32-bit fork of OXT Lite 1.03

[richmond62]

Are you going to produce regular 32-bit Linux versions of OXT Lite?

[tperry2x]

Are you going to produce regular 32-bit Linux versions of OXT Lite?

I hadn't really planned on it, to be honest, however I can update my 32bit OXT-linux distro to OXT lite 1.02, and do a new ISO.

[richmond62]

Well: I very much doubt if there is any demand for a Linux 32-bit version.

Now, a 32-bit Mac version . . .

[tperry2x]

...a 32-bit Mac version . . .

The problem I have there, is that for a linux 32 bit version - I can use a 9.6.3 base of LC. This is thanks to there being a x32 and x64 bit version of the Linux engine existing. And the fact that Linux will pretty much try and make anything run. (Linux haven't 'done an Apple' and culled all 32bit support from their OS).
So, I know that I can put my modified 'rev, livecodescript / stack' files in place and they'll more often than not, work without too much fuss.

When it comes to a 32bit MacOS build though, it's a different proposition. To support 32-bit, I'd have to use a much older version of the LC base & engine, so I can't just swap my changed files around. It won't work as these are just outright incompatible for the most part (they reference multiple handlers everywhere which just don't exist) and there's bits throughout the IDE where you'd have to backport fixes everywhere.

It would be better on those 32bit macs, just to install a recent 32bit linux - and use the updated OXT lite IDE. (You'd also gain security fixes, modern browser support, and even be able to keep them that way while 32bit distros are still being updated).

Of course, if I had all the prebuilts for MacOS, then I could compile a 32bit version of the engine from source - and then we could have an OXT Lite 9.7 32bit MacOS X dmg, with no idiotic LC reg screen.... but can't because - - prebuilts (and I'm not going over that yet again).

[richmond62]

Now, a 32-bit Mac version . . .

Someone, somewhere might just have been pulling your leg a bit.

[tperry2x]

It would actually be doable, nonetheless. The 32bit build targets are all still there for MacOS in the xcode project.

[tperry2x]

Are you going to produce regular 32-bit Linux versions of OXT Lite?

I hadn't really planned on it, to be honest, however I can update my 32bit OXT-linux distro to OXT lite 1.02, and do a new ISO.

Edit: done (link: OXT Lite Distro for Old 32-bit computers)

[richmond62]

Smashing: will have a night of passion with Father's old-but-gold 32-bit Toshiba with XFCE tonight.

[tperry2x]

Smashing: will have a night of passion with Father's old-but-gold 32-bit Toshiba with XFCE tonight.

Worth mentioning, that ISO is an entire bootable linux distro for OXT Lite. It's not just a 32-bit copy of OXT lite.

[richmond62]

Right: I'll trash the current system and install yourn: abuse following.

[tperry2x]

Right: I'll trash the current system and install yourn: abuse following.

Don't expect it to perform as well as a 64-bit version. *warning: may contain beetroot, salad cream, and prawns* All the bad things in my opinion.

[richmond62]

I like beetroot and prawns: so 2 of 3 ain't bad.

[richmond62]

Right: attempting to install your modded MX Linux (which is a bit naughty insofar as it has nothing to state that it has been modded) on father's laptop: currently apparently frozen at 16% . . .

The live session looked like an XFCE desktop with an OXT Lite icon.

OK, not frozen, just glacially slow off a flash drive flashed from the ISO using balenaEtcher on MacOS 12.

Much, much slower than a Debian 32 + XFCE install from the same flash drive.

Aha: it has the MATE front: something I just do NOT like: so will either:

And why, forbye, would that be when:
-

Screenshot 2024-04-07 at 17.00.18.png (184.45 KiB) Viewed 5983 times

-
No MATE anywhere in sight.

I could just have an XFCE 32-bit version straight "from the horse's mouth" (and my Norfolk Grandfather, Thomas Elkington, used t talk to horse instead of all that brutal rubbish about breaking them).

There is NOWHERE to set up a passworded user account, and the install just boots into the desktop right-away . . . so if I want to install or modify anything I very much doubt I'll be able to do that.

------

So: the thing has installed, and I am UNABLE to log into synaptic to modify anything.

Ooooh: Loooook: the messageBox focuses. Голяма работа.

------

As far as I am concerned I have just wasted about an hour and a half; and will now spend significantly longer than that reinstalling Debian 32 XFCE, personalising, installing my 'shopping list' of usual apps, and so forth . . .

I'll spend 5 minutes looking at OXT Lite first: but am in a slightly tetchy mood.

[tperry2x]

I like beetroot and prawns: so 2 of 3 ain't bad.

Saw your post, but have truncated it to a brief synopsis. You didn't like it. That's fine, I didn't expect it would go flawlessly.

[richmond62]

Hmph: there an extremely salient point that you should NOT have deleted as it basically spoils all the hard work you have done.

1. No password set up . . .

AND, feedback is feedback, and while you obviously did not like what I wrote it is a bit disingenuous to delete it as it is still relevant and may be of use to others.

Oh, and where is:

but have truncated it to a brief synopsis

?

[tperry2x]

Okay, I've restored your post above with your gripes. It was just ranting, which is why I deleted it as nobody would really have cared that much.

