use meta-packages to move between flavours. Disclaimer: I'm not sure this is technically feasible.

rust collector · posted: 2013-03-18 20:20

I just wonder, was there any 64 bit computers, that came with a cdrom, and not a dvdrom?
I really don't know...

If I am wrong, the following is all wrong.

It doesn't matter if it fits on a cd, as the older 32 bit machines can't use it anyway, and the 64 bit machines came with a dvdrom.

duncan_mk · posted: 2013-03-22 01:33

BitJam - Hey! My first hard drive was for an Amstrad PCW (a CPM machine) & was also 20Mb. I got it in the late '80's. As you say, it was larger than most modern desktops and it cost me about £350 - I thought I was the dog's bollocks!

I like AntiX just because it is small, light & tight. I have a 64bit laptop - a Samsung with a 15"+ screen and all the trimmings which I run openSuSE on. But SuSE's really dense and difficult to find your way around. If something works it's fine, if it doesn't - God help you! AntiX on the netbook is wonderful. It's solid, the basic stuff's there, you add what you want - the Debian repo has pretty much anything you could need & the antiX community's small & helpful. I'm working on doing something on the Samsung but that will be my 'own' distro. It'll be the work of Dave, AC, BitJam et al but set up the way I like it with the tools & things I want.

There was talk of an antiX gaming distro. No not for me - a solid, basic core with good tools which I can turn into whatever I want!

dmk

Eino · posted: 2013-03-22 15:06

As long as you have a good Archive Manager, the metapackage installer, and synaptic.
You will have a choice of thousands of software titles.

It's easier to add software you like. Rather then remove the stuff that you don't use.