[Grml] Re: grml-medium and X

T o n g mlist4suntong at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 11 00:05:29 CET 2007

First of all, thanks for all the replies. 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:47:55 +0100, Michael Prokop wrote:

>> However I found that grml-medium still does not including X. Mika, please
>> please include X in grml-medium, and grml-x & firefox too. Otherwise,
>> there is no much reason for people to prefer grml-medium, because it will
>> be just grml_small plus some extra packages, which I see no obvious reason
>> that I can't install them myself.
> I've to investigate how much space X would take first of all.
> grml-medium is supposed to provide some common sysadmin tools
> without the hacks from grml-small like removing /usr/share/doc, so I
> won't promise anything here. ;)

OK. understand. But that'd make grml-medium not much different
than grml-small. I.e., there won't be must gain in the user base. Only
that the users who use grml-small before are split further into two
(smaller) groups.

Adding X would roughly add about 60M of space. I remastered grml-small
v0.4, added X, fluxbox, and emacs (can't remember if I added firefox), the
whole iso went to about 110~120M. 

> Installing X on a harddisc system is pretty easy anyway, it
> shouldn't be much more than 'apt-get install xserver-xorg grml-x'.

Not for me. Installing and configuring X has always been troublesome to
me, despite that I've been using Linux for nearly 10 years (E.g., I have
to settle with vesa for my old ATI RV280 [Radeon 9200 SE] rev 1 card now.
No other drivers works reliably). That's why it is very very important to
me that a Linux-Live system supports X.


Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)

More information about the Grml mailing list