[HN Gopher] Tiny Core Linux 13.0 is a full Linux desktop in 22 MB ___________________________________________________________________ Tiny Core Linux 13.0 is a full Linux desktop in 22 MB Author : tsujp Score : 244 points Date : 2022-07-04 14:05 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.adafruit.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.adafruit.com) | yellowapple wrote: | Tiny Core's small enough that I'll often throw the entirety of it | in /boot or /boot/EFI on my Linux desktops as a recovery | environment. | jeppesen-io wrote: | you know, that's a really clever idea | yellowapple wrote: | Right? It sure saved my ass more than once. | [deleted] | n_kr wrote: | That sounds very useful! Do you have a writeup or any tips to | set that up? | marcodiego wrote: | Please details! | | How can I put an image in /boot and load and run it from GRUB? | peter303 wrote: | Our PDP 11/34 UNIX ran on 256 KB core and 6MB disk. With room to | run apps. | rowanG077 wrote: | I used tiny core Linux about 10 years ago in a high security | environment for a data wipe verification step. Worked great and | it booted to an immutable ramdisk from a USB 2 stick in seconds. | It was also a breeze to setup with drivers. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > full Linux desktop | | > The Core Project is a highly modular based system (...) It is | not a complete desktop nor is all hardware completely supported. | It represents only the core needed to boot into a very minimal X | desktop typically with wired internet access. | | That is not a full desktop, and the [The Core] project doesn't | say it is. | | That being said the concept of "full desktop" is somewhat loaded. | Today we have a somewhat unreasonable expectation that at least | one, but sometimes several browsers, office suites, multimedia | viewers and editors to be a "basic desktop". | | Back in the 90's people did not expect the computer to come with | any such software applications built-in. | johnchristopher wrote: | I expect a full desktop to manage mounting of USB devices for | me. My awesome-wm setup doesn't do that :(. (And I know it's on | me) | regularfry wrote: | > Back in the 90's people did not expect the computer to come | with any such software applications built-in. | | Having a complete set of mutually compatible applications is | literally why Linux distributions exist. | iaaan wrote: | The Stallman copypasta kind of explains this verbatim: | | > I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're | refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've | recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an | operating system unto itself, but rather another free | component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by | the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components | comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. | | > Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU | system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar | turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today | is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware | that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU | Project. | | > There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but | it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the | kernel: the program in the system that allocates the | machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The | kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but | useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a | complete operating system. Linux is normally used in | combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system | is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so- | called Linux distributions are really distributions of | GNU/Linux! | regularfry wrote: | That's not actually what I was thinking of, but it's | related. I was thinking more of the hard work of making | sure you have a compatible set of library versions that | every app in the repositories can link against, with | whatever patches they need to make that work, to provide a | complete working system for the user - including end user | apps like mail clients, browsers, editors, the whole | shebang. | agumonkey wrote: | maybe you're thinking about full desktop environment ? | ziddoap wrote: | > _Today we have a somewhat unreasonable expectation that at | least one, but sometimes several browsers, office suites, | multimedia viewers and editors to be a "basic desktop"._ | | Why is this considered unreasonable? | | I agree that is was unreasonable back in the 90s, 30 years ago, | but we also now expect computers to come with a few TB of | storage rather than a few GB -- times have changed. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | I reasonably agree with your assertion that times have | changed; several of the optimizations we come to expect from | compilers/JIT trade faster execution for more space as such | tradeoff is often very worth it. | | However if you agree with the proposition of attempting to | supply a reasonably "lean core" with extensions, if said lean | core is too opinionated, you will, soon or later, either have | to adapt your workflow, or workaround said lean core. | | I think a somewhat similar thing applies to silverblue ( | https://silverblue.fedoraproject.org/ ) and it's very hard to | actually use it as intended (only using things inside | flatpak/toolbx), without messing with the overlay system. I | very often feel the need to replace half of the "provided" | applications, and as such it would be in fact better if they | were not supplied in the first place. | passthejoe wrote: | It is possible to remove things from the stock image. I | haven't done it yet, but most common is to remove default | Firefox and use Flatpak FF. | vbezhenar wrote: | > we also now expect computers to come with a few TB of | storage | | No, we don't. Modern Macbook which is overpriced elite | computer sells with 256GB storage. There're plenty of laptops | selling with 120GB storage. | | I'd argue that since we migrated from HDD to SSD, we expect | computers to come with less storage than before. I had 200GB | HDD in like 2005 or something like this. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > Modern Macbook which is overpriced elite computer | | If you bough a overpriced elite computer, and potentially | other parts of that ecosystem of products, why would you | not pay for overpriced elite cloud storage as well? | | That is very reasonable thinking from Apple. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > Modern Macbook which is overpriced elite computer sells | with 256GB storage | | its just that our industry is a joke, imagine they'd sell | cars with three wheels and carge you extra for the 4th. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | The joke is that you can't even buy the 4th wheel later | as a add-on, you need to replace your entire car instead. | ziddoap wrote: | My point was that expectations have changed over time... | | You can get as pedantic as you want over the exact sizes, | but someone buying a computer today expects more storage | than someone who was buying a computer in the early 90s. | taf2 wrote: | I don't know... now days I think if I can run a browser that | pretty much is a full desktop... | HPsquared wrote: | How much of the browser can it run though? Probably won't be | capable of audio/video, for instance. | soylentgraham wrote: | Oh that would be bliss! Can it remove | cookie/newsletter/discount/app promo popups too? :) | a9h74j wrote: | Extreme view: The user agent needs to be "shrunk down and | drowned in a bathtub". | eastbound wrote: | Reading this, I'm wondering why we settled on those | particular questions, as a civilization. The civilization | next door must have a slew of "What is your address?" / | "Record your voice!" / "Scream 'NETFLIX' to the street" / | "Upload your fingerprint to get access to our free | content" dialogs. | em3rgent0rdr wrote: | You can install web browsers including chromium-browser and | firefox via the package manager. | | List of packages: http://www.tinycorelinux.net/13.x/x86_64/tcz/ | spaniard89277 wrote: | The problem with this tiny projects is that you need a web | browser. And good luck browsing the web in old PCs. You can use | Lynx and the like, but you know what I mean. | | If you need second life for an old pc, It may be better to | repurpose as server or something like that. | ranger_danger wrote: | >need a web browser | | you'd be surprised how many people here (and many FOSS | zealots in general) live in their own little bubble of | command-line-only existence. who eschew modern things like | javascript and social media and only want to take part in | that which is easily done from a text terminal. | [deleted] | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > And good luck browsing the web in old PCs. You can use Lynx | and the like, but you know what I mean. | | Hello electron where everything is a browser :) | | Yes, even if your system is lean doesn't mean a lot if the | application you're using on top still needs a lot of TFLOPs | and GBs of fast RAM. | | Trying to use a 2GB 2 thread atom netbook here as a dumb | terminal of sorts for other systems - a pain for anything | that is not very basic limited remote shell. The closest I | got to a "working system with browser" was cheating using | mosh + browsh on another computer. | whitten wrote: | Have you tried any of the VNC class of programs? | | It allows a virtual screen solution to other computers, | even servers. Effectively a private Zoom session. | usr1106 wrote: | Worked already smoothly around 2000 over 33.6 kbit/s | modem. And lossless compression! | | I often have to think of that when we share terminals | over Google Meet these days and it takes tens of seconds | until the encoding artifacts of red fonts have faded away | so text becomes reable again. 