Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Wed 03 Sep 2014, 00:39
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
100 MB Puppy?
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 3 [45 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15117
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Sat 09 Oct 2010, 04:40    Post subject:  100 MB Puppy?
Subject description: Will we see it again?
 

Saluki - Puppy remastered is our best hope for a mainstream
streak of Puppy lightening. However it is a major undertaking.

Wary - 0.9 just released is designed for long term support
slicing 12 MB from its 112 MB size is a major effort.

TXZ_Pup-4.50-7-13-2010 which Joe is now classing as a Puppy fork
is 117 MB

There are cut down and smaller efforts.

01micko tells me he is working on a 'generic' quickpet
making it possible for the browser (as a major package)
to be secondary to an internal small browser
That should slice a few pooch pounds . . .

I recently ran Sabayon (a kind of pudding) Linux
It deliciously played music whilst loading
and spun my desktop but
. . . that is a big BUT
it had less functionality in 2 Gig
than Puppy has in 1/20 of the size

I know everyone wants Puppy smaller
but the penguin kernel and required hardware list grows

Can our developers do it? Cool

Puppy
Less is more

_________________
Puppy WIKI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
bigpup


Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 5109
Location: Charleston S.C. USA

PostPosted: Sat 09 Oct 2010, 07:28    Post subject:  

There was a time when operating systems where put on 2 to 6 floppy discs. That would make them about 3 to 9 MB. Oh the good old days!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
p310don

Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 699
Location: Brisbane, Australia

PostPosted: Sat 09 Oct 2010, 07:54    Post subject:  

...first OS I ever used was M$DOS 3.21. Fit onto a single FLOPPY DD floppy disk, that's under 360k.
Smallest modern OS's I know of are Menuet and KolibriOS. Both kinda useless. Only used Kolibri, boots about twenty times faster than puppy, but that's about all I can get it to do.
On the other hand, Puppy, whilst gaining a little in the middle, is at least useful, and still works on basic hardware, yet runs the most advanced, up to date programs. I guess size is the challenge, but usability and compatibility are, I would think, the more important goals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
TomRhymer

Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Sat 09 Oct 2010, 14:58    Post subject:  

Why is 100MB the magical size?

Why should Puppy have an arbitrary file size? I thought the primary focus was to be able to run a full-featured OS from a CD. Making it as small as possible is good, but not by removing necessary features.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
DaveS


Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat 09 Oct 2010, 15:02    Post subject:  

Answer: No Smile
_________________
Spup Frugal HD and USB
Root forever!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
hillside


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 642
Location: Minnesota, USA. The frozen north.

PostPosted: Sat 09 Oct 2010, 16:27    Post subject:  

Why would you want to make it as small as possible? Maybe just to show you
can.

I remember those old DOS systems. They were tiny and at the time they
seemed like they could work miracles, but they were really primitive compared
to Puppy.

I tend to believe dealing with OS size is a balancing act. Try to make it as
small as reasonable while maintaining an increasing trajectory on usefulness.

If someone really needs one of the small systems, they still exist. Just
download one of the old, small versions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ttuuxxx


Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 10747
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia

PostPosted: Sun 10 Oct 2010, 04:45    Post subject:  

The reason to keep it around the 100MB is basically for system with low ram, not every pc has 512MB ++++, what about the pc's with 128MB and 256MB, heck 64MB pc's are a thing of the past, but a 130MB puppy would struggle on 128MB pc. and there are a lot of 128MB pc's in the world. Usuallay people who can't afford a new one or just like to see if they can still run fast in 2010.
ttuuxxx
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
dogle

Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 330

PostPosted: Sun 10 Oct 2010, 07:08    Post subject:  

<100MB is a good target. Otherwise, it's the start of the long slippery slope towards 'buntu-style bloat.

Most posters on this forum have the advantage of being able to afford plenty of RAM, which tends to skew the discussion somewhat. I'd like to think that there is a 'silent majority' of Puppy users across the world whose limited English deters them from posting here, but who are very grateful indeed to be able to use old, affordable, RAM-challenged kit.

I've never used the umpteen calculators (OK, not very big) but, hey, a few months ago I got mad and deleted macromedia (how big is that!). Not being a videophile, I haven't missed it; nor might many with poor internet access, or none.

OTOH, I've just been forced to use official Acrofat Reader (kicking, screaming). 40+ MB. ttuuxxx's PET saved the day, thanks ttuuxxx!

Barry has today posted joyfully about a new PET to take care of those awkward video driver issues:
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=01852


PETs and PPM are a great success. Surely it is best to keep Puppy slim, and make better use of PETs?

(Granted, newcomer access to 'unofficial' PETs is not too easy sometimes).

For that putative 'silent majority' who may struggle to download PETs, surely the 'Unleashed' CD idea needs revisiting? Like, an ISO containing a very slim RAM-friendly Puppy, plus a wide choice of PETs to be installed according to the user's own needs and preferences.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
hillside


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 642
Location: Minnesota, USA. The frozen north.

