100 MB Puppy?

[Dragynn]

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.

Not true, why would I want to use old tech at all if I don't have to? Puppy is the great equalizer, speed on old hardware that it never had with a hard-drive-OS. I want to be able to run Puppy on the old PIII and use a modern browser like Iron, that's the beauty of it, running just as fast with only 256 mb of ram with an old single-core processor.

I would love to have a copy of the optimized-kernel Lupu Puppy you describe, if you made a "mini" version of it, without the almost psychotic amount of default programs it has, you could easily get it way under 100mb, I would imagine around 75 mb.

And that's hot stuff, blow off the ridiculous amount of bloat in programs 95% of end-users will never use, and use a portion of that space for things that actually make a difference in the distro, and let folks choose for themselves what programs they might like to install for themselves.

The best big distro by far ( other than Puppy of course, lol ), is PCLinuxOS, and they have a "mini" version for every DE they support, with all the infrastructure, and a minimal amount of utilities/programs.

They are not the only ones doing this, a lot of forward-thinking distributions have a similar system in place. But of all these great distros I have tried, Puppy's package system is still the fastest and lightest and most compatible and comprehensive way of adding software to your system...I am just literally aghast that this is not being used as maybe one of the PRIMARY advantages of Puppy.

It's really not that big of a deal to make a Puppy fork that doesn't have all that bloat is it? Look at how the Bloat-Ware project 6 is just sitting there....there is a reason for that.

[jemimah]

There are several reasons why a very minimal system is undesirable as the default.

1. Many people use Puppy as a live CD and never create a save file. You want your Puppy CD to be able to open as many formats as possible and have as many drivers as possible. The idea is to create a system the just works for anything that anyone needs to do, on any hardware they need to use - obviously this is difficult.

2. Puppy's package manager is weak. Puppy is relatively easy for newbies right up to the point where they need to add packages. Having as much as possible already installed and tested reduces the need for tech support.

3. AUFS is not entirely reliable. Save file corruption happens - so the less stuff you have in the save file, the quicker it is to backup and the less likely you are to have problems.

4. The save file is not compressed. Installing things from pets uses about 3x more disk space and does not get loaded to RAM. Using SFS packages fixes the compression problem, but you're limited to how many SFSes you can use at once and installing them requires a reboot. One SFS that contains all your apps is the ideal architecture for Puppy - but you need to remaster to get your own custom set of apps.

5. Most of the "useless bloatware applications" are teeny utilities. You could remove all of those and you'd save a MB or two. To really save space you need to remove the browser, the office apps, device drivers, the flash player, the media player - and removing those cripples Puppy as a universal live CD.

I think we can easily get it down to 100MB with full functionality if we compile everything from source. Swapping Seamonkey for Midori would nearly be enough to do it. The question is if anyone cares enough to invest the time.

[jpeps]

There are several reasons why a very minimal system is undesirable as the default.

1. Many people use Puppy as a live CD and never create a save file. You want your Puppy CD to be able to open as many formats as possible and have as many drivers as possible. The idea is to create a system the just works for anything that anyone needs to do, on any hardware they need to use - obviously this is difficult.

2. Puppy's package manager is weak. Puppy is relatively easy for newbies right up to the point where they need to add packages. Having as much as possible already installed and tested reduces the need for tech support.

3. AUFS is not entirely reliable. Save file corruption happens - so the less stuff you have in the save file, the quicker it is to backup and the less likely you are to have problems.

4. The save file is not compressed. Installing things from pets uses about 3x more disk space and does not get loaded to RAM. Using SFS packages fixes the compression problem, but you're limited to how many SFSes you can use at once and installing them requires a reboot. One SFS that contains all your apps is the ideal architecture for Puppy - but you need to remaster to get your own custom set of apps.

5. Most of the "useless bloatware applications" are teeny utilities. You could remove all of those and you'd save a MB or two. To really save space you need to remove the browser, the office apps, device drivers, the flash player, the media player - and removing those cripples Puppy as a universal live CD.

I think we can easily get it down to 100MB with full functionality if we compile everything from source. Swapping Seamonkey for Midori would nearly be enough to do it. The question is if anyone cares enough to invest the time.

Spot on..and the list goes on and on with updating issues.

