Slashdot Mirror


Damn Small Linux Not So Small

An anonymous reader writes "According to DistroWatch, Damn Small Linux (DSL) is currently the most popular microLinux distribution. Linux.com (Also owned by VA) takes a look at why this might be the case, and how you can best take advantage of it. From the article: 'What began as a toy project to stuff the maximum software inside a 50MB ISO file has matured into a refined community project known for its speed and versatility. DSL includes the ultra-lightweight FluxBox window manager, two Web browsers, Slypheed email client and news reader, xpdf PDF viewer, XMMS with MPEG media file support for playing audio and video, BashBurn CD burner, XPaint image editing, VNCViewer and rdesktop to control Windows and Linux desktops remotely, and more. If they could do all this in 50 megs, imagine what they could do in more space. Last month the DSL developers released DSL-Not, a.k.a. DSL-N 0.1 RC1. It's 83.5MB of DSL coated with GTK sugar. Yummy!'"

222 comments

  1. Awesome by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite the increasing size, DSL is still an awesome tool. It manages to pack almost as much coolness as Knoppix (less cohesive, 'cause it's not all KDE, but most of the functionality is still there in discrete applications) in a much smaller size that is more convenient to download when you need a quick but useful bootable Linux disc.

    Kudos to the developers, keep up the good work!

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this have to do with my comment? AntDude didn't post the original story, nor any comments attached to it. Are you just spamming? --ThinkingInBinary

    2. Re:Awesome by LocalH · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

      --
      FC Closer
    3. Re:Awesome by jrmcferren · · Score: 1

      Considering that it only takes about an hour on the slowest DSL connections, I still consider it small. I downloaded Knoppix (CD version) with a 512k connection and it took five hours. With cable even 100 meg would be damn small.

      --
      sudo mod me up
  2. Begun, by giorgiofr · · Score: 3, Funny

    the bloat war has.
    (bloat war/bloatware? get it? get it?! ah I am teh funny :D)

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
    1. Re:Begun, by scenestar · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are going to die alone.

      --
      perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    2. Re:Begun, by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      They kept teh funny proprietary. (Go read latest ELER if you don't understand)

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  3. No Firefox ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


    just give me Firefox, a net connection and leave the rest to extensions

    1. Re:No Firefox ? by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Informative

      The DSL I have has Firefox.

      And though it I had the introduction to the excellent Scheme In A Grid

      DSL recently had a "Donate a Dollar" fundraising drive. I don't know how much money they made but I gave them a $. Who says you can't make monet from free software !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:No Firefox ? by paulthomas · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nah, just give me emacs.

    3. Re:No Firefox ? by stjobe · · Score: 5, Funny
      Nah, just give me emacs.


      But then it wouldn't be Damn Small, now would it? ;)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    4. Re:No Firefox ? by zbyte64 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Its not a matter of can you make money from free software its more a matter of can you make a killer proffit. Remember, in a capitalist society, people are driven to maximize their profit. If open sourcing their product means a 5% reduction in profit, it probably won't happen. Anyhow, there's my offtopic post of the day.

    5. Re:No Firefox ? by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      They're not trying to make money, they're just trying to cover their losses. IIRC correctly DSL is non-commercial.

    6. Re:No Firefox ? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Who says you can't make monet from free software !"

      Well.. I suppose the GIMP's good enough these days to create a monet, but you'd stil be far better off springing for Photoshop.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:No Firefox ? by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      I think Nano would be a better fit for Damn Small Linux, wouldn't it?

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    8. Re:No Firefox ? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 0

      Nah, just give me emacs
      You'd have a nice OS there, but you're lacking a good text editor :P
      (I stole that joke, fyi)

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    9. Re:No Firefox ? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Typically, the joke is that all you need is emacs and you're set, but I guess Firefox is the new emacs. What's the new vi then?

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    10. Re:No Firefox ? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      emacs is the new vi.

  4. Sylpheed is an awesome email client by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sylpheed is pretty nice. Back when I used GNOME, I tried it as my email client. Really nice, great performance on large folders. (Now I use mutt.)

  5. Not that big Linux by zaphod_es · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > If they could do all this in 50 megs, imagine what they could do in more space.

    The OP seems to have missed the whole point of DSL. There are plenty of other choices of distro if you take away the size limit.

    1. Re:Not that big Linux by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The OP seems to have missed the whole point of DSL. There are plenty of other choices of distro if you take away the size limit.

      I think what they meant was, "imagine what it would be like to have a distro that wasn't full of bloat."

      You may now begin telling us how #insert_your_favourite_distro_here# is bloat free. :-)

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    2. Re:Not that big Linux by k33l0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem is that the more features (ie. bloat) you lose the smaller your potential userbase becomes. One man's feature is another man's bloat... You could have a distro with only the things one person wants but then someone else might see it as lacking in some essential area...