PostPosted: Sun 10 Oct 2010, 09:06    Post subject:  

Quote:
The reason to keep it around the 100MB is basically for system with low ram


I agree this would be an excellent reason if old computers would run well on the newer kernals and drivers, but often they don't. It seems to me that what the older computers really need is updating of older puppies to get the best balance of recent applications vs. functionality. Just chopping out "un-necessary" applications to make the latest iso a bit smaller doesn't really make a Puppy that is optimized for old equipment.

I'm not anywhere near the kind of expert that a lot of you folks are, so please correct me if I'm badly mistaken.

I think ttuuxxx did a lot of great work by updating the old 2.14. I inherited an old wreck of a desktop that wouldn't run the latest puppies, but the improved 2.14 ran very well on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
linuxsansdisquedur


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 250
Location: South of France

PostPosted: Sun 10 Oct 2010, 16:16    Post subject:  

the question is: why if windows (ubuntu) run ok for me using puppy Question
or : is it better running it big if it can run light Question
Is needing a newest pc for doing what puppy can do with older a better choice Question
Laughing

_________________
le max avec le min
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Dragynn

Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Mon 11 Oct 2010, 12:58    Post subject:  

hillside wrote:
Why would you want to make it as small as possible? Maybe just to show you
can.

I remember those old DOS systems. They were tiny and at the time they
seemed like they could work miracles, but they were really primitive compared
to Puppy.

I tend to believe dealing with OS size is a balancing act. Try to make it as
small as reasonable while maintaining an increasing trajectory on usefulness.

If someone really needs one of the small systems, they still exist. Just
download one of the old, small versions.


Why would you want to make it as enormous as possible? Just to show you can?

If someone really needs a bloatware pig, try Windoze Vista, 15 gigs of crap.

You can always add programs to a basic system, it's just a couple clicks away in quickpet, surely people haven't gotten so lazy they can't raise a finger anymore.

It's much more difficult removing crapware that you don't need and trying to re-master an iso. Why should everyone have to pay the price for someone who just HAS to have their Twitter, but is too lazy to log-on via the web interface and insists on having a client on their desktop? Why should the people who have older hardware be shut out of using a newer shinier Puppy so gadget-addicts can have their silly widgets and Samba fanboys can rub elbows with Windoze in their preferred fashion?

Take a look around, many linux distros are now offering "base" distros, without the bloat, and letting people choose for themselves. And THAT is and was always the best thing about linux, it gives you a choice.

If people want to have stuff shoved down their throat that they don't need, they should stick to Windows or Mac.

Let the end-user decide what's right for them.

_________________
"Where people wish to attach, they should always be ignorant. To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability of administering to the vanity of others which a sensible person would always wish to avoid."
~Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15117
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Tue 26 Oct 2010, 23:43    Post subject:  

The upcoming Wary will have this option:

Quote:
Lobster recently asked on the forum if we can still build a sub-100MB live-CD. Yes, Wary can do it -- if the "radical culling of modules" checkbox is ticked in Woof, which takes out all of the less-likely to be needed modules, I got it down to about 102MB. If we also take out the Adobe Flash Player then that takes it down to about 98MB. I might offer that slim build when we reach 5.0-final.


. . . takes it down to about 98MB

Barry has also been considering the possibility of Puppy managing its own Linux kernel Shocked [Lobster faints]
Good plan. Crazy plan. I like it already.

http://l.pr/a46sa4/

Puppy
Resisting bloat

_________________
Puppy WIKI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
8-bit


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 3365
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed 27 Oct 2010, 00:06    Post subject:  

In Puppy Linux, as far as I know, the kernel is compressed as well as the SFS file containing the apps and drivers.
So actually on a full install, Puppy takes up a lot more than 100 megs to begin with.
On a frugal install, Does the SFS file uncompress into ram or just get copied into ram as is and the files uncompressed on the fly as they are used?

I wonder what the size of some other versions of linux would be if they were compressed like Puppy is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
musher0


Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 4231
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Wed 27 Oct 2010, 00:35    Post subject:  

Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad
Let's shed a crocodile tear or five... !!!

8-bit is right. When any Puppy unpacks, it takes much more that 100 Mg -- in RAM. That said, I think we should still try for it, but make available all necessary add-ons to make Puppy into a full production system.

Something like what you have in Lucid_Puppy: the user is offered choices to install complementary programs.

Let's remember: a full-blown production computer based on Puppy -- or not, actually -- can easily occupy 1.8 Gb on your disk.

I miss MU's offerings of mini, midi and maxi Puppies. I thought that was a sensible solution adapted to the user's needs.

BFN

_________________
"Logical entities must not be multiplied needlessly." / "Il ne faut pas multiplier les êtres logiques inutilement." (Ockham)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
DaveS


Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed 27 Oct 2010, 02:16    Post subject:  

8-bit wrote:
In Puppy Linux, as far as I know, the kernel is compressed as well as the SFS file containing the apps and drivers.
So actually on a full install, Puppy takes up a lot more than 100 megs to begin with.
On a frugal install, Does the SFS file uncompress into ram or just get copied into ram as is and the files uncompressed on the fly as they are used?

I wonder what the size of some other versions of linux would be if they were compressed like Puppy is.


Interesting stuff re compression, ram usage etc here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=461376#461376

_________________
Spup Frugal HD and USB
Root forever!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 3 [45 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1181s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0270s) ][ GZIP on ]