[rcrsn51]

Spot on..and the list goes on and on with updating issues.

Here is the kind of problem that arises in a minimal disto like TInyCore:

Member A is responsible for maintaining Package A. A new version comes out, so he updates it and tests it against his favourite programs. It looks good, so he submits it into the repo.

Member B then does an update of his system and discovers that the new Package A is not compatible with his favourite program B. He submits a bug report. He is told "not my problem". It's the responsibility of Program B's maintainer to fix it. Meanwhile, the original Package A is gone from the repo, so Program B is now dead.

In Puppy, by comparison, there is a concerted effort to ensure that every piece of software in a given release works properly.

[DaveS]

Spot on..and the list goes on and on with updating issues.

Here is the kind of problem that arises in a minimal disto like TInyCore:

Member A is responsible for maintaining Package A. A new version comes out, so he updates it and tests it against his favourite programs. It looks good, so he submits it into the repo.

Member B then does an update of his system and discovers that the new Package A is not compatible with his favourite program B. He submits a bug report. He is told "not my problem". It's the responsibility of Program B's maintainer to fix it. Meanwhile, the original Package A is gone from the repo, so Program B is now dead.

In Puppy, by comparison, there is a concerted effort to ensure that every piece of software in a given release works properly.

Sounds a bit like the way my wife and I shop....

[Dragynn]

There are several reasons why a very minimal system is undesirable as the default.

1. Many people use Puppy as a live CD and never create a save file. You want your Puppy CD to be able to open as many formats as possible and have as many drivers as possible. The idea is to create a system the just works for anything that anyone needs to do, on any hardware they need to use - obviously this is difficult.

2. Puppy's package manager is weak. Puppy is relatively easy for newbies right up to the point where they need to add packages. Having as much as possible already installed and tested reduces the need for tech support.

3. AUFS is not entirely reliable. Save file corruption happens - so the less stuff you have in the save file, the quicker it is to backup and the less likely you are to have problems.

4. The save file is not compressed. Installing things from pets uses about 3x more disk space and does not get loaded to RAM. Using SFS packages fixes the compression problem, but you're limited to how many SFSes you can use at once and installing them requires a reboot. One SFS that contains all your apps is the ideal architecture for Puppy - but you need to remaster to get your own custom set of apps.

5. Most of the "useless bloatware applications" are teeny utilities. You could remove all of those and you'd save a MB or two. To really save space you need to remove the browser, the office apps, device drivers, the flash player, the media player - and removing those cripples Puppy as a universal live CD.

I think we can easily get it down to 100MB with full functionality if we compile everything from source. Swapping Seamonkey for Midori would nearly be enough to do it. The question is if anyone cares enough to invest the time.

Spot on..and the list goes on and on with updating issues.

In no way are any of those statements "spot on", some people need to get out more, this insular little world where you are clutching all your little packages....I mean really, if you are that fearful, then download the whole repo onto a separate DVD and save it.

Puppy's package manager is nothing like weak, that's just silly, I have never had a single issue with it despite multiple mega-downloads.

And again, there are multiple devs on this very forum making some puplets that are waaaaaaay under 100mb. Browserlinux for example, at 90 mb, and using Chrome or Firefox (not sea monkey). How many megs is that off the basic Lupu? 40 mb's? And there's more trimming that could be done there.

And how do they get SliTaz to come in at 30 mb and yet have good functionality in general? Try looking at the package list for that distro and you'll see a big part of the reason why.

There are zero good reasons not to offer both a fully loaded version, and a minimal version, again I say, Linux is supposed to stand for choice. Give the people who still have only 256mb to work with, a modern Puppy to use, there are many parts of the world, where this is the best they can afford.

[jemimah]

There are zero good reasons not to offer both a fully loaded version, and a minimal version, again I say, Linux is supposed to stand for choice. Give the people who still have only 256mb to work with, a modern Puppy to use, there are many parts of the world, where this is the best they can afford.

I think you have the mistaken idea that someone is actually in charge around here. The puppy community is mostly unstructured - each developer makes their own puplet. Maybe developers collaborate, or maybe not. "Official" versions are whatever Barry decides. Every thing else is unofficial - so don't get hung up on the idea of officialness. There are actually hundreds of offerings - all unique. If you like BrowserLinux, consider donating some beer money to PuppyMartin or contribute code, documentation, or help with tech support.

