I'd say one of the BSD's or (Gen|Fun)too. But that's just me.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>
>
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:50:25 +0200
Pierre Chapuis wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:01:54 +0100, garbeam wrote:
> > On 3 June 2011 12:41, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> >> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
> >
> > http://bellard.org/jslinux/
>
> So the most suckless Linux is a Linux that requires a
No, you just got trolled.
On Jun 5, 2011 8:49 AM, "Pierre Chapuis" wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:01:54 +0100, garbeam wrote:
>> On 3 June 2011 12:41, Sir Cyrus wrote:
>>> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>>
>> http://bellard.org/jslinux/
>
> So the most suckless Linux is a Linux that
On 6/5/11, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:01:54 +0100, garbeam wrote:
>> http://bellard.org/jslinux/
>
> So the most suckless Linux is a Linux that requires a
> bloated Javascript VM to run?
>
The distro doesn't - the i386 emulator does.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:01:54 +0100, garbeam wrote:
On 3 June 2011 12:41, Sir Cyrus wrote:
What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
http://bellard.org/jslinux/
So the most suckless Linux is a Linux that requires a
bloated Javascript VM to run?
--
catwell
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:41:24 +0100
Sir Cyrus wrote:
>
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>
What about Alpine Linux[1]?
As said before GNU parts sucks so much, that even Linux kernel looks
good. Alpine Linux uses Busybox and uclibc by default. No GNU coreutils
and no glibc in base s
On 04/06/2011 16:03, hiro wrote:
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Configuring a
linux kernel is much easier than, say, packaging it. There's also
'make allyesconfig'.
Kernel documentation sucks a lot.
I can't say I've ever had a problem with it. Each option has a lit
> This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Configuring a
> linux kernel is much easier than, say, packaging it. There's also
> 'make allyesconfig'.
Kernel documentation sucks a lot.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> Having done it (a long time ago) I have to agree. It's fine up to a point,
> but that point leaves you able to run little more than what you can in Plan
> 9. You get more hardware compatibility than with Plan 9 of course, but that
> b
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:14:15 +0200
hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:44, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> > On 6/3/11, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> >> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
> >>
> > The one you made yourself.
> >
> >
>
> Too subjective, too much work, sucks.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:44, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> On 6/3/11, Sir Cyrus wrote:
>> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>>
> The one you made yourself.
>
>
Too subjective, too much work, sucks.
To play with, I recommend looking at 9front (extended variant of Plan9)
http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/
I recently made a native install and it works pretty darn good! (still
need to figure out a number of things but that is basically due to
lack of knowledge - I seem to have an issue with wri
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM, John Matthewman wrote:
> Arch is loaded with suck.
You mean their package manager allows you to install software that's
not from suckless.org?
--Andrew Hills
On 6/3/11, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
Maybe slackware?
Arch is loaded with suck.
While debian (stable) is definitely not what most -- if not all? --
people would describe as suckless, it is what I use on my computer.
John
PS: as somebody else said, this di
On 03/06/2011 12:41, Sir Cyrus wrote:
What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
This has been covered a few times on the list so you should search the
archives online.
I do agree the main problem with Linux Distributions is the GNU stuff.
The BSDs are a good alternative as they try and a
On 3 June 2011 12:41, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
http://bellard.org/jslinux/
--garbeam
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 13:47:49 +0200
pmarin wrote:
> Linux ≠ suckless
s/Linux/Gnu/
The more I learn about Linux the more I think the real problems are outside the
kernel. There are problems within the kernel, of course, but if you have to
have a modern unix the Linux kernel at least can at least
Sabotage.
GRML, {Micro|Tiny}core, or TTYLinux would be my votes for 'minimalistic'
Crux for general ideaology.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:41:24 +0100, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>
Perhaps not the *most* suckless, but Arch [1] is a very worthy contender
IMHO. Their manifesto [2] is very similar to suckless.org's.
[1] https://www.archlinux.org/
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.o
On 6/3/11, pmarin wrote:
> Linux ≠ suckless
>
Linux is extremely configurable, at configure time. You can make it
into whatever your want at build time, strip out the support for BSD
slices, SCSI and ATA and it'll just run (or not run, that is the
question). It's not even hackish.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:47 AM, pmarin wrote:
> Linux ≠ suckless
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> > What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
> >
> >
>
> http://www.minimalinux.org/ttylinux/
Tian
Linux ≠ suckless
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>
>
On 6/3/11, Sir Cyrus wrote:
> What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
>
The one you made yourself.
