Slashdot Mirror
Lightest of the Light Linux
An anonymous submitter writes: "This looks kind of interesting for those
who want to run a feather weight Linux on really old hardware."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I run a light version of linux on my Compaq Ipaq and I think it's great. I can't wait until it becomes good enough to go into pda's full scale and replace proprietary OS's like palm.
33Mhz, 32Mb and a 250mb HD for my debian web server. It's served about 320mb in 24 hours (across a slow-arsed outbound link unfortunately) not long ago and took things in its stride. RAM usage hovers between 8 and 15mb.
:).
Of course, I do go and post links to it here don't I
whoever said you need alot of computing power for a server is wrong
That's a pretty broad generalization to make. You may not need a lot of computing power for a 10 user file server (and anyone who says you do is a total moron) but there are applications for which you do need a lot of power.
I see the mods fell for your troll though.
I'm currently going for a FreeBSD install on an older machine because it has an easy network-bootstrap install.
I did shoehorn Win98 onto a 486/66 for my burglar alarm, but it's not a pretty sight.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Can someone with more knowledge give me some more info on the differences between DietLibC and uclibc? As in how much I save in binary size for both of them. Problems (something like it wont support translations is a big thing) such as feature Y wont work. Can I compile Gnome or KDE with them? I read the FAQ and both seem wonderfull and I really don't see why someone _wouldn't_ want to use them. So why wouldn't I want to use them?
-Benjamin Meyer
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
Once I had a happy linux on a 386SX-16MHz very old laptop, without any working hard disc. :)
The floppy was enough to boot it, 4 Megs RAM is perfect for a small kernel, some shells and telnets, everything else (even the swap) comes through PLIP on the printer port.
It was much funnier than my VT420 terminal
Debian is already lightweight. Install the base system and whatever drivers you need. Don't select anything in dselect, and you're done; installs in under 10 megs.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
1) Using a light linux distro on a really fast machine just makes it seem that much faster. There's no need to try to find some old and slow machine to take advantage of a fast and light distro.
2) The versatility of Linux is really inspiring. We have everything from floppy distros, and game machines to Gnome, KDE and Lycoris all using variations of the same kernel. I, for one, think that's pretty cool.
Gentoo may be another option due to its liteness upon default install. Everything and I mean everything must be configured and installed via "emerge x". This is also the downside. IF you have a slow 386 and a 28. modem for an internet connection you can expect s several day installation.
NetBSD seems popular with many users with old machines like ancient macs. It may be more minimalist but I have never used it. Perhaps someone who has could care to comment. I like FreeBSD because of the excellent book that comes with the box set which will be helpfull since you will not have any of the gui point and click utilities like anaconda and yast2 to setup your 386.
I like Linux myself because I am use to the SYSV init. I do not wish to start a flameware but FreeBSD is great for minimal installs and come with the best console documentation. It has its uses and if your use standard free software like sambe or apache, then a *BSD variant or Linux one wont matter.
http://saveie6.com/
It took a lot of searching and a few false starts, but I finally got Linux going on my old laptop a few years ago. I guess I did it mostly for the challenge.
Specs:
386sx @ 16Mhz
5 Megs RAM (subtract a bit for BIOS shadowing...)
240MB HDD (half DOS, half Linux ext2)
No PCMCIA, Ethernet, or IR ports.
Currently boots MS-DOS/Win3.1 and then uses LoadLinux.
Installed: Perl, GCC tool chain, vi, and just barely enough of everything else to get by.
I tried FreeBSD first -- that's what I normally run on my Unix boxes. However, while it can run on 5MB, it is a real challenge to get it installed with only 5MB -- the installer needs 8MB, and with no swap partition set up, it can only use RAM.
I came to the conclusion that the main problem with running a nice OS on not-so-nice hardware is getting a swap partition set up. Once Linux and FreeBSD have a little virtual memory to use, they can get by on just 4MB. But until the swap partition is mounted, everything has to squeeze into that 4MB, and it simply doesn't work.
I tried a few other distros before I finally found something that worked. It was called "ZipHam Linux." It was a derivative of Slackware running 2.0.38, and specialized for HAM radio enthusiasts. Once I had a swap partition set up, I could actually do stuff. I transferred packages via MS-DOS's InterLnk (parallel cable) and upgraded to the latest kernel I thought would work.
Recompiling the kernel on a 386sx with 4MB of RAM is an exercise in patience. I think it took about 23 hours. But it compiled! Yay. And booted.
About a year later, I graduated from college, got a better job, and bought a more reasonable laptop. As a result, the old one doesn't see much use anymore. But I still think it is pretty cool. And since it is actually the only Linux box in the house (1 FreeBSD box, and I run Linux under Bochs occasionally, but no other hardware dedicated to Linux), I sometimes fire it up just for kicks.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.