The choice Linux offers is that if you don't like it, you have access to the source so you can fix it, or you can use something else. Linux is a hobby, not a charity.

[pemasu]

I have nice collection of old computers. The crucial thing with them is to get enough memory on them. I have collected and will collect different kind memories just to be sure I can add more memory if needed. The second thing has been to buy bigger hdd if needed.

Trying to struggle with 128 Mb is something I try to avoid. Of course if the circumstances does not let you add more memory, then the barebones and small puppies are needed. 214X is very well polished and updated for that. It supports fine old hardware.

Now I have about 11 years old pizzabox waiting with broken hdd to give it new life. Out the XP and puppy instead. It was going to the wastebox from the office but I got my hands between. I am sure it will find new home after fixing.

There are always those people who demands and think that their demands are justified whatever reasons you tell. It does not matter how reasonable the answers are, these people still feel that they are justified to get what they demand.

I just ignore this. And it is easy because I am not skillful enough to develop almost anything. I have used woof only to make puppy even bigger.

To offer under 100 Mb puppy will be useful to those who cant afford or it is otherwise too difficult to get more memory. If it is possible I recommend warmly to get more memory.

And I agree with jemimah. We should be grateful for what we get and remember not to be greedy and also remember to thank developers frequently. Just not demand something more all the time.

Thank you all the developers of many nice derivatives-puplets-unofficials-officials

[Dragynn]

There are zero good reasons not to offer both a fully loaded version, and a minimal version, again I say, Linux is supposed to stand for choice. Give the people who still have only 256mb to work with, a modern Puppy to use, there are many parts of the world, where this is the best they can afford.

I think you have the mistaken idea that someone is actually in charge around here. The puppy community is mostly unstructured - each developer makes their own puplet. Maybe developers collaborate, or maybe not. "Official" versions are whatever Barry decides. Every thing else is unofficial - so don't get hung up on the idea of officialness. There are actually hundreds of offerings - all unique. If you like BrowserLinux, consider donating some beer money to PuppyMartin or contribute code, documentation, or help with tech support.

The choice Linux offers is that if you don't like it, you have access to the source so you can fix it, or you can use something else. Linux is a hobby, not a charity.

I have no mistaken ideas jemimah, and I never used the word "official" anything, your ridiculous assumptions and presuppositions are almost as nonsensical as your attitude.

You walk around these threads trying to stomp out any conversation that contradicts your personal selfish controlling bloatware mentality....sorry, but not everything is about you.

Your definition of what choice Linux offers, is similarly narrow-minded, and your attitude towards charity, speaks volumes about who and what you are.

Attacking me directly as opposed to speaking to the points I raised, is perhaps the MOST obvious sign, that you lost this argument a long time ago. You don't have a leg to stand on, and now you are making up pure fabrications as to why things are "not possible" that other people are in fact, doing right now.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I am speaking to you when I reply in threads here, or asking anything from you, I am not and never will.

I have zero expectations that you would do something as sensible as what I and many others have proposed. So there, you are personally off the hook and free to pursue your little hobby all by your self if you like with no interference from the peasantry.

[Iguleder]

Sorry to get between you two, but I thing jemimah is right. Yes to functionality and usablity, even if it comes at the cost of size. Of course, if you have application X and application Y that do the same thing but one is more efficient, small and stable, it's better to use it.

Also, in case you don't know, size isn't proportional to 1/speed. A 200 MB bigger SFS won't make it twice slower than a 100 MB Puppy. Of course, size is crucial for machines with less than 256 MB of RAM, but we still have 4.x and all the old-hardware, niche-puppies like 2.14x and Legacy OS.

I want a distro that works. A small and efficient one is preferred. If you just want a small operating system, take FreeDOS, you can stuff it in a floppy. Works on all hardware, guaranteed

[pemasu]

We should be grateful for what we get and remember not to be greedy and also remember to thank developers frequently. Just not demand something more all the time.