100 times more bandwidth | for a worse experience, that must be progress... | mappu wrote: | _> Effectively a private Zoom session._ | | I just wanted to let you know that this comparison | absolutely threw me. Of course you're right, they both | let you "screen share" but the way you applied a 2022 | metaphor to explain 90s tech made me feel a little weird | and old. | | I guess nano is kind of like a private google docs. | brazzy wrote: | A typewriter is effectively a keyboard hardwired directly | to a printer. | salmo wrote: | You kids and your new fangled nano. | | Back in my day it was pine and pico. We did SMTP both | ways. And we liked it! | | Actually, it weirds me out that the default editor on | most Linuxes now is a pico clone. Some don't don't even | come with a vi out of box. | | I started with emacs in college because I liked LISP. But | once I was a sysadmin, I learned vi fast because it was | the common denominator between Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, BSD, | Linux, etc. and I was in a group that absorbed teams that | used all of them. ...OK, to be fair, our stuff was BSD | :). | | My first instinct on a fresh/new to me host is to vi. And | even when I type nano, I can't stop my hands from doing | vi and get peeved. Fine 'apt install vim' or whatever. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | I have Debian 11 on a 2GB laptop running Xfce and it's very | usable. The key is to install a 32-bit distro which can be | a bit challenging on 64-bit UEFI systems. I have a dummy | 64-bit install just for the bootloader and then installed | the 32-bit system alongside it. | jcelerier wrote: | Instead of 32-bit i686 consider x32 ABI. It uses 32 bit | pointers (good for memory) but has access to all the x64 | registers, has SSE2 as a min. requirement, etc. which is | great for performance - it's the best of both worlds | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | My understanding - backed by | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI - is that x32 has | seen very little adoption and even Linux upstream has | considered removing it. It appears to be available on | Gentoo because of course it is, Debian if you jump | through hoops (https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port), and some | embedded tool chains (I'm not running yocto on my | laptop). Are there any other accessible options? | usr1106 wrote: | If your hardware is not too old. I still have 2 PCs that | don't have 64 bit support. They still run Xubuntu 16.04 | just fine, but have not upgraded or used them after that | when out of support. | | Which distro offers x32? (Haven't checked, might be a | stupid question...) I understood it was a great idea at | the time, but implementation took a while and the world | had moved on when it was finally ready. | smoldesu wrote: | > Which distro offers x32? | | A lot of modern distros are still packaging for i686, but | actually installing it might be a bit of a pain. I think | your safest bet is to go with an OS like Debian that's | sure to offer ample support for older systems, or you | could go for broke and run a distro like | Gentoo/Arch/NixOS that has package manifests/build | instructions for each tool and _pray_ that nothing breaks | (spoilers: it will). | | So, temper your expectations; 32-bit systems aren't a | huge priority nowadays, but I'm certain you could put | together a usable config if you choose the right base | system. Or just keep the machines as they are, I'm sure | Xubuntu still runs fine. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | x32 is different from i686 | adrianN wrote: | You can browse the web on a ten year old machine just fine. | srvmshr wrote: | While clean reinstalling my macOS last month, my recovery | partition was lost - and I booted via internet recovery to | MacOS Mavericks. | | Needless to say, I couldn't even sign in with Apple ID via | browser or app store because the world has moved on & these | browsers can't work on modern webpages. (I had to use my | phone concurrently to help me out with downloading rescue | stuff & moving via USB or terminal) | adrianN wrote: | Ten year old software is very different from ten year old | hardware. | srvmshr wrote: | The parent (you replied to) discussed the state of | browsers | | _The problem with this tiny projects is that you need a | web browser. And good luck browsing the web in old PCs | [...]_ | | As I can imagine now, a lot of things will not run on 10 | y.o. hardware once you get limited by the last base OS | you could install. | JasonFruit wrote: | In the context of Linux, ten year old hardware is widely | supported, and will not limit what base OS version and | software is installable, though its capabilities might | affect usability. We're not really discussing OS X here, | where planned obsolescence is such a huge factor. | pessimizer wrote: | That's not really a Linux problem as far as I can tell. | You can install a five-minute old Debian-testing on 10 | year old hardware without too many surprises. | pmontra wrote: | 8.5 yo for sure and with Ubuntu. I improved it a little (32 | GB and two 1 TB SSDs) but I bet that the original 8 GB + | HDD would be OK for browsing. Browsers got faster and that | helps compensating sites that got slower. | mrob wrote: | 4GiB is plenty for browsing if you run uBlock Origin and | disable Javascript by default. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | Well, if you don't run uBlock Origin (or bare minimum | another less efficient tracker blocker), no amount of RAM | can really save you once you cross the threshold of 60+ | tabs open. | usr1106 wrote: | If you want to save resources (and that what talking | about 2GB machines is) you just don't keep 60+ tabs open. | You cannot eat the cake and keep it at the same time. I | cannot see how anyone can jump around between 60 tabs | every day. If I have more than 10-20 tabs open after a | working day I know that the day went in a very | unorganized way and I have probably more open tasks than | in the morning when I started. It happens because I have | plenty of unused RAM on my work machine, but it's nothing | I'd defend. Maybe a smaller machine would just force me | to organize my work better. | | Bookmarks are there for organizing stuff one will need at | some time later. Keeping tabs open does not seem to serve | any special purpose. Unless you want to save cycles to | render it again, but I don't remember many pages I would | like to use frequently that even a very old PC does not | bring up in decent time. The local weather forecast loads | rather slowly, but that I want to reload every time I | visit it anyway. | glowingly wrote: | I recently was upgraded away from those exact "old" specs | at work, and I largely disagree. Win10 just doesn't work | with HDDs. I'm sure the mandatory 3rd party AV doesn't | help either. But logging in was enough of a source of | pain, that I ended up using my iPhone with a HDMI dongle | and a wireless accessories. | | It's upgraded now to an overly powerful web browsing | machine. I'm a bit happier. | passthejoe wrote: | I agree. Win 10 + HDD = frustration. | hulitu wrote: | Win 10 even with SSD is a frustation. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > I bet that the original 8 GB | | Second source data I collected from the Steam Hardware | Survey (that being a biased group with better that | average specs) for 2012 seems to point that the "average | Steam user" had around 5 GB of system RAM. | | > HDD would be OK for browsing. Browsers got faster and | that helps compensating sites that got slower. | | I just remembered this article (and that article talks | about SSDs, not HDDs!) surprising conclusions, posted in | HN a few days ago: https://simonhearne.com/2020/network- | faster-than-cache/ | wongarsu wrote: | A good $500 PC [1] 10 years ago seems to have a 2x3GHz | Pentium, 4GB RAM and a 500GB HDD. The $1000 PC [2] from | tomshardware was a 4x3.4GHz Core i5 with 8GB RAM, a GTX 670 | and a 60GB SSD paired with a 750GB HDD. | | The $1000 still sounds totally adequate for surfing, office | use and some light gaming, as long as you invest $20-$50 in | a bigger SSD (or have some patience when starting | software). Machines like this are still sold, they're just | smaller and cheaper now. Even the 2012 $500 PC is probably | fine if you upgrade the RAM, and even without that upgrade | is not much different from some of the mini-PCs sold today | [3] | | 1: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-pc- | overclocking-... | | 2: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc- | overclock-be... | | 3: https://psref.lenovo.com/Detail/ThinkCentre/ThinkCentre_ | M70q... | adrianmsmith wrote: | Absolutely - I am typing this on a 2012 Windows 7 PC, 8GB | RAM and an SSD. CPU has a Geekbench 5 single-core score | of 400 or something, i.e. in no way fast. But surfing the | web is snappy and the computer works fine. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | If you limit yourself to sane, 1.0 web simple pages such as | Hacker News, sure. If you need to visit anything using | unoptimized 100+ MB of Javascript? Good Luck. | drewzero1 wrote: | For a 20 year old machine, sure. But any machine that was | decent 10 years ago should be at least okay today. My | 2008 Thinkpad handles all but the heaviest websites | without too much trouble, as long as I don't have too | many tabs open at a time. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | Agreed, I am using a 2009 Toshiba laptop with Pop! on it, | I did some cheap upgrades (maxed RAM to 10GB, used a | spare SSD to replace the old HD), it's perfectly usable. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | This is a fair point, the machine I am using as a | reference was pretty bad at best even when it was new (a | 2012 netbook). | bragr wrote: | How is hacker news a 1.0 website? It's full of JS and | dynamic elements. It might be aping the style of 1.0 web | but it is very much a web 2.0 site. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > It's full of JS | | 152 lines of sparse JS ammounting to 5kb uncompressed? | Not exactly what I would call "full of js". | | For comparison your average hasty made, JS infested | legacy web site there embeds Moment.js - and that by | itself is 19kb compressed. | bragr wrote: | Compared to the size of the site, and the features? Yeah, | most of them involve some amount of JS. Besides, HN is | all dynamic user generated content, that's the crux of | web 2.0. | pluijzer wrote: | How I perceive it is that web 2.0 is about dynamic loaded | content and as far as I know HN doesn't do this but loads | static pages from a server just like ye old web 1.0 forum | pages would do. | bragr wrote: | If you go off Wikipedia's definition, it's more about | user generated content and HN is definitely that. Might | not meet your definition of web 2.0, but it meets this | one: | | >A Web 2.0 website allows users to interact and | collaborate with each other through social media dialogue | as creators of user-generated content in a virtual | community. This contrasts the first generation of Web | 1.0-era websites where people were limited to viewing | content in a passive manner. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 | silisili wrote: | I'm not going to argue which web it belongs to, just | comment that that definition is a bit odd. Forums would | fit that definition, and have existed for far longer. | phpBB itself is over 20 years old even. | | I know it's all arbitrary, but it feels like there should | probably be a better definition than the ones given. | jl6 wrote: | At the risk of arguing the semantics of what is | ultimately a marketing term rather than a technical term, | Web 1.0 did actually have JavaScript - it was usually a | simpler, more restrained usage, with no XMLHttpRequest. | freemint wrote: | Even that might not work. If it came with a succinctly | obscure Operating System you run into SSL problems. | oynqr wrote: | Are you trying to tell me that you can't browse the | modern web on an Ivy Bridge-era system? | doubled112 wrote: | Either it's not that bad, or people are lacking patience. | | I have a Phenom II desktop next to me that browses the | web just fine. Yes, even YouTube and infinite scrolling | pages. | tssva wrote: | Same here. I have a Phenom II X6 desktop and it has no | problem browsing the modern web running either Linux or | Windows 10. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | Yes, remember that the netbook trend died in 2013. A | netbook is a Ivy Bridge-era system. | doubled112 wrote: | Those were awful, especially the first gen, but I have | fond memories of them since it was the first time young | me could afford anything new and shaped like a laptop. | | The MSI Wind U100 with an Atom N270 CPU would even | overclock. It didn't help, but it would do it. | beebeepka wrote: | I was on my good old 2500k until 2019. It was perfectly | and I only upgraded because I had the itch | hulitu wrote: | > The problem with this tiny projects is that you need a web | browser. And good luck browsing the web in old PCs. | | Browsing the web is the last thing i do on an old PC. These | old computers are for entertainment. Modern Web is a sh*tty | experience. | DoctorOW wrote: | > _If you need second life for an old pc, It may be better to | repurpose as server or something like that._ | | I'd go as far as a third life. This comment sounds like this | is written by someone for whom Windows is not the first life | (good for you!). To me, restoring an old PC to something | usable day-to-day with Linux is only effective if you're | switching away from Windows or switching away from the modern | web. | usrn wrote: | Yup. Alpine's rootfs is tiny (~3mb) and if you don't need | firmware you would probably have a desktop image around this | size. | SahAssar wrote: | Alpines rootfs images don't include the kernel or any drivers | at all, right? Since it's usually run within a container | that's a sensible choice, but if you look at | https://www.alpinelinux.org/downloads/ their rootfs is 2.6mb, | but even their slimmed down version meant to run only on | virtualized machines is 52mb, and their standard or netboot | versions (which actually include the stuff needed to boot on | actual hardware) are over 150mb. | stepupmakeup wrote: | Even the "virt" Alpine image is unable to successfully | install without pulling in extra packges from the internet. | setup-alpine fails at the disk step, depends on syslinux | and sfdisk. | nubb wrote: | tinycore and microcore were real saviors for me back in my dcops | days. insanely useful back when someone needed a quick linux box | with serial capabilities. prob less useful now a days with things | like console kvm being everywhere. | xuhu wrote: | Is it 22 MB because it's 2022 ? In 2011, TinyCore iso was 11 MB. | phendrenad2 wrote: | It's an interesting exercise to try to strip down Ubuntu or | Fedora. You quickly find out that your WM probably relies on X11, | which relies on Mesa, which relies on both libgcc and libllvm | (because you might want to compile OpenGL shaders, duh!)