      That's one of the reasons why all modern OSes are so large, they all strive to attract as wide a userbase as possible. They want to appeal to EVERYONE.

    3. Re:Not that big Linux by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is there something significant about the 50 meg limit, such as the capacity of those business-card size CDs? Or is it just a nice round number?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    4. Re:Not that big Linux by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 4, Informative

      50 megs is a tad arbitrary. I think that 200~ish would be a better number, as it can fit on mini-CDs (yeah I know business card CDs are 50 megs, but I've never even SEEN one before, whereas I find that mini-CDs are small and handy) and it can fit on cheap 256mb flash drives. I'm not advocating bloat, but if there has to be a hard limit I think 50mb is a tad small. I think that the number of people who use mini CD-Rs or 256+ MB flash drives outnumber the people who use business card CD-Rs or 64 MB flash drives by quite a bit. In a 50 MB setup, extrmely useful apps like the OpenOffice.org suite (I say its "extremely useful" more for its compatibility with MS Office than anything else) will never be included by default. With 200+ megs to play with, suddenly OO.o seems like a very natural inclusion. Yes, I know there's an OO.o DSL package; I just think that there should be a default default distro in the 200~ MB range where it (and other useful-but-somewhat-big apps) is included by default.

    5. Re:Not that big Linux by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1
      You could have a distro with only the things one person wants but then someone else might see it as lacking in some essential area..


      I thought that was the entire premise behind the idea of multiple distros.
      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    6. Re:Not that big Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another problem is that many of these apps have a teeny feature that links against a medium size library that links against a huge library.. so because you wanted to add feature X, you've now increased the required support base 100MB. As much as I love open source and what it enables, corporate funded projects are often better focused (not saying there aren't focused OSS projects). I hate having to recompile everything without some of the extras, and even then, sometimes there are still features you can't turn off or required libraries you shouldn't need. So because some guy sitting at home after a couple of beers thought that it would be neat if your bashrc could be all in XML or something, he added in a piece of code that now requires all those libraries. While that particular example -probably- doesn't exist, you get my point. Corporate funded projects don't usually have leeway for extracurricular wild hares/hairs.

    7. Re:Not that big Linux by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The wonderful thing about Linux is that all you need to have for that to happen is a friend who knows how to assemble it. All you'd have to do is get OO.o, DSL, FF, and any other packages you want, and stick them behind an installer. Unlike OS X or Windows, where you have to sort of hope Apple/MS release something you like.

    8. Re:Not that big Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen a business card CD before (well, just one), you might want it to carry around in your wallet just in case, whereas a mini CD wouldn't fit.

      If you don't like the default size why not remaster your own version, I'm sure there are apps to make this easy for you, if not, you could take a look at SLAX which aims to be around the 200 MB mark. I don't see why DSL should change just because you don't agree with their aims.

    9. Re:Not that big Linux by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      You must be using gentoo...

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    10. Re:Not that big Linux by sid77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hi, the problem is not only which size fits better for a livecd. Surely with 200~MB of livecd it would be plenty of intersting apps but keep in mind that as it is today it can be completely loaded into 128MB of ram which can be reasonably found in older hw and this task will be impossible for a bigger cd. ciao

    11. Re:Not that big Linux by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Slackware dropped gnome. That's a big step in the right direction! Now if only Pat would drop emacs it would fit on one disc again...

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    12. Re:Not that big Linux by badfish99 · · Score: 1
      ... corporate funded projects are often better focused ... Corporate funded projects don't usually have leeway for extracurricular wild hares/hairs.

      As examples of this, you could have quoted Microsoft Office, which fits on two floppies, or Java, which is only a 100K download ...
      oh, wait...

    13. Re:Not that big Linux by badfish99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I tried carrying a business-card CD of DSL round in my pocket. After a few days, it snapped in two. They are evidently quite fragile. I keep my credit cards in the same wallet and they have never come to any harm.

    14. Re:Not that big Linux by Reverend528 · · Score: 4, Funny
      50 megs is a tad arbitrary. I think that 200~ish would be a better number,

      Plus, with the extra 150 megs, they could ship EMACS.

    15. Re:Not that big Linux by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      I've kept one or tw business card distros in my wallet for months at a time without problems (either Damn Small Linux or Bootable Business Card Linux)
      The first time I did it, I did shatter the card.
      After that, I kept them in the billfold area between a couple of other cards and never had any trouble.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    16. Re:Not that big Linux by Sathias · · Score: 1

      One man's feature is another man's bloat...

