171–180 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, I completely forgot about this! You just teleported me back in time for a minute there. For anyone else interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootable_business_card
What an unfortunate acronym...
A good choice to run a simple application in a container?
Fantastic to have another option with modern tools! great work that will be appreciated by many. Between this, Puppy, and Tiny Core Linux so much old hardware can be put to potential use. I’d also mention Finnix as an excellent rescue image solution. Any other awesome projects for limited hardware and Linux use that should be more well known?
I've been quite happy with Alpine Linux. You can build it up to suit your needs for desktop, server, embedded or containers, but will run quite speedily on any supported arch from a few tens of MB of memory. The APK package manager is pleasant and quick, and the package list is quite extensive.
The "damn small" linux has 2 windows managers and 3 browsers. Doesn't look like it's small, looks like it's a collection of things the author enjoys.
I also raised an eyebrow at the three web browsers, but then I was thinking that it's quite likely that none of them are reliable for opening a modern webpage, so users might have to routinely try more than one. I'm more amused by the inclusion of a GUI application for SCP and FTP. As someone who uses a full-featured desktop Linux distro as my daily driver, and uses SCP on a daily basis, I've never felt the need for…
Dillo and links2 might have a harder time with js and css tho, I'm not even sure if they support js at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus just earning the money to buy the new hardware is bad enough.
So, for the sake of "the environment," the solution is to go backwards? Stop working and stuff?
Well, it's your environment, you would probably have to figure that out for yourself.
I don't think you would have to go fully retro to be more environmentally responsible.
When it comes to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, this is a proven hierarchy where lots of times it's like an order of magnitude better if you can reduce compared to merely reuse. And once again better to reuse as much as you can, before you finally recycle (which can require so much reprocessing beyond that needed for simple reuse) to extract any worthwhile components to be used in a circular way, that can preferebly displace the need for brand new raw materials or ingredients in freshly manufactured new products.
It's quite possible for freshly manufactured new products to be more environmentally friendly then ever and as high-technology as you would like, you just have to make the committment and step up to the plate.
Everybody's situation is different, but I do think there is a good reason why people say "think local" so much more, the deeper they do the math.
You shouldn't fail to figure, how much money does it cost just to work, and further how much of that is just to get to work?
How much pollution do you have to create just to earn the money to be able to work in the first place?
For everything you consume, or even worse waste, how much potentially environmentally damaging work did you (plus everyone else in the chain) have to do just to earn the money needed, and that's before the actual consumption could even be paid for? Whether consumption takes place before or after it ever gets paid for.
Then you can more accurately decide the degree of balance you are going to try and maintain, between consumption and conservation.
It's all so personal so you shouldn't let it bug you, just do the math for yourself and take action accordingly.
Most people can easily find some low-hanging room for improvement, sometimes really obvious stuff but it's nothing to get embarassed about.
Don't get me started on the way different currencies have different degrees of toxicity, and not only dependent on their current relative exchange rates.
But you can only imagine that for two workers doing identical work, each earning "equivalent value" but in different denominations, when there is any difference in their environmental impact it could only be due to the difference in impact between the currencies themselves. Naturally including bitcoin and things like that along with "regular" money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, for the sake of "the environment," the solution is to go backwards? Stop working and stuff?
>for the sake of "the environment," the solution is to go backwards? Well, it's your environment, you would probably have to figure that out for yourself. I don't think you would have to go fully retro to be more environmentally responsible. When it comes to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, this is a proven hierarchy where lots of times it's like an order of magnitude better if you can reduce compared to merely reuse. And onc…
No. Actually. It's not my environment at all. I could just leave and go somewhere else. Like Mars, Heaven, or somewhere else.
And I'll be taking three gigajoules per second of power production with me.
> It's good to minimize consumption of Earth's resources to maximize the displacement of the need for extraterrestrial raw materials and ingredients for the manufacture of new things.
