https://www.datamation.com/open-source/ ... stros.html
In terms of simply being an amazing lightweight distro, Puppy Linux is in a class all its own. Puppy Linux can run PCs as old as Pentium 1 class. Puppy runs well on a CD/DVD or a flash drive. And if you decide you want a persistent install, you can add "persistence" to the live instance on the aforementioned flash drive.
Datamation promoting Puppy
Re: Datamation promoting Puppy
It's nice to see puppy get good reviews. I doubt though that they got Xenial running well on a pentum one or if they did they propbably used an older kernal than the stock version.labbe5 wrote:https://www.datamation.com/open-source/ ... stros.html
In terms of simply being an amazing lightweight distro, Puppy Linux is in a class all its own. Puppy Linux can run PCs as old as Pentium 1 class. Puppy runs well on a CD/DVD or a flash drive. And if you decide you want a persistent install, you can add "persistence" to the live instance on the aforementioned flash drive.
It's good that puppy has a reputatation for running on ancient hardware like a pentum 1 but users should know that they might not be doing this with the latest version of puppylinux. They might instead be using Puppy 2.14X AKA Clasic Pup or LagacyOS. I'm not saying that a newer version of puppylinux won't run on a pentum one. I'm just saying that it isn't the first thing I'd try and if I did try it and it worked I don't that it would work well enough for me to want to use it.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Regardless, I updated the "Which Puppy is Right for you" on the Puppy Linux Wiki, to reflect my opinion of the recomended specs, since the page was horribly out-dated. My concern though is that my recommended specs may be higher than what puppy has a reputation for running under. Pehaps the word ideal might work better than recommended because in my mind we want specs that people will enjoy running puppy with rather than some theoretical minumum.
P.S. I didn,t finish editing this page. I had to shut down the version of tahrpup that I was using and it is taking a while to save. I'm on vacation and I forgot to bring the plug for the laptop that has an actual functional hard drive.
@s243a
Your updates to the recommended specs seem quite reasonable to me. Nice work, sorely needed. I did have one thought, which may (or may not) be worth considering.
I grant that most people will want to run a Internet browser on their Puppy. Most people will want this browser to be reasonably secure, which means it should be fairly recent. We can argue about what "reasonably secure" and "fairly recent" means, but I think we can all agree that--without major tinkering--it is impossible to find such a browser that will run decently on a machine with a CPU no faster than 0.5 GHz, and/or no more than 0.5 GB RAM, if for no other reason than that the graphics hardware on a machine that old can't hack it.
However, if a browser is NOT a requirement--yes, believe it or not, people did find uses for personal computers before the Internet--that opens up many more possibilities for hardware at or below this "0.5x0.5" boundary. In particular, the Puppy 4's and Wary/Racy Pups can all perform nicely on such hardware. I am tempted to argue that if one is going have a "less than 256 MB RAM" category at all, then Puppy 4/Wary/Racy should be mentioned as suitable for the browserless use case, given that only a masochist would attempt to run a browser at all on such hardware.
FWIW.
Your updates to the recommended specs seem quite reasonable to me. Nice work, sorely needed. I did have one thought, which may (or may not) be worth considering.
I grant that most people will want to run a Internet browser on their Puppy. Most people will want this browser to be reasonably secure, which means it should be fairly recent. We can argue about what "reasonably secure" and "fairly recent" means, but I think we can all agree that--without major tinkering--it is impossible to find such a browser that will run decently on a machine with a CPU no faster than 0.5 GHz, and/or no more than 0.5 GB RAM, if for no other reason than that the graphics hardware on a machine that old can't hack it.
However, if a browser is NOT a requirement--yes, believe it or not, people did find uses for personal computers before the Internet--that opens up many more possibilities for hardware at or below this "0.5x0.5" boundary. In particular, the Puppy 4's and Wary/Racy Pups can all perform nicely on such hardware. I am tempted to argue that if one is going have a "less than 256 MB RAM" category at all, then Puppy 4/Wary/Racy should be mentioned as suitable for the browserless use case, given that only a masochist would attempt to run a browser at all on such hardware.
FWIW.
Re: Datamation promoting Puppy
I think the 4 Gig of RAM recommended is a little high.s243a wrote:It's nice to see puppy get good reviews. I doubt though that they got Xenial running well on a pentum one or if they did they propbably used an older kernal than the stock version.labbe5 wrote:https://www.datamation.com/open-source/ ... stros.html
In terms of simply being an amazing lightweight distro, Puppy Linux is in a class all its own. Puppy Linux can run PCs as old as Pentium 1 class. Puppy runs well on a CD/DVD or a flash drive. And if you decide you want a persistent install, you can add "persistence" to the live instance on the aforementioned flash drive.
It's good that puppy has a reputatation for running on ancient hardware like a pentum 1 but users should know that they might not be doing this with the latest version of puppylinux. They might instead be using Puppy 2.14X AKA Clasic Pup or LagacyOS. I'm not saying that a newer version of puppylinux won't run on a pentum one. I'm just saying that it isn't the first thing I'd try and if I did try it and it worked I don't that it would work well enough for me to want to use it.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Regardless, I updated the "Which Puppy is Right for you" on the Puppy Linux Wiki, to reflect my opinion of the recomended specs, since the page was horribly out-dated. My concern though is that my recommended specs may be higher than what puppy has a reputation for running under. Pehaps the word ideal might work better than recommended because in my mind we want specs that people will enjoy running puppy with rather than some theoretical minumum.
P.S. I didn,t finish editing this page. I had to shut down the version of tahrpup that I was using and it is taking a while to save. I'm on vacation and I forgot to bring the plug for the laptop that has an actual functional hard drive.
I have 3 gig of ram on a 1.8 Ghz dual core processor and every single Puppy I've ever tried works just fine and with the latest kernels. This includes Xenial 64 bit, Debian Dog Stretch 64, and Fatdog 710. I regularly browse with 8 to 10 tabs open at a time. Only on a really bad webpage that leaks memory all over the place (PC Magazine, I'm looking at you) do I start to swap and have issues.
I really think that 2 Gig of RAM should be adequate for any Puppy.
+1
2Gb is quite adaquate for new puppies.
Puppies in the Slacko5.x series or before can use 1Gb, and those puppies with a 2.x.y series kernel can use 512Mb.
These RAM specs, along with ISO size makes R-Pi OS's look bloated.
JMH2c
8Geee
2Gb is quite adaquate for new puppies.
Puppies in the Slacko5.x series or before can use 1Gb, and those puppies with a 2.x.y series kernel can use 512Mb.
These RAM specs, along with ISO size makes R-Pi OS's look bloated.
JMH2c
8Geee
Linux user #498913 "Some people need to reimagine their thinking."
"Zuckerberg: a large city inhabited by mentally challenged people."
"Zuckerberg: a large city inhabited by mentally challenged people."
