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.
That should run blazingly fast on my 100 Mhz pc. It currently just displays "operating system not found" upon boot up.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
whoever said you need alot of computing power for a server is wrong
sorry that was me, let the beatings begin
Shouldn't someone host a mirror in case we slashdot IBM? =)
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
There are several small distros designed to run on older hardware. Some, like tomsrtbt and coyote can run directly from a floppy, with no need for even a hard drive. Many of these started life as glorified rescue disks, but with the modular nature of Linux, it's possible, for example, to run a working mail-server on an old 386 with them.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
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?
Great! but as tiny linuxes go, ramf has support for Reiserfs, and a lot of people I know rely on tomsrtbt . Almost all of the information in the IBM page submitted here is already available, but it's really nice to see IBM providing a stable home for this type of information -- while the original linux from scratch server flounders (was it those big bandwidth bills from being /.ed did it in?) and the first cool rescue thing I used, cclinux, has all but disappeared. sigh!
So thanks, IBM. This time.
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
A lot of the thanks should go to the work by uClibs and Busybox maintainers. Trimming the kernel is important, but the big savings in size is indeed the small footprint of the C libraries and the "combined" busybox binary.
How much space saving? Well, at my work, we initially prototyped some programs that ended up at around 1 MByte, statically linked to glibc. The same program was 120K after statically linking to uclibc, and then 35K after dynamic linking to uclibc.
I know there's various individual efforts out there to re-build Debian around uclibc. Imagine being able to put a full-featured Debian package on a business-card-sized mini-CD's that you can always keep in your wallet!
Real sys admins use a command line anyway (JOKE).
:)
IMHO It's not such a bad joke to run a machine command-line-only for a while, or permanently. The greatest service you can do to your general knowledge of all things computing, is use a broad range of machines/interfaces outside your common experience. When I started with linux, I just accepted it was mostly commandline stuff (that was a year ago) - and for my uses, it mostly still is. I've run PCs, Macs, Linux from only a command line, Linux with a GUI, Amigas, Dos, Windows, Netware - a bit of everything.
Jump into the command line-only thing for a while. run something lightweight on a 486 and enjoy the learning experience
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.
Here's what you need, straight from the source:
* 386 processor
* 16MB RAM
* 50 megabytes of hard disk space
* 3.5" floppy drive
By the way, that's not the requirements for an old version... That's for version 8.1 with the 2.4.18 kernel... Have fun.
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.
Hey, all, just to put this in context, I've been collecting some very old Itronix Mil-Spec laptops recently (one survived being thrown full-strength by me, a 285 pound ex-marine, from seven feet onto worn-out carpet over plywood, and booted up no problem) because I have a fetish for such things. Let's just say I have a thing for durability. The only problem is, the laptops have a "full environmental seal" which means no cd-rom, no internal floppy, no usb ports, etc. They only have a parallel and serial port, a phone jack, and a PCMCIA port protected with a cast aluminum door and a gasket. My weaker ones have eight MB of ram each and are only 486DX2-50's, with a 260MB HDD. My three stronger ones are Pentium 133's with 32MB of ram each, and about a 1.3 GB disk, with monochrome LCDs. Only one has color, but that one's just a 640x480 LCD. I wanted to run Linux, and not some quirky, doofy ancient Linux either. Here's how I got it to work.
/dev/sda4, i.e. the zipdisk). Zipslack booted with only minor difficulties -- I had to tweak a couple of BIOS settings, that's all.
/dev/hda1"
/mnt/hd.
/bin /mnt/hd/bin". Of course, I didn't copy /mnt or /proc. For those, I just mkdir'ed them in the new directory. Once I was satisfied that the entire zipslack system was copied over to the new partition, I edited /mnt/hd/etc/fstab and set up the "/" partition as /dev/hda1 (and set up swap as well, although I wasn't sure I had to do that). Then, I rebooted using the boot disk.
/dev/hda1. I booted into my hard drive's Linux, and ran liloconfig to set up automatic booting with LILO. I ran it in expert mode, and set up only one entry, i.e. that for Linux. Then I set it up to automatically boot into that entry with no delay.