... yeah | there's two gigs right there. | ricardobeat wrote: | I remember DSL - Damn Small Linux, which sat at something like | 5-7MB and was pretty feature complete, including a nice package | manager. | passthejoe wrote: | I think TinyCore is the same developer | morganvachon wrote: | I'm honestly surprised that someone on Ladyada's staff would link | to an article by the highly transphobic and racist Bryan Lunduke. | As recently as March of this year he was deliberately deadnaming | and misgendering a prominent ElementaryOS developer. | | https://www.osnews.com/story/134655/elementary-os-is-implodi... | stepupmakeup wrote: | This is not relevant to the topic at all. | morganvachon wrote: | It's not, but people should be aware of where they get their | news sources. | soperj wrote: | If this is his twitter, it looks like he's changed: | | https://twitter.com/BryanLunduke | cgh wrote: | That looks like a parody account. This is the real one: | https://twitter.com/TheLunduke | soperj wrote: | that's actually really funny. | morganvachon wrote: | I've seen that and I believe he felt he had to do so to | maintain his readership after being called out for his | bigotry so often of late. I for one don't believe he's | changed at all, but I don't personally know the guy so I | can't say for sure he hasn't. Anyway, I'll still refuse to | read his articles just to be sure I'm not supporting a bigot | with page views. | morganvachon wrote: | As mentioned above that's apparently a parody account that | fooled me. His real Twitter shows he's still the raging | bigot he always was. | fabiospampinato wrote: | Oh wow, for comparison you can fit about a third of the | "typescript" NPM package in that much space. | zoomablemind wrote: | I like to think of the TinyCore as (const)Linux. | | TinyCore boots from a fixed instance state. When booted, this | state can change as usual, but on reboot it will be reinitialized | to the defined state. | | Persistent changes to the state are done as 'backup' of whatever | change aspects. The backup is driven by lists -- special text | files that define files and directories to persist. | | TinyCore apps are packed in a custom .tgz format and are | downloaded from a number of mirrors or locally, if cached. | | [0]: TinyCore Concepts http://www.tinycorelinux.net/concepts.html | littlecranky67 wrote: | 22 MB is impressive, although I assume usage will be quite | limited. My favorite small-distro is still puppy linux [0], which | has a good size/functionality tradeoff. | | [0]: https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/ | bachmeier wrote: | An important property of Puppy is that you can access the | Ubuntu repos. I don't know what you get with Tiny Core. | dang wrote: | Related: | | _Tiny Core Linux 13 Released: Needs Just 46MB of RAM, 50MB of | Disk_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30249581 - Feb 2022 | (26 comments) | | _Tiny Core Linux 13.0 released for older or lower-end x86 | hardware_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30183435 - Feb | 2022 (2 comments) | | _Tinycore Linux_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25158736 | - Nov 2020 (81 comments) | | _Tiny Core v9.0 Released_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16483880 - Feb 2018 (4 | comments) | | _Tiny Core Linux_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16366807 - Feb 2018 (98 | comments) | | _Creating purpose-built TinyCoreLinux Images_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525377 - Nov 2015 (32 | comments) | | _Tiny Core Linux_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10308606 - Oct 2015 (10 | comments) | | _Tiny Core Linux 4.7 overhauls the OnDemand system_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4739459 - Nov 2012 (5 | comments) | | _Tiny Core offers a complete Linux solution in 11MB_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1769624 - Oct 2010 (25 | comments) | | _Tiny Core: The Little Distro That Could_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=745439 - Aug 2009 (3 | comments) | jacquesm wrote: | Now imagine this running on your phone, with a week or more of | battery life. | dijit wrote: | If you're into very small linux desktops- I've had a lot of fun | with Oasis: https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis | | The full desktop image is 77mb | tambourine_man wrote: | > Yeah. That's right. You can run your entire operating system... | from RAM. And, even with only 48 MB... it still runs fast. | | I feel old. We had GUI OSs booting from floppy drive and RAM | Disks with the OS + a few apps in 16MB of RAM some 30-40 years | ago. | foobiekr wrote: | The amiga could run in 256kb. 512k was more common, eventually | 1MB, and more was a luxury. | tambourine_man wrote: | Yeah, the original Mac had 128k of RAM total. But is was 1 | bit black