What you're trying to sell me is something that is physically impossible. Entropy will still eventually—literally kill you if you actually did what you're advocating for (which is degrowth and primitivism). So, you don't actually believe what you're trying to sell to people as an "environmental conservative." Unless you're a zealous fanatic or something.
Unfortunately, Earth was meant to be used up into a big void of nothingness with this exploitation of a planet followed by the next complete consumption of a giant world. Mars is in our sights. As is the rest of the Solar system.
And we may as well go to infinity and beyond.
After all, time and entropy aren't really on our side. Solving the problem of our scheduled annihilation is the real action to think about as a responsible person who isn't afraid of objective mathematics and analysis that doesn't miss crucial variables in global dynamics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you looking to build just a minimal kernel or also a minimal distribution? (Which is what I happened to be thinking about last night :)) In the latter case, do you know any good resources about that topic?
I want to build a minimal kernel that I can virtualize (QEMU) for a variety of purposes across my arm64 Macbooks at home; ideally, it would be optimized for that hardware. One version of the kernel I want just for command line purposes, nothing involving graphics or sound. I want to also build a similar kernel that has just enough to run Firefox in a Wayland compositor (probably just Weston) along with sound. No, I d…
https://github.com/abiosoft/colima?tab=readme-ov-file
Its user interface is Docker-like, using containers.
For full desktop, I've only used the commercial app "Parallels", which can set up an Ubuntu desktop for you. Also Fedora and Alpine and Debian I believe.
But
> I don't really have any resources to share. I just know how to boot a vmlinuz with an initramfs using QEMU, and decided to download the Linux kernel source code and try compiling it.
I highly recommend working through Linux from Scratch and possibly the Gentoo Handbook. It's a journey.
I just checked Wikipedia, and was surprised to see the original DSL only had releases for about 3.5 years. > Though it may seem comparably ridiculous that 700MB is small in 2024 when DSL was 50MB in 2002 If you go all the way back to 2002, 50 MB for an old computer wasn't that small. I bought a new computer with 192 MB of RAM as late as 2005. My 32-bit, $400 discount laptop from 2009 has 4 GB of RAM, so 700 MB is rea…
Back in 2002, DSL was already a reaction to the CD-ROM based distributions which had bloated so much compared to the early days. One of the first "approachable" Linux distributions circa 1993 was the Soft Landing Systems (SLS) 2-floppy disk set. One held the bootloader and kernel, the other the root filesystem. The kernel disk was swapped out during the boot process, so after that you only needed to leave the root sy…
I just checked Wikipedia, and was surprised to see the original DSL only had releases for about 3.5 years. > Though it may seem comparably ridiculous that 700MB is small in 2024 when DSL was 50MB in 2002 If you go all the way back to 2002, 50 MB for an old computer wasn't that small. I bought a new computer with 192 MB of RAM as late as 2005. My 32-bit, $400 discount laptop from 2009 has 4 GB of RAM, so 700 MB is rea…
Aren't you mistaking disk space for memory size? Available disk space in 2002 was much larger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>for the sake of "the environment," the solution is to go backwards? Well, it's your environment, you would probably have to figure that out for yourself. I don't think you would have to go fully retro to be more environmentally responsible. When it comes to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, this is a proven hierarchy where lots of times it's like an order of magnitude better if you can reduce compared to merely reuse. And onc…
> Well, it's your environment, you would probably have to figure that out for yourself. No. Actually. It's not my environment at all. I could just leave and go somewhere else. Like Mars, Heaven, or somewhere else. And I'll be taking three gigajoules per second of power production with me. > It's good to minimize consumption of Earth's resources to maximize the displacement of the need for extraterrestrial raw materia…
Sorry about having nothing to sell, it was all sold out by more well-informed and more persuasive geeks than me, way before I had a chance to get near any soapboxes.
Nothing wrong with a little reminder that some people's fruit hangs a lot lower than others.