Anyway, it's not 'naughty' as you put it. It's a respin, and it's very much acceptable in Mx circles. You instantly got my back up with that first line.

You weren't joking when you said "Abuse following" above.
I fail to see why that is necessary?

Anyway, onto the points you raise:

Glacially slow? You don't mention if your usb stick or the usb ports are usb 2 or 3 speeds. It's not xfce4 because this has issues with palette focus in LCC/OXT. (Which we have already mentioned multiple times on here) The window manager juggles for focus. This is why it's not an xfce distro.

'disingenuous' ? Really - "not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating"....
I wouldn't agree with that, I just provided this so you could test it on a live image without needing to affect your system. You didn't have to format your hard drive or anything like that. That was entirely your call. I was just trying to provide you some way of running a recent version of OXT Lite on legacy hardware, and keep it out of landfill.

"No MATE anywhere in sight"
Um, the default session is mate desktop, with caja window manager. Try opening a file manager window. That's not xfce for the reasons I started above.

I'm a bit bemused. I gave you this to try, but then you've seemingly made it hard for yourself.

The idea I thought was that you'd boot the ISO, and see how OXT lite ran, but then you came back with comments saying you'd wasted your time and deleted your previous OS (which isn't something I ever advocated doing).

Since you were set on installing it anyway (Which wasn't originally mentioned), I've included a 4 digit password for the ISO image, so you can modify the user account (see Mx tools) which contains everything you'd need to tweak this however you'd want.

But by all means, put xfce back on - you'll likely get message box focus errors again. But if you do, see compatibility options in the preferences. If that doesn't solve it, I'll resist the temptation to say "I told you so".

It just seems you have a knack of making things harder than perhaps they should be, and then filling these forums with multiple spurious posts. It seems I'm having to go around constantly clearing up afterwards, since 90% of it has absolutely nothing to do with xTalk, OXT or anything related to the current topic.

I just don't understand your reasoning, but it makes finding anything on here very tedious. Not only that, for new users, they have to wade through all the chaff to actually find the information they are looking for.

Case in point with this thread now. Rather than be an easy reference of things that are known bugs and need fixing, we have to scroll through multiple posts instead to get to the point.

If you think any of that sounds harsh, I'm merely stating the facts.

Why it couldn't have been a new topic covering the live 32bit version for testing I don't know. Surely that would have been better than posting it all here?

Edit: Done this and moved these posts to a new dedicated topic, to keep the 'known bugs' topic for just that, and not experiments with other forks of OXT Lite.

[richmond62]

Anyway, it's not 'naughty' as you put it.

Someone round these parts is far, far too touchy.

got my back up

Someone instantly got my back up asking me to install a system over which I had NO control at all as it had no user password.

Glacially slow?

Father's ancient laptop: the fact that I kept writing "father's laptop" (and he's been dead for nearly 6 years, and it is about 19 years old) rather than
my "nearly-new laptop"; and I would assume it wouldn't know USB2 at all . . .

I just provided this so you could test it on a live image without needing to affect your system.

Live images and father's old laptop mean that the glaciers will retreat so slowly even Greta Thunberg would be out of a job!

On the MX website there is no mention of MATE being the default desktop: it comes with KDE, XFCE, or Fluxbox (which, as far as I recall has no GUI, just right-click menus).

deleted your previous OS (which isn't something I ever advocated doing)

No, you didn't, but to get something slightly better than the snails in my garden it was necessary: imagine, if you will, clicking on the OXTL and then going into the kitchen, washing up the lunch dishes, smoking a quick cigar, kissing your significant other, and going back to find that the IDE is just loading . . . not ideal.

[tperry2x]

Someone instantly got my back up asking me to install a system over which I had NO control at all as it had no user password.

That's just it. I'll say it again. I didn't ask you to install this over your current system. I didn't advocate that at any point.

Father's ancient laptop... I would assume it wouldn't know USB2 at all . .

So you're saying it's usb1? No wonder it's slow then.
Sorry, I didn't pry and ask if the laptop belonged to anyone alive or dead. I could mention my father's ancient PC. He's still about, but just because I say it's ancient, doesn't infer he's alive or dead. He's ancient too.

Yes, on the mx website, they don't offer mate as a choice. This isn't a carbon copy clone of their distro. It's a respin with a different window manager and desktop session to avoid the problems with OXT Lite.

[richmond62]

we have to scroll through multiple posts instead to get to the point

Well, that's a method of approach: personally I prefer the chatty, as it comes, approach to testing things.

Others seem to prefer the more succinct approach.

Mine might go like this:

(OK, OK, it is already there 3 or 4 postings back).

The other type might go like this:

"It rocks."

or

"It's cacked."

However, I have a feeling that the succinct replies tend to be blanket statements that do not really help in terms of feedback: especially as MOST things software-wise are very, very rarely either 100% or 0%.

[richmond62]

Yes, on the mx website, they don't offer mate as a choice. This isn't a carbon copy clone of their distro. It's a respin with a different window manager and desktop session to avoid the problems with OXT Lite.

That became obviously during my 'hiatus' with it.

My main gripe was NOT the 'hiatus', because had "a different window manager and desktop session to avoid the problems with OXT Lite" and the odd fact (and it is very odd) that there is no enabled user account, been mentioned the 'hiatus' might not have taken place.