      Exactly... XGL is "sexy", Aero Glass is "bloat"

      --
      Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
    17. Re:Not that big Linux by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Emacs isn't that bad. It starts a hell of a lot faster on my machines than Firefox does. OpenOffice is now the king of slow startup and bloat.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    18. Re:Not that big Linux by niteice · · Score: 1

      Is there something significant about the 50 meg limit, such as the capacity of those business-card size CDs?

      You just answered your own question.

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    19. Re:Not that big Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thus "often" and not always.

      and to the gentoo guy- actually, redhat- but it's not the distrobutions fault. Try building some of these things by hand, the dependency chains are often nearly endless- each thing requiring at least 2 other things.

    20. Re:Not that big Linux by solafide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The advantage of being so 50 megs is that it takes only a quarter as many days for a dialup user to download it. Between DSL and Slax being as small as they are, I tried Linux and found it pleasant. Had it taken more than 2 days to download each, I'd have not done it.

    21. Re:Not that big Linux by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you could use Linux From Scratch or Gentoo to simply compile and install anything you want exactly how you want to have it. Or you could install a Linux distribution in terminal-only "server" mode and then add from there with binary distributions that don't just dump a standard set of stuff upon install. Everybody is never going to be 100% pleased with any certain distribution's default setup because people have different needs. But the ability to pick and choose not only packages and programs but entire distributions is really Linux's strength. If somebody doesn't like Mandriva's setup but likes Slackware's, then they install Slack because it fits them and it works for them. At least we Linux users get the opportunity to choose the setup, default packages, and distribution of the OS we run. So the moral of the story is if you're the Slack user before, sure, say how and why you like Slack but DON'T go start a flamewar on /. about how Mandriva sucks because as long as a distribution is still being made, it must work for somebody and be their right tool for the job. If there was only one distro, that would literally make Linux just another Windows or MacOS X take-it-or-leave-it OS.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    22. Re:Not that big Linux by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I think the argument regarding your little peeve there is that XGL's hardware requirements are far cheaper for a similar if not better effect than Aero's.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    23. Re:Not that big Linux by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 1

      50 megs is a tad arbitrary. I think that 200~ish would be a better number...

      I have DSL in my pocket right now. I didn't even realise it was there until I thought about it. The reason? It's on a business-card CD. In my wallet. Very, very convenient.

      If I have my bag with me or I'm at home or work, I often have access to INSERT or Knoppix or something similar. But if I'm out and I get that penguin itch I can just reach into my pocket and voila, instant Linux boot on someone's machine.

      I'm quite thankful there is a distribution that I can slip into my wallet.

    24. Re:Not that big Linux by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

      OpenOffice is now the king of slow startup and bloat.

      Yeah, but at least OO.o has a text editor!

    25. Re:Not that big Linux by nixnutz · · Score: 1

      Dude, "that penguin itch"? I think you may have a problem. This sounds like a cry for help on the order of stealing bottles of mouthwash from Safeway at 6AM. Look for a meeting in your area, I think there's one in the snack food aisle of Fry's.

    26. Re:Not that big Linux by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, "that penguin itch"? I think you may have a problem.

      I can quit any time I want to. *clutches DSL business card CD and looks around nervously*

    27. Re:Not that big Linux by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Did I? Only if you're the kind of smartass who, when asked if you would like tea or coffee, answers "yes".

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    28. Re:Not that big Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those wanting a easily customizable distro that will fit on a mini-cd with only a 192MB ISO, there is SLAX with KDE 3.5, the KDE Office suite, MPlayer, etc. There is even a 112MB version with XFCE instead of KDE. Based on Slackware

      http://slax.org/

    29. Re:Not that big Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 200~ish distro of choice should be SLAX http://www.slax.org/, fast and small, based on Slackware. Just add/remove modules as you desire. Create your own modules if you can't find what you need.

    30. Re:Not that big Linux by click2005 · · Score: 1

      sinclair:~# apt-get install bloat
      Reading Package Lists... Done
      Building Dependency Tree... Done
      E: Couldn't find package bloat

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  6. I use it all the time by mr_stinky_britches · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and I must say, for desktop use, when you need linux real quick or want to boot off a CF card or USB drive, this will do the job just about every time :)

    --
    Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
  7. I would guess at two reasons for the numbers by ahfoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, for people who just need a quick formatting tool, it's good enough with the MyDSL extensions making it nice and simple to use for a lot of USB boot type applications.

    Second I have found many non Linux users who think DSL sounds like a good way to start because they're so sick of bloat. Could be that a lot of them download it just to see what it's like. This second reason is probably somewhat unfortunate since DSL can be a bit frustrating for someone unfamiliar with FOSS distros.

    I used to have some machines using DSL, but I found that Knoppix with fluxbox just made it so much simpler.

