(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

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

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!

...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.

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.

Answer: No

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.

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

<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.

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.

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

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.

The upcoming Wary will have this option:

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 [Lobster faints]
Good plan. Crazy plan. I like it already.

http://l.pr/a46sa4/

Puppy
Resisting bloat

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.

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

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/viewto ... 376#461376

It's easy to make a small kernel.

1) Modules take more space. Some drivers (like the ACPI processor control) can be compiled straight into the kernel - that speeds up the booting of Puppy and saves space. Things that pretty much any computer has should be compiled into the kernel. The exceptions are squashfs, aufs and USB stuff, though - Puppy's init script depends on this.
2) Puppy has many "extra" drivers for exotic file systems and things like memory technology devices that nobody has.
3) If you strip the kernel modules, you can save 3-4 MB on a 45-50 MB extracted kernel package.

I made a 17 MB PET of 2.6.35.7 ... compare this to other recent Puppy kernels. Of course, it lacks dial-up modem support, but that's something exotic and those who need it already know what kernel they need.

A small kernel can easily trim 5-10 MB from the ISO and make it way faster. Then, you can remove some libraries and unneeded stuff - I trimmed about 30 MB of Lupu this way. It has some remains of Quirky and the early upup here and there.

With this approach you can get a ~100 MB Puppy, but I still don't see why it's so important to make it so small with today's hardware. Right, older computers can benefit a lot from small puppies, but you'd probably use 2.14x or any old Puppy on such hardware so there's nothing to worry about.

Well, if, as iguleder says, a regular kernel plus libs is 45-50 Mb, you could provide console apps for about 20 Mb, and another 20 Mb for DOSBox and a DOS "office" instead. Total: 90 Mb, and everything in console, plus a free trip in time!

But of course provide ways to "fatten up" the Puppy with X-Windows apps like you have in Squeeze and Lupu so the poor users won't run away in panic thinking this new Puppy is for "computo-saurs" or Frankensteins (Halloween Puppy, anyone?).

Iguleder wrote:With this approach you can get a ~100 MB Puppy, but I still don't see why it's so important to make it so small with today's hardware.

You are right. But think with 256MB RAM, it is serious if we like to remove the live CD after boot.

Iguleder wrote:Right, older computers can benefit a lot from small puppies, but you'd probably use 2.14x or any old Puppy on such hardware so there's nothing to worry about.

Yes it can be an alternative solution.

But still our effort to make it small as we can is important i think.
Even if you have larger RAM, the main sfs and each applications are small is better. Imagine running several applications and manipulating large data. If you need not swaping, it is the fastest.

One more thing for CJK languages, they need large font set and IME(Input Method Engine). It adds 20MB or so to the main sfs. So we like the base small as small it can be.
Lupq-511 is 113MB. But if we add the Japanese contents, it may grow up to 130MB, and still not have a main browser. I think it is not Puppy anymore. That is one of the reason we still not have any Japanese edition of Puppy 5.x.

Personally, I think I understand the [historical] reason for the 100mb puppy....to show where other OS developers weren't keeping the code tight

Most Puppy users abhor bloat, but do all understand why?
I think some of the ideas being put forward in Saluki are going to be a new direction, in terms of speed and boot times, even if it tips over the 100mb, I think it represents the right approach

If the kernel keeps growing as it seems, it's also clear why Barry is considering a Puppy Kernel.....as many new kernel features don't affect 99% of puppy hardware, however without a Puppy kernel, can we keep it below 100mb and still be useable?.....time will tell
Boot time seems to be the next target, as other OSes are getting quicker, however function and reliability/easy maintenance will always be what keeps me interested
I like big bass's philosophy, and see many useful ideas that deserve mainstream consideration

Glibc/eglibc may prove to be the only thing else to be considered as progress towards an ARM puppy approaches, which I look forward to, also to a PPC fork

Keep on keeping on....Woof, Woof

Aitch

Wary 092 with kernel 2.6.34.6 is 113 mb and it runs great on my newest
pc which has a bios dated:
Date 07/21/2010
Vendor American Megatrends Inc. (www.ami.com)
Version 6.02
With the kernel source sfs being made available by Barry I was able to
install the commercial ati graphics driver.
I'm running 092 off a flash drive so I don't need to access the main
hard drive or interfere with win7 at all (just in case I ever want to
use it) but I do have some files that I access on the main hd.
So it's pretty amazing what a 113mb os can do and I'm hopeful that 093
with the 2.6.31.14 kernel will work on this pc but if it won't I'm
hanging on to 092