and white and only one app at a time. | tommek4077 wrote: | He tells you about his Gran Torino and you are mentioning a | Model T. | imurray wrote: | There's a bunch of nostalgia about what small meant to mean, so | I'll leave some links to the QNX 1.44MB demo floppy: | | http://toastytech.com/guis/qnxdemo.html | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483653 | Keyframe wrote: | I remember when it was actual. It was impressive then as well! | sedatk wrote: | I remember QNX floppy blowing my mind even back in the 90's. | This was when Linux could load the kernel and the root fs at | least with two floppies. | jacquesm wrote: | And under the hood that did a lot more than most OSs of the | day. Or of today, for that matter. | marcodiego wrote: | Although people usually cite the qnx demo int these threads, | I'm much more impressed today this: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28515025 | GavinAnderegg wrote: | I was just about to post about this as well. I still don't know | how I ended up with this disk, but got shipped to high school- | aged me. I was blown away at the time! | jakearmitage wrote: | Is it still using X? What WM is that? | tech234a wrote: | It uses FLWM [0]. Looks like it also still uses X according to | that page as well. | | [0]: http://tinycorelinux.net/downloads.html | gaudat wrote: | Be warned though the image does not boot in pure UEFI systems | without CSM like recent laptops. | lambdaba wrote: | I distinctly remember checking the size of the C:\Windows folder | on Windows 95 and it being around 50mb. | javajosh wrote: | I distrust writeups like this that don't mention other, similar | work. Alpine Linux diskless mode comes to mind[0]. | | 0 - https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Installation#Diskless_Mode | vladdoster wrote: | The original article was written due to v13.0 being released. | javajosh wrote: | No other distribution is mentioned on any of it's other | pages, either: | | http://tinycorelinux.net/welcome.html | | http://tinycorelinux.net/intro.html | | http://tinycorelinux.net/concepts.html | | http://tinycorelinux.net/faq.html | stepupmakeup wrote: | A lot of these pages predate Alpine's existence | ttgurney wrote: | Direct link: | | http://tinycorelinux.net/ | | I have wondered how such a tiny distribution is possible. I'm | thinking of the kernel, in particular--when I try to compile my | own kernel with no module support and only the drivers I need | built-in ("make localyesconfig" will do this), it comes out like | 10MB compressed. And I am no kernel expert, so it's hard for me | to tell which settings I can change and what will happen if I do. | | Then when I boot the most bare-bones system with /bin/sh as init, | it is using like 70mb of RAM doing nothing. | | So anyway, I found that you can just grab their kernel config, | I'll be curious to see how it differs from more typical configs: | http://tinycorelinux.net/13.x/x86/release/src/kernel/config-... | | Windows 95 ran in 8 MB of RAM. (Well, officially 4 MB for | marketing purposes, but no one thought that was actually enough.) | I would be _really_ impressed to see a graphical Linux | environment that could run in that amount of RAM. | icedchai wrote: | Today's "tiny" distributions would be considered yesterday's | bloatware. One of my first Linux desktops (Slackware Linux) ran | on a 486 with 8 megs of RAM, including X11. This was a 1.x | kernel. Running emacs would put it into swap. | TravelPiglet wrote: | X11 without WM was fine on 2.x as well on 8 MB ram. Loading | fvwm or whatever I was using ended up with endless swapping. | icedchai wrote: | I think I was using TWM or a very early version of FVWM. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > on a 486 with 8 megs of RAM, | | > Running emacs would put it into swap. | | Heh; a time when "Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping" was a | literal comment:) | mrtweetyhack wrote: | shakna wrote: | > Windows 95 ran in 8 GB of RAM. (Well, officially 4 GB for | marketing purposes, but no one thought that was actually | enough.) I would be really impressed to see a graphical Linux | environment that could run in that amount of RAM. | | Huh? Windows 95, IIRC, will _refuse to even boot_ if you have | more than 480Mb of RAM, let alone 4Gb. | | Most machines of the time had 4Mb of RAM. Something seriously | powerful had 16Mb. | | As for running a modern 32bit Linux on something with minimal | hardware... The creator of "uARM" [0] says that it's useable, | and it uses a "30-pin 16MB SIMM" piece of RAM. But honestly, | the speed of the RAM is more important than the size, for that | project. | | [0] | https://dmitry.gr/index.php?r=05.Projects&proj=07.