Adventures with Woof
Posted: Sat 26 Sep 2009, 08:51
I made 2 wooflets: both use all 4.3's default packages, kernel 2.6.25.16 and 2 extras:
- desk_icon_theme_stardust
- gtk_theme_stardust_zigbert
The first wooflet was supposed to be an all-in-one wooflet with all modules for maximal hardware support, while the second one was supposed to be a smaller wooflet with all uncommon modules and components removed.
First wooflet: all modules, nothing removed, nothing stripped
- Kernel 2.6.25.16
- SCSI drivers
- "Other" framebuffer modules
- All "exotic" modules
- Seperate zdrv, included in ISO
- Libraries not stripped
Second wooflet: no modules, everything removed, everything stripped
- Kernel 2.6.25.16
- No SCSI drivers
- No "other" framebuffer modules
- All "exotic" modules removed
- Seperate zdrv, included in ISO
- Libraries stripped
The end results:
First wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 81 MB
- zp430516.sfs: 24 MB
- pup-430-SCSI.iso: 108 MB
Second wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 92 MB
- zp439516.sfs: 9 MB
- pup-430.iso: 104 MB
So ... "bigger" is smaller and better?
The better choice is the first one ... I guess. It's better for older hardware and more-generic hardware.
- Puppy itself occupies only 81 MB, compared to the second's 92 MB.
- Supports SCSI.
- If you run it and understand that you need the extra modules, all you have to "pay" is extra 4 MB over the second wooflet's size. If you don't have any exotic hardware, you can get a 81 MB wooflet, with a smaller memory usage and faster boot.
To test my theory, I made third and fourth wooflets: same as the first and the second, respectively, but this time with kernel 2.6.30.5 and analog modems removed. Same story.
Third wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 82 MB
- zp430305.sfs: 25 MB
- pup-430-SCSI.iso: 111 MB
Fourth wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 93 MB
- zp430305.sfs: 6 MB
- pup-430.iso: 102 MB
We've got 1 and 3 - the heavyweight guys with all modules, and 2 and 4 - the smaller and less compatible competitors.
So ... If I make a size comparison ... (ascending order, from left to right):
pup-430.sfs: 1, 3, 2, 4
zp430xxx.sfs: 4, 2, 1, 3
pup-430.iso: 4, 2, 1, 3
Time to analyze the results.
- Wooflets with more modules have smaller pup-430.sfs's.
- Wooflets with all modules removed have smaller zdrv's, but that's understandable ... water is wet, less modules occupy less space.
- Wooflets with all modules removed have smaller pup-430.iso's. Again ... 1 and 3 contain heaps of modules, that's understandable.
- Wooflets with 2.6.25.16 are smaller than wooflets with 2.6.30.5. Not such a big difference.
So who's best?
- Generic hardware, old: 1 without zdrv
- Generic hardware, new: 3 without zdrv
- Exotic hardware, old: 1
- Exotic hardware, new: 3
That means that the most functional wooflets are 1 and 3, 2 and 4 seem quite useless.
Now, let's be stupid. I'll give the first place 4 points, second - 3 points and so on, so we can decide who's the winner, the childish way. It's unfair, I know.
1: 4+2+2 = 8
2: 2+3+3 = 8
3: 3+1+1 = 5
4: 1+4+4 = 9
So the winner is 4 (with 9 points) - which is very similar to 430-small.iso by Barry. Unlucky bet ... my favorite was 1.
However, 1 and 2 are very close ... there's a 4 MB difference between their ISO's, but a huge 11 MB difference between their pup-430.sfs's.
(Wrote this from my flash drive 1-wooflet)
- desk_icon_theme_stardust
- gtk_theme_stardust_zigbert
The first wooflet was supposed to be an all-in-one wooflet with all modules for maximal hardware support, while the second one was supposed to be a smaller wooflet with all uncommon modules and components removed.
First wooflet: all modules, nothing removed, nothing stripped
- Kernel 2.6.25.16
- SCSI drivers
- "Other" framebuffer modules
- All "exotic" modules
- Seperate zdrv, included in ISO
- Libraries not stripped
Second wooflet: no modules, everything removed, everything stripped
- Kernel 2.6.25.16
- No SCSI drivers
- No "other" framebuffer modules
- All "exotic" modules removed
- Seperate zdrv, included in ISO
- Libraries stripped
The end results:
First wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 81 MB
- zp430516.sfs: 24 MB
- pup-430-SCSI.iso: 108 MB
Second wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 92 MB
- zp439516.sfs: 9 MB
- pup-430.iso: 104 MB
So ... "bigger" is smaller and better?
The better choice is the first one ... I guess. It's better for older hardware and more-generic hardware.
- Puppy itself occupies only 81 MB, compared to the second's 92 MB.
- Supports SCSI.
- If you run it and understand that you need the extra modules, all you have to "pay" is extra 4 MB over the second wooflet's size. If you don't have any exotic hardware, you can get a 81 MB wooflet, with a smaller memory usage and faster boot.
To test my theory, I made third and fourth wooflets: same as the first and the second, respectively, but this time with kernel 2.6.30.5 and analog modems removed. Same story.
Third wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 82 MB
- zp430305.sfs: 25 MB
- pup-430-SCSI.iso: 111 MB
Fourth wooflet:
- pup-430.sfs: 93 MB
- zp430305.sfs: 6 MB
- pup-430.iso: 102 MB
We've got 1 and 3 - the heavyweight guys with all modules, and 2 and 4 - the smaller and less compatible competitors.
So ... If I make a size comparison ... (ascending order, from left to right):
pup-430.sfs: 1, 3, 2, 4
zp430xxx.sfs: 4, 2, 1, 3
pup-430.iso: 4, 2, 1, 3
Time to analyze the results.
- Wooflets with more modules have smaller pup-430.sfs's.
- Wooflets with all modules removed have smaller zdrv's, but that's understandable ... water is wet, less modules occupy less space.
- Wooflets with all modules removed have smaller pup-430.iso's. Again ... 1 and 3 contain heaps of modules, that's understandable.
- Wooflets with 2.6.25.16 are smaller than wooflets with 2.6.30.5. Not such a big difference.
So who's best?
- Generic hardware, old: 1 without zdrv
- Generic hardware, new: 3 without zdrv
- Exotic hardware, old: 1
- Exotic hardware, new: 3
That means that the most functional wooflets are 1 and 3, 2 and 4 seem quite useless.
Now, let's be stupid. I'll give the first place 4 points, second - 3 points and so on, so we can decide who's the winner, the childish way. It's unfair, I know.
1: 4+2+2 = 8
2: 2+3+3 = 8
3: 3+1+1 = 5
4: 1+4+4 = 9
So the winner is 4 (with 9 points) - which is very similar to 430-small.iso by Barry. Unlucky bet ... my favorite was 1.
However, 1 and 2 are very close ... there's a 4 MB difference between their ISO's, but a huge 11 MB difference between their pup-430.sfs's.
(Wrote this from my flash drive 1-wooflet)