    1. Re:I would guess at two reasons for the numbers by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or to save a lot of space? I recall reading an article about making a cheap file server. It basically consisted of 4 x 250GB HDDs in a case with some crappy Sempron. They used a cheap $10 USB stick with DSL to run it, and only connected a borrowed monitor and keyboard to set up Samba and the networking. Otherwise, they'd have had to use space on the disks, or trade one disc out for a CD-ROM to run and boot CD.

    2. Re:I would guess at two reasons for the numbers by Firehed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's also stuff out there like FreeNAS, which fits on a 16MB USB key or CF card. Now my experience is that FreeNAS was slow as hell, but I'm inclined to blame that on network drivers. Also, it's technically FreeBSD-based (and derived from m0n0wall, I think). Unfortunately I don't know enough about *nix to do a command-line driver update and even if I did, I don't know whether I'd have enough space to do so - maybe this is easier with DSL. As it is, I'm forced to keep using the horrible Windows filesharing stuff.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:I would guess at two reasons for the numbers by MrNougat · · Score: 2, Informative

      DSL is definitely not for novices. I am running DSL on an old Dell laptop right now, installed because this machine will only barely run Win2K. I've got plenty of MS experience, and a general knack apart from that. DSL was difficult to deal with, particularly on the audio and WLAN fronts. If you're an existing Linux user, or willing to get dirty learning it, rock on with DSL. If you're just a Windows user (not an admin), you'd be better off with a more full-featured distribution.

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    4. Re:I would guess at two reasons for the numbers by colmore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At 50 megs, even on 6 or 7 year old hardware, it fits on a RAMdisk.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    5. Re:I would guess at two reasons for the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I started using Linux I was sick of the inefficiency and bloat of W95. At the time Linux seemed to offer a bare metal easily customisible OS with the added bonus of UN*X's functionality. Today's distros have gotten huge and while I appreciate the functionality on my main machine, on older/cheaper/student level equipment most leading distros are sluggish and some verging on unuseable. Don't use vi if sed will do ...

  8. Thumbdrive by daranz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally, I carry it around on a thumbdrive... with qemu-win. It serves no purpose besides lauching it on people's computers and telling them "Look, it's Linux under your Windows!" Best thing is, I still fit plenty of other crap on the same, 1GB drive.

    --
    This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
    1. Re:Thumbdrive by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      I tried Slackware on my thumbdrive, but I could never get it to boot, the tutorial I used did cover replacing the boot sector, but the replacement boot sector could never find the operating system.

      I then caved in and tried BartPE. I had similar problems with that, but I finally got it to work using a third-party tool.

      Now I can boot from a thumb drive, which is pretty neat.

      This brings up my main reason I don't use Linux though... it's near impossible to install on this computer without wiping my hard drive and starting from scratch. I can't find any tool to resize NTFS partitions (even the commercial Partition Magic fails to do it and has to roll back after about 3%), and that's all I have on my hard drives.

    2. Re:Thumbdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, I really like the QEMU option. It is especially comforting to Windows users weary (for good reason, Sony...) about booting or running anything from CD they don't understand.

      Also, when booting from any device is impossible, and you just gotta have your Linux, this makes a great option.

      I've never tried the combo of QEMU and DSL, but I just did, and I'm making this post from within Linux running on top of WinXP. In fact, I'd never used QEMU before. It's the itch I didn't know I wanted to scratch until I tried it.

      It's a bit slow, obviously, but it definately gets the job done and done well. I can't count the number of times I wanted to use a Linux app or CLI while in Windows and didn't want to have to reboot.

      The FOSS community continues to amaze me at least once every month.

    3. Re:Thumbdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Umm... no tool for NTFS resizing, you say? How about the cryptically named ntfsresize(8)? Its author claims it does its job better than Partition Magic or any other commercial or non-commercial tool (ie. it is allegedly the best there is) and it is supported by parted(8).

    4. Re:Thumbdrive by grimJester · · Score: 1

      Its author claims it does its job better than Partition Magic or any other commercial or non-commercial tool

      Sounds a lot less convincing than

      it is allegedly the best there is

      I don't doubt it works, but there are lots of people who claim their product is the best...

    5. Re:Thumbdrive by heson · · Score: 1

      I suggest co-linux instead.

    6. Re:Thumbdrive by KURAAKU+Deibiddo · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at the 6.06 release of Ubuntu (or Kubuntu, etc.)? It offers the choice of resizing an existing partition prior to installing.

      I've already gotten a few friends using Ubuntu or Kubuntu and they've prefered it to Windows, especially after having time to get used to the switch.

