Hi John, As a suggestion, I think it would be good to include a 5-10 minute introduction discussion about the difference (or benefits) of building a 64-bit distribution versus a 32-bit one, for the sake of novice attendees (or even seasoned veterans) that may not be aware of the consequences? Most would assume a 32-bit build would be considered mainly to support legacy hardware, but I can think of a couple of points that might intrigue people. - 32-bit systems can only address a maximum of 4GB of memory (4,294,967,296 bytes). Taking into account system overhead, applications realistically can only allocate a smaller percentage of this maximum for its use (I remember some old 32-bit Sun documentation that restricted memory allocation for 32-bit server applications to only < 3GB of useable memory for memory cache or TMP files, etc.) - In some situations, 32-bit can impact performance on a system, but that depends on the situation. In a lot of cases, applications may be optimized for 64-bit operating systems and hardware, but there are some unique situations where the opposite is true. For example, I worked on a project years ago where a Java-based server application - Oracle Directory Server Enterprise Edition - performed better on an OEL 64-bit server when configured with a 32-bit JRE installation. (Lookup query results were faster when indexes were performed with 32-bit libraries) I expect that you have more experience with building distros, so you likely have additional feelings on the subject (ie., 32-bit ISOs are likely smaller to post and share, etc.), and I would be interested to hear more about your views on the subject. :-) Thanks. Best regards, Ed On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:18 PM J C Nash <profjcnash [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> wrote: > Last year I presented some ideas for a distro the club could use to > introduce > people to Linux. Some of the desiderata: > > - handle old machines (so possibly 32 bit, though that may be ancient > history) > - handle UEFI and legacy > - include some useful tools and/or allow their easy setup via scripts > - be "reasonably" mainstream > > These meant I had to be able to customize, and I didn't really want to do > everything from scratch. > > The candidate solution was 32 bit Antix-17. I was able to add Double > Commander > and change the wallpaper and set username "user" to had pw "user", and > username > "root" to have pw "root". Then using the ISO snapshot, I got a UEFI/legacy > bootable > ISO. Antix is debian based, which I am familiar with. Yes, I know, there > are other > choices. If there are plenty of workers to take on the job, I'll be happy > to let > them drive us to Arch or RedHat or ... > > Some glitches recently noticed: > > - the network setup is via "ceni". Not ideal. Maybe a better tool can be > found. > Or a "HowTo" on the desktop. > - My choice of wallpaper (a picture of parliament) is too bright. It's > easy to > change. > - I had to find the installer. The snapshot ISO doesn't have the desktop > icon. > But the installer is in /sbin/minstall. > - The install from the snapshot does not give the user a chance to change > username > and password and root password. Maybe a "customize.sh" script is needed > with a > click-on icon to launch it. > > In any event, I would welcome some feedback and will come early to the > March 11 > meeting. Maybe we can set up a working party some Saturday and move the > project > forward, then consider a "Welcome to Linux" session to try to attract > newbies. > Scott did at one time mention we could probably afford to have some USB > give-aways. > > Discussion welcome. > > Best, John Nash > > To unsubscribe send a blank message to linux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org > To get help send a blank message to linux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org > To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org > >