[bigpup]

I think the development of Puppy Linux has reached a point where there needs to be two paths.
1. Support for old limited resource hardware.
2. Support for the latest well equipped, large memory, cutting edge, hardware.
One Puppy, fits all, does not work anymore. How old a computer do you still support? 5 years, 10 years, 15 years.....?
The more different hardware you try to support the bigger Puppy has to be.
The more features you put in an operating system, the bigger it has to become. More code to do stuff.
From what I read, the Linux kernel is starting to go the path of removing support code for older hardware and systems. 100MB is a good target to aim for. Keep the code as tight as possible, but with improvement comes size. Every program starts out small. As it improves and features are added, it grows. The choice becomes, does it become more usable or just bigger?

[pemasu]

Wary philosophy with different kernels helps with dropping hardware. But there comes the barrier with how old kernel the recent puppy base can use. Barry has written about it in his blog.

[big_bass]

I think you have the mistaken idea that someone is actually in charge around here. The puppy community is mostly unstructured - each developer makes their own puplet. Maybe developers collaborate, or maybe not. "Official" versions are whatever Barry decides. Every thing else is unofficial - so don't get hung up on the idea of officialness. There are actually hundreds of offerings - all unique. If you like BrowserLinux, consider donating some beer money to PuppyMartin or contribute code, documentation, or help with tech support.

The choice Linux offers is that if you don't like it, you have access to the source so you can fix it, or you can use something else. Linux is a hobby, not a charity.

two people can read that differently

I read that as if you dont like how puppy is complain /offer your suggestions to who is leading the official version not anyone else

if you like how someone is doing a derivative support them

if you are full of ideas do something (you wont have free time to complain )

hobbies are things people like to do they can't be imposed on people

Joe

[Joe Jasniewski]

An opinion from random user X...

I came to realize Puppy as an alternative OS, because my system's processing capability could no longer handle the bloat of Windows XP...Actually, the system could handle it eventually; it was *I* that wanted something that worked better!

I felt the gist of Puppy was to work better than Windows, through careful craftsmanship of how this OS runs.

Hell, if I'm going to go buy a quad core and load it up with 64G of memory, I'm not going to run *Puppy*! I'm going to run Windows 7 and rest assured that all those cores will claw their way through its code in due time, in spite of how Redmond designed it.

However, on my woosey PIII laptop with 512M that I paid < $100 for, I have a perfectly usable - and even enjoyable - (at times...) computing experience. This is thanks to Puppy and the careful craftsmanship of this OS to not need all the world's resources to run nicely.

I've used the word "craftsmanship" a couple of times, because I think it relates to what <100M implies. That someone took the time to really think about how this thing was/is going to be put together. No schedules to leave something "less than" in order to meet. No shareholders expectations of "what are you going to do this time" to make us some more money. Just crafting something fine, that allows people to do things they could not otherwise do, paying only for hardware.

Joe

[big_bass]

Just to be clear I spent a lot of time stripping puppy down to even a smaller size fat free 2.16 at 53 MB fat free versions 2.13, 2.17,3.0,3.01

all very small iso's but guess what thats not the norm what people want
even though thats what I like

I built TXZ Pup that has a mico base package of 24mb with no packages installed (thats a skeleton that you build upon)
if you strip it down that far or start out with the mico base and go from there building using packages

what is even better than having a small iso is one you can easily update
and remove and install apps as you please even reproduce built in packages from the live cd so you dont have to down load all the packages isnt that cool its called repackage-installed-packages

a base is good as development tool for someone to expand on to their
wishes of what linux should or shouldnt be

as long as pets are used you will always be in the same boat of having unremovable core apps


if you go with tgz or txz packages and pkgtool you can do away with
the pre fab size mind blocks and offer something that works but is small
and can be easily stripped down smaller if you have a need for speed


Joe

[Lobster]

sub-100MB Wary 104
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02046

[jpeps]

Although I removed a list of unused apps and shutdown a few processes with Lucid..it only uses about 65M of ram (without cache)...that's with devs, a host of pets, and pwidgets.Plenty of ram for OO, etc, even with an old Dell. I can't see much sense in cutting out things that I'll only need to load back in later with something already this efficient.

[jemimah]

The idea is that it could run from the CD in 128MB ram. The whole SFS has to fit with room to spare for the OS. Also it could fit on a 128MB flash drive.

[jpeps]

The idea is that it could run from the CD in 128MB ram. The whole SFS has to fit with room to spare for the OS. Also it could fit on a 128MB flash drive.

requires tree-saw vs scalpel