  9. Good, but not perfect... Knoppix is a pain by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've played with Damn Small Linux, but anymore I pretty much just take the time to roll my own LinuxFromScratch.

    DSL is a nice demo, but the Knoppix structure makes it a real pain to customize.* Say you want a different version of Perl or Xorg, or want to modify the bootloader and kernel to display a full screen banner image/logo, it's a whole heck of a lot of work to rip out the original components and replace them with your own. Rolling your own distro from scratch only requires a bit more work, and you have better control and a better understanding of what's going on.

    * If any DSL experts have advice on how to make these customizations easier, I might give it a try again.

    1. Re:Good, but not perfect... Knoppix is a pain by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a very real need for a quick and dirty distro. What you are describing is a situation where another distro would fit better.

      The problem isn't the tool. The problem is you trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:Good, but not perfect... Knoppix is a pain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is you trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

      More like try to fit one's penis into an electric socket.

    3. Re:Good, but not perfect... Knoppix is a pain by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 1

      Try ROCK Linux. It's designed to be a "Distribution Build Kit". The releases are quite out of date, but grab it from SVN to get current stuff.

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  10. DSL and DSL-N by aymanh · · Score: 5, Informative
    Last month the DSL developers released DSL-Not, a.k.a. DSL-N 0.1 RC1. It's 83.5MB of DSL coated with GTK sugar. Yummy!
    Actually, looks like DSL-N is more than just GTK sugar, from its web page, DSL-N features a modern kernel with more hardware support, in addition to more apps, like MPlayer, Gaim, and gFTP.

    It's also worth mentioning that the original DSL uses a lightweight GUI toolkit called FLTK and Lua for its tools, interesting!
    --
    python>>> q="'";s='q="%c";s=%c%s%c;print s%%(q,q,s,q)';print s%(q,q,s,q)
  11. Hardly a useful distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Misses some essential tools like pilot-link. If you can
    afford to carry a CD, might as well carry Knoppix.

    1. Re:Hardly a useful distro by AlgorithMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

      read again - Damn small linux fits on a business-card sized cd

      --
      The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  12. Damn Small Linux Not So Small... by idiotdevel · · Score: 0

    damn it!!

  13. It's popular because.. by SillySnake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It runs well on old hardware.. Plenty of us have old pentium 1/2 machines around that aren't doing a whole lot. Windows 98 keeps becoming a worse and worse option with viruses and now the lack of updates. It provides life for an old computer. I ran it for a period of time on a 166 when both of my other machines went down, and while it wasn't super fast, it did everything I needed it to. Plus, I didn't have to go through the trouble of finding a win 98 cd and a key. It's a neat idea, very portable, and has grown a lot as a distro since its early days.

    1. Re:It's popular because.. by suffe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I hate trying to boot up windows on those pesky pentium 0.5 things. Bogs down the entire setup. And to think they were all the rage before the Pentium and Pentium Pro came out.

      --

      Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
    2. Re:It's popular because.. by SillySnake · · Score: 1

      Ya know, I was just lookin back through to see if anyone replied and I read it as pentium 0.5 too :-/

    3. Re:It's popular because.. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You know, I think he meant a Pentium 0.49999999756463...

    4. Re:It's popular because.. by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

      I think that must've been the Pentium 60Mhz with the floating point bug. The joke back then was "Intel: Where quality is job 0.999999"

    5. Re:It's popular because.. by uglyduckling · · Score: 1
      It runs well on old hardware.. Plenty of us have old pentium 1/2 machines around that aren't doing a whole lot. Windows 98 keeps becoming a worse and worse option with viruses and now the lack of updates. It provides life for an old computer.

      I never understood the claim that DSL is a good way to breathe life into an old computer. I've run modern (grin!) Debian on a P75 then a P200 and just used dselect to prune out all of the packages I don't need. I can't see how DSL could improve on that, particularly given that the package management system isn't at all obvious, so I'm sure most users have lots of stuff installed that they really don't need.

  14. why I love linux by free+space · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had an old unused Pentium II machine running Windows 95. I reformatted the hard drive, installed DSLinux and used it as a file server/CVS repository. It had some glitches but essentially it's like having a new low end PC for free.

    I wonder if the DSL project can be forked to create a "Damn small server" project, so anyone can set it up on an old machine, enable some services, hide it in a corner, and use SSH/VNC to administer it.

    1. Re:why I love linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, go fork yourself. :)

    2. Re:why I love linux by foldingstock · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong, but would not a standard Debian installation or custom slackware installation serve this purpose, and work better?

    3. Re:why I love linux by free+space · · Score: 1
      Correct me if I am wrong, but would not a standard Debian installation or custom slackware installation serve this purpose, and work better?