%20Linux%2... | ttgurney wrote: | > Most machines of the time had 4Mb of RAM. Something | seriously powerful had 16Mb. | | Yes I did mean to write MB rather than GB; thanks for the | correction. | | On that note, I found this 1995 newspaper article (linked | from Wikipedia) on the subject. Conclusion was that W95 ran | on 4MB, but slowly: | | https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19950924&slug. | .. | | Funny that the writer remarks on having a bunch of Windows | open and still having "73% resources free". I think I | remember reading in one of the contemporary books (maybe | Andrew Schulman's Unauthorized Windows 95) that the dialog | that shows the % resources free inflates the number | significantly. | sedatk wrote: | > Conclusion was that W95 ran on 4MB, but slowly | | Yeah, I clearly remember today that HDD light never going | off if you ran Win95 with 4MB RAM. One of the reasons I had | to upgrade my PC. | JPLeRouzic wrote: | Long time ago I tried to boot Win3.11 on 4Mb on a PC XT | that I had built (including soldering components). It | booted but was horribly slow, so I doubt Win95 was usable | on 4Mb. | InvaderFizz wrote: | It was technically usable, but very slow. I ran it on a | 486 DX2-66 with 4MB of RAM before upgrading to 8MB of | RAM. That made a drastic difference. | FlorianRappl wrote: | I did run windows 95 with 2MB. It was my main reason to get | 2 more bars with overall 4MBs going up to 6 in total. Boot | process with 2MB took about 20 to 25 minutes. | badsectoracula wrote: | > Windows 95 ran in 8 GB of RAM. (Well, officially 4 GB for | marketing purposes, but no one thought that was actually | enough.) | | I did :-P. Back in the day i tried to run Windows 95 on my AMD | 386DX 40Hz with 4MB of RAM. Took ages to boot but it did boot. | I also tried Delphi 2 on that installation, took around 15 | minutes to start. | btdmaster wrote: | I tried "make tinyconfig" (https://tiny.wiki.kernel.org/) and I | got bzImage to just under 500 kilobytes. Now, that is only the | bare minimum and you would still probably want stuff like | amd64, but it does give a good baseline reference. | (https://scribe.rip/building-a-tiny-linux-kernel-8c07579ae79d) | sys_64738 wrote: | I was surprised they're running a modern kernel like 5.13.x. I | imagines it'd be 4.19.x or something older. | indy wrote: | "Windows 95 ran in 8 GB of RAM" | | Did you mean MB rather than GB? | ttgurney wrote: | Yes, thanks. Fixed | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > Windows 95 ran in 8 GB of RAM. (Well, officially 4 GB for | marketing purposes, but no one thought that was actually | enough.) I would be really impressed to see a graphical Linux | environment that could run in that amount of RAM. | | Are you sure? | https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20030814-00/?p=42... | | > Windows 95 will fail to boot if you have more than around | 480MB of memory. (This was considered an insane amount of | memory back then. Remember, Windows 95's target machine was a | 4MB 386SX and a powerful machine had 16MB. | ttgurney wrote: | Yes, I wrote GB but meant MB. (I suppose because the former | is more common nowadays.) | agumonkey wrote: | Thanks for whoever keeps on working on this. My serotonine levels | are increasing just by reading. | [deleted] | srvmshr wrote: | Is tiny-core linux open source? I would like to see their package | selection configuration. Small distributions are a ideal case | study for grokking the internals. | shakna wrote: | > Is tiny-core linux open source? | | It's GPL, so... Yes. Their git repositories are currently here. | [0] | | > I would like to see their package selection configuration. | Small distributions are a ideal case study for grokking the | internals. | | The "TCZ" packaging system works by mounting applications via | squashfs images, that then act as overlays. [1] | | [0] https://github.com/tinycorelinux | | [1] http://tinycorelinux.net/arch_copymode.html | NickRandom wrote: | Short answer is 'Yes?' although finding the answer was a lot | more difficult than I thought given the many broken links on | the TCL site. As usual - Wikipedia provides the following "Tiny | Core Linux is free and open-source software licensed under the | GNU General Public License version 2.[4]" although the [4] link | to the FAQ doesn't provide that detail hence the 'yes?' reply. | szundi wrote: | In 1997 I only had 12MB of RAM and was pretty happy | leeoniya wrote: | most people were happy with a 640x480 60hz interlaced CRT | display, too. | forinti wrote: | I had 64MB and was very happy. I still have the machine, but it | now has a whopping 80MB and I'm certainly trying this distro. | bachmeier wrote: | > Ubuntu can barely run with 2 GB of RAM | | That's probably if you're running Gnome. I've found that Ubuntu | is pretty fast on very old (> 10 years old) equipment if you use | i3wm or Openbox. AFAICT the only reason old hardware is a problem | with recent distros is graphics. Lighter desktops don't make the | same demands. I bought a cheap Dell laptop in 2018 for $300. It | came with Windows 10, but there's honestly no way to use it. A | default Ubuntu install is no better. Installed Openbox and it | flies. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-04 23:00 UTC)