What's the most suckless Linux distribution?
2010/1/20 Josh Rickmar
> OpenBSD is switching to pcc, or it appears very likely that it will
> sometime in the future.
>
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20091228231142
>
>
I love PPC!
--
MfG
Kai Heide
Es reitet der Heidereiter durch die Heide weiter
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:50:29PM -0600, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Samuel Baldwin
> wrote:
> > Extremely valid point. Are there any distros, gentoo or not, that
> > don't use gcc in favour of something a little saner, though? Obviously
> > Plan 9 doesn't count.
>
>
Why not Slackware?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:34:47PM -0500, Samuel Baldwin wrote:
> 2010/1/18 Jacob Todd :
> > "I heard they made a sport out of gcc, it's called gentoo or something"
> > -Uriel
> >
> > I use Gentoo and Plan 9.
>
> Has anyone made gentoo work with anything besides gcc, like pcc or tcc?
>
> -
i use tiny core linux, it's definitely worth trying out!
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Samuel Baldwin
wrote:
> Extremely valid point. Are there any distros, gentoo or not, that
> don't use gcc in favour of something a little saner, though? Obviously
> Plan 9 doesn't count.
I think the FreeBSD guys are working on a version built with clang. I
don't
2010/1/18 Kurt H Maier :
> people who don't use gcc have better sense than to use gentoo
Extremely valid point. Are there any distros, gentoo or not, that
don't use gcc in favour of something a little saner, though? Obviously
Plan 9 doesn't count.
--
Samuel Baldwin - logik.li
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Samuel Baldwin
wrote:
> Has anyone made gentoo work with anything besides gcc, like pcc or tcc?
people who don't use gcc have better sense than to use gentoo
--
# Kurt H Maier
2010/1/18 Jacob Todd :
> "I heard they made a sport out of gcc, it's called gentoo or something"
> -Uriel
>
> I use Gentoo and Plan 9.
Has anyone made gentoo work with anything besides gcc, like pcc or tcc?
--
Samuel Baldwin - logik.li
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:41:01PM +, Jonathan Slark wrote:
> I was wondering what distros people use on this mailing list? I've
> tried a lot and I'm not happy with any of them. All I need is a
> toolchain/dev utils with minimal X install. I would then compile all
> the apps/dwm myself a
Jonathan Slark wrote:
I was wondering what distros people use on this mailing list? I've
tried a lot and I'm not happy with any of them. All I need is a
toolchain/dev utils with minimal X install. I would then compile all
the apps/dwm myself and install using the package manager.
you must
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Jonathan Slark
wrote:
> I was wondering what distros people use on this mailing list?
>
>
I'll go ahead and get the flame-war rolling...
[q9550 ~]:$ uname -a ; cat /etc/debian_version ; uptime
Linux q9550.0x95.net 2.6.26-2-amd64 #1 SMP Thu Nov 5 02:23:12 UTC 2009
Jonathan Slark dixit (2010-01-18, 22:41):
> I was wondering what distros people use on this mailing list? I've
> tried a lot and I'm not happy with any of them. All I need is a
> toolchain/dev utils with minimal X install. I would then compile all
> the apps/dwm myself and install using the
Might wanna check out stali. I personally use Arch Linux, OpenBSD, and
Plan 9, however.
--
Samuel Baldwin - logik.li
> All I need is a toolchain/dev utils with minimal X install.
Have you tried NetBSD? I prefer that over Linux, and the base
installation is exactly what you're describing.
On 18-01-2010 22:41:01, Jonathan Slark wrote:
> I was wondering what distros people use on this mailing list? I've
> tried a lot and I'm not happy with any of them. All I need is a
> toolchain/dev utils with minimal X install. I would then compile
> all the apps/dwm myself and install using the
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jonathan Slark
wrote:
> PKGBUILDs use fakeroot for the whole build and the fakeroot docs say you
> should only use it for the make install.
>
> I have done an LFS/DIY build but then I had a look at the Xorg website:
> "The best place to get X is from your operating
I was wondering what distros people use on this mailing list? I've
tried a lot and I'm not happy with any of them. All I need is a
toolchain/dev utils with minimal X install. I would then compile all
the apps/dwm myself and install using the package manager.
Arch Linux comes pretty close bu
43 matches
Mail list logo