      You're probably right :)

      I went straight to DSL without looking into other distros. The machine was really old and had only 64 megs of RAM and a small hard disk, so I thought I'd use the smallest possible distro. I tended to avoid customizing a mainstream distribution since I'm not a Linux expert ( my strength is programming) and thus wanted to avoid any manual customization.
    4. Re:why I love linux by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I wonder if the DSL project can be forked to create a "Damn small server" project, so anyone can set it up on an old machine, enable some services, hide it in a corner, and use SSH/VNC to administer it.

      Umm, that's pretty much what FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD are for. With a minimal install, all of them come in at less than 150MB, and that's with full-fledged versions of all the software, not minimally stripped versions.

      Now, besides that, there have been innumerable projects to make Flash-based ultra-tiny distros out of those 3 as well. Projects like emBSD (which is about 4+ years out of date).

      The only up-to-date OpenBSD minidistro I've been able to find is UnnamedBSD

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  15. Hope they keep the original intent and size by Super+Dave+Osbourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    down to 50 or less megs, even if the markets are driving the size of bloatware or there is actually a market for a phat DSL distro. One of the cool things about it is the size, not its functionality (other than it is fully functional for more than say 90% of the user's needs in the world). Its also a really cool little tool to install on used computers that folks are thinking of tossing away, or have tossed away. I have made inroads with folks using Linux as their major OS with DSL (for size) and Knoppix (for its ease of install and wonderful GUI experience). Bottomline, keep it small, fast and wonderful.

  16. yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway. by anal_assassin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway.

    1. Re:yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway. by damiam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fluxbox is a window manager. GTK is a UI toolkit. They don't even compete; you're comparing apples and oranges.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apples and oranges are both fruit. More like comparing apples and a drill press.

    3. Re:yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway. by 16777216 · · Score: 0

      Yes... but, they both hurt if you are hit in the head by one traveling at a high rate of speed.
      Granted the drill press would probably hurt you more.

      --
      I am. Lower your shields and power down your weapons, they are useless. Your biological and technological distinctivenes
    4. Re:yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway. by anal_assassin · · Score: 1

      The imagery is also a lot more funny. Umm, yeah, I was wrong about he gtk thing.. for some reason my brain had read gnome or something. Which I'll maintain is yuk. As is kde.

  17. missing the point? by thelost · · Score: 5, Funny

    "If they could do all this in 50 megs, imagine what they could do in more space."

    stop calling it Damn Small Linux for one.

    --
    Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    1. Re:missing the point? by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Modestly Small Linux?
      Somewhat Smallish Liunx?
      Could be Smaller Linux?

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    2. Re:missing the point? by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Love Handle Linux

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    3. Re:missing the point? by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Check mate! that's a pretty good one, has a nice sounding abbrevation too (LHL)

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
  18. If they could do all this in 50 megs, imagine what by bayuadri · · Score: 1
    If they could do all this in 50 megs, imagine what they could do in more space.
    in more space... I imagine they could start selling CDs just like RedHat.
  19. How the times change by r · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 50MB distro is called "damn small"? Damn. I remember when Slackware 1.x core came on a couple of floppy disks. And if you wanted a good text editor, you had to find one on Archie and get it yourself. But we were happy in those days. :)

    --

    My other car is a cons.

    1. Re:How the times change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      signed! I hate the mainstream bloat and lack of efficiency. mentioning old things just gets friends and family looking at me going "you won't last at all in IT" while knowing how to live with these things and tweak them is what always makes me stand out in a crunch. fools. 10 good years of IT and getting better but I wish programmers thought the same way and quit lib/API upgrade frenzy.

      ps: MY other car is a cdr!

    2. Re:How the times change by slide-rule · · Score: 3, Funny

      Moderation:

      +1: Respected elder

      -1: Up hill both ways...

    3. Re:How the times change by Spit · · Score: 1

      I ran Slack, then Debian on a 386 with 120MB hdd and you can keep those days as far as I'm concerned. I to build my own Vim packages without X just to trim 1MB from the install, with still not enough storage for X.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    4. Re:How the times change by AEton · · Score: 1

      My other car is first.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    5. Re:How the times change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want a floppy distro, try Tom's rtbt
      at http://www.toms.net/rb/

  20. ram drives and solid-state memory by Jtoxification · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that be fun! Set it up to load everything to gddr2 memory or one of those new-fangled solid-state drives! (err, the fast ones, anyway)

    --
    --I gots 99 problems but a new machine ain't one!
    AMD! Asus! Whoot! 6 years!
  21. Different *DSL sizes make sense by BigFootApe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not all DSL users stick to the CD based install. Some, I'm sure, switch to USB thumb drives for portable operation. A version of DSL designed to fit within 150 megs or so would be perfect for larger thumb drives.

