Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[Lobster]

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?

Puppy
Less is more

[bigpup]

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!

[p310don]

...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.

[TomRhymer]

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.

[DaveS]

Answer: No

[hillside]

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.

[ttuuxxx]

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

[dogle]

<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.

[hillside]

[linuxsansdisquedur]

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

[Dragynn]

[Lobster]

The upcoming Wary will have this option:

[8-bit]

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.

[musher0]

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

[DaveS]