;P
Step 1. I have an external floppy that connects to the PCMCIA slot, and a parallel port zipdrive. So, I downloaded Zipslack (available on the Slackware website) and the companion, fourmeg.zip, which creates a swap file. Zipslack is interesting because it creates a UMSDOS slackware installation on a zipdisk (just unzip it to the zipdisk). This can then be booted from the zipslack boot floppy (boot from the boot floppy, then direct root at
2. Once in Zipslack, I had to set up the Itronix's hard disks for Linux. So, first, I fdisked, and set up most of each disk as a type 83 Linux partition, and the rest as a type 82 Linux swap. I probably gave too much swap; I took a guess for the "big" ones and made it like 88 cylinders; I think it turned out to be better than 128MB (I made it a LOT smaller on my little ones). Next, I formatted the disk: I ran the command:
"mke2fs -L armadillo -c -c -j
This surprised me a little, pleasantly: I knew the two "-c" params would cause it to overwrite the disk with nulls, but it did it FOUR TIMES, which is pretty damn thorough. Once that finished up (it took at least an hour on my old machines) I mounted the disk as type "ext3" on
3. Now, I copied my entire root directory onto the mount point, leaving out the loadlin stuff and files that were obviously DOS related (like the DOS mount directory). I copied each directory using (for example) "cp -a
4. This time, I pointed the root directory at
The result is that my little Linux machines all work perfectly!
On my "big" ones, I put a bunch more stuff in. I put in the development disk set, plus x, xap, most of n, and this coming week I'm adding kde and gnome. On my "little" ones, I've only got 260MB of space, so I'm going to stick with text-mode. I'm toying with the idea of using emacs as an environment for those, IF the e set will fit on 'em of course.
The most expensive of these laptops was 150.00. The cheapest was 25.00. Zipslack was free. Now, is that a great deal or what? Especially considering they're like indestructible little armadillo monsters, right?
Oh, by the way: I'm using Zipslack 8.1 and I'll probably upgrade to 9.0 when it comes out. Gotta love Slackware! Bob RULES!
BTW: my grammar isn't so hot today. It's the Marine Corps Birthday (10 Nov) and the "Marine Corps Drink" is the Rum and Coke, so cut me some slack there (ha! get it? SLACK! I slay me)...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I just don't see how it is feasible to leave dozens of tiny utilities littered all over the root filesystem.
/bin/busybox "command" [optional flags] or you can symlink/hardlink it to [command] and run it like the ordinary command.
/bin, not much added elegance.
Busybox works two ways, either
If you do it the first way, busybox "command" you'd have to type the extra letters all the time. You can alias it, but then you'd have to have a support issue with all the users unless you had universal aliases, and thats not optimal.
If you do it the second way, with the symlinks or hardlinks, you still have all the things in
The code in busybox gets complicated. The added elegance in the file system becomes complications in the source code. Any updates to any of the "functions" as busybox calls them, requires an update to essentially all your userland utilities (as expressed in busybox). Lots of updates, lots of testing, because now any change to anytihng in busybox requires you to test everything, because a change in the ls "function" is in the same code that contains your mount command, and your cat, and your rm, etc., and now you need to test all of those as well.
Shared code can go into libraries. That's why libc is usually dynamically linked, shared code should be shared. You get your elegance with asmall executable with much of it's guts in shared libraries. Elegance here causes ugliness there. You pick your battles, you do things the way you want to. That said, busybox is opensource, and all of the gnu utilities are opensource as well. I don't think the busybox folks would mind patches from you or any others that share the view. I personally don't agree, my "elegance" is in smaller utilities with well defined functions, and I would not contribute.
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/
I see a lot of positive comments about uClibc and it may work great for you but uClibc has a few sticky points. There are current issues with scanf, floating point format strings with printf, strcol, i18n support (e.g. iconv), some networking stuff, no threads, etc. This is great if you're building little commandline utilities like busybox but don't expect to be able to run something like a Java VM.
33Mhz, 32Mb and a 250mb HD for my debian web server.
I recently installed Debian on a similar but lower-memory system (8MB) as a web server (yes, I am going to add more memory soon). Aside from a memory-intensive stage where apt-get was merging some package data, it went smoothly but slowly.
The reason I mention this is that I've seen posts where people say they installed a small linux system on a computer with 4mb of memory "a while ago", and posts where someone has recently installed a small linux system on a computer with 16mb of memory or so, but no mention of really low-memory systems. So I figure that I should mention that a reasonably up-to-date distro (Debian) does install on 8mb, though it'll get ugly at one point if you don't have more like 16mb. Also, perhaps the 4mb Laptop How-To is worth mentioning at this point.
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.