  22. Size/ability tradeoff was always available by rbrander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I managed to get DSL working on a 256MB USB key. Then I installed their package for OpenOffice, which was 75MB all by itself. OK, my USB key is now 50% taken up by DSL+OO, and half empty for my files.

    Then I did nothing more than

    dd if=/dev/sda1 of=DSL_OO.image

    and stuck in other 256MB USB keys and did:

    dd if=DSL_OO.image of=/dev/sda1 ...to copy the memory key, DSL, OO, 128MB free personal disk space, and all.

    and was able to hand out $25 "thank you" tokens to speakers at our local Unix User Group (www.cuug.ab.ca) that consisted of a bootable USB Linux with full OpenOffice functionality. Ran fine on 256MB PCs with all software loaded into RAM - OO starts faster on these old machines than much faster ones that have to pull OO off the HD.

    In short, you could ALWAYS pump up DSL with a good selection of softare they've made available in packages. It only starts off at 50MB.

  23. Bloatware by Tim+Ward · · Score: 2

    50meg? - give me a break!!!

    Mate of mine was in charge of the resident software in one machine ... which had a 256 byte PROM, everything else needed to be loaded from the teletype.

    Every now and then he's spot an inefficiency in the software, remove an instruction, save three bytes ... and use the freed-up space to add four new features.

    They dont make 'em like that any more.

    1. Re:Bloatware by Mathiasdm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, that's nothing!

      In my days, we didn't have those fancy 'computer' thingies.

      We only had good old Turing Machines!

      Me and my 27 brothers would sit along an infinite line of paper for 27 hours a day, and we'd constantly move the pointer, change 1's into spaces and the other way around.
      Then, we barely had time to go home, get a spanking from hour father, rape our oldest sister and run back to work, where we had to arrive the day before!

      Ah yes, those Turing Machines. They don't make 'em like they used to!

      --
      Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
    2. Re:Bloatware by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Don't tell me - he once wrote an entire database using only zeros?

    3. Re:Bloatware by glwtta · · Score: 1
      Every now and then he's spot an inefficiency in the software, remove an instruction, save three bytes ... and use the freed-up space to add four new features.

      Pfft. I think to appreciate what a Real Programmer is, someone needs to hear the epic tale of Mel...

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:Bloatware by jthill · · Score: 1

      His name Mel?

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  24. Finnix: Obligatory self-promotion by fo0bar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just thought I'd do some shameless advertising and mention my distro, Finnix. It's a 100MB livecd that has no X, desktops, productivity tools, etc... but makes up for it by having a ton of sysadmin utilities, such as LVM detection and cryptsetup. It's basically the CD you carry around to help fix broken systems. There's also a PPC port, obviously can be booted from a thumb drive, as well as within Xen/UML virtualization systems.

    Finnix doesn't really compete with DSL, except for the "damn, this system is hosed, I don't have a recovery CD around, and I don't want to wait to download 700MB for something like Knoppix" crowd.

    1. Re:Finnix: Obligatory self-promotion by glwtta · · Score: 1
      Hey, thanks for that one! I've been through just about every single live CD out there - with more or less disappointing results - and recently finally found Finnix.

      It works great for my sysadminning needs, and doesn't have the extra fluff.

      (oh, except I had a problem with IDE ICH5 and SATA ICH7 support - no DMA can be really annoying when you are backing up a whole system)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Finnix: Obligatory self-promotion by fo0bar · · Score: 1
      (oh, except I had a problem with IDE ICH5 and SATA ICH7 support - no DMA can be really annoying when you are backing up a whole system)

      Do "finnix dma" at the boot prompt in 87.0; proper driver/DMA automatic loading will be in the upcoming 88.0 release. As for the SATA controller, I bet 87.0 didn't even probe it... 88.0 will, and will probe any PCI device that the kernel module knows about :)

      "Yeah... that fix is totally going to be in the next version"
  25. DFL by kybred · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should rename it Damn Fine Linux.

    1. Re:DFL by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      Sure, but then Minnesota Democrats will get confused. :-)

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  26. Slax? by lRem · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a good example what can be done within 192 mb what is the smallest practical size - the size of small CD. And the example: http://slax.org/ it is a microlinux with KDE and lot's of useful stuff, also modificable with some 800 packages ready to add.

    --
    Always put off dealing with time-wasting morons. If you would like to know how... I'll get back to you
    1. Re:Slax? by joe+155 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      slax is good, it runs really well on my newest laptop with 512MB of RAM and a 1.5GHz pentium M... what it will not even boot on is my oldest laptop with its 16MB of RAM and about 100MHz processor... DSL does work really well on my old laptop and thats why its still important, it keeps old laptops going

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    2. Re:Slax? by TrevorB · · Score: 1

      SLAX also has Slax: Frodo which fits on a 50MB iso.

      I haven't tried DSL, and I've been using Slackware since 1995, so I admit bias. But SLAX is just so beautiful and works so well... I'd highly reccomend it.

    3. Re:Slax? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I loved SLAX as a mini-liveCD. It just really annoyed the hell out of me when I tried to install it on a USB flashdrive (1G). I got it working, after a fashion, without too much trouble, but it was, after all, designed to be a liveCD, so making any sort of persistant changes was just a PITA. Same story with most of the others I've tried the same thing with. At this point, I've just given up. Maybe sometime when I've got more time than intentions, I'll try to make a distro from scratch. Although in all likelihood, someone else will have done so long before that, the way my time goes. :)

  27. Perfect for legacy hardware by rabid_sith · · Score: 2, Informative

    The box I play around on is an old i586, so most modern distros won't even get past boot. And if they do, they end up using most if not all of my memory, drive space, and usually a sizeable chunk of the swap as well. And what does DSL go and do? Uses about 30MB of memory, ~1GB of space on a full install, and boots up nice and fast.

    And it also lets me practice my machine gun skills in Quake II while I'm waiting for the rest of my party to show up from goodness-knows-where.

  28. What is up with DSL and Samba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like DSL and I've used it extensively, but I cannot deal with having to get online to connec to an on-line download server before having Samba. That just sucks. Sure, you can carry it on a thumb drive as an extension, but it would be so much easier if it was part of DSL.
              I was really disappointed after downloading DSL-N and finding out it still has this same disappointment.
              Now, please, somebody make a fool of me. Show me I'm wrong. Tell me there is a way to do a samba connect without downloading anything with DSL or DSL-N.

    1. Re:What is up with DSL and Samba? by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Tell me there is a way to do a samba connect without downloading anything with DSL or DSL-N.

      telnet [Windows Server] 135

      You might need to do quite a bit of typing.

  29. Hmm... by NoScreenNamesLeft · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should have a size limit. Or, possibly a basic distro with simply the basics and nothing more so you can just run Linux. Maybe they should go for the size of ClosedBSD - 1 floppy...

    --
    It is the owner that crashes the system. If you are enough of an idiot to put 50 background processes in Windows you sho
  30. Smoothwall. by twitter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I had an old unused Pentium II machine running Windows 95. I reformatted the hard drive, installed DSLinux and used it as a file server/CVS repository. It had some glitches but essentially it's like having a new low end PC for free.

    If you have a laptop, you have a computer you want to use for more than a server. DSL is just the right thing if you have low RAM. If you have 128 or more MB of RAM, just run Mepis or Debian Sarge.

    I wonder if the DSL project can be forked to create a "Damn small server" project, so anyone can set it up on an old machine, enable some services, hide it in a corner, and use SSH/VNC to administer it.

    Have you looked at Smoothwall yet?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Smoothwall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi - we were wondering if you were planning to reply to this soon. Thanks.

    2. Re:Smoothwall. by free+space · · Score: 1
      Have you looked at Smoothwall yet?


      I'm looking into it now, thanks for the lead :)
      I wonder, however, has anyone used it as a general server (apache+php, CVS..etc)? The site mainly talks about using Smoothwall as a firewall.
    3. Re:Smoothwall. by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      I've been using http://www.freesco.org/ many years ago.

      It ran from a 1.44MB disk on a computer with as little as 4 (or was it 8?) MB RAM and worked for years.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  31. DSL + eye candy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking of tossing in e17 on a personalised DSL miniCD. Go for the wow factor; I don't really use OO that much anyway.

    BTW their website also has DammSmall PCs.

    1. Re:DSL + eye candy? by desNotes · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a distro called Austrumi that is 50MB with e17 installed. I am using it as my main distro and it is nice and fast. Check it out...no I am not involved in the project personally. desNotes

      --
      "Saying that Linux is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferi
  32. Yes, how they change by Frenchman113 · · Score: 2, Informative

    50 MB is small in relative terms. Today, there are very few distros that even fit on one CD. Besides, as times change, so does the price of portable storage (and the capacity). I'm running DSL right now from a free 64 MB thumb drive. Of course, that means I don't have quite enough space for DSL-N, but oh well.

  33. I don't see the point by bytesex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From a usability point-of-view, I don't see the point in having this damn small linux, but maybe that's because I would see the use of this thing only in the perspective of an admin. You see, if I want big, I'll use knoppix, or kororaa; if we're talking about small (and fitted with a floppy drive), then 1.4 MB is the max. And you can still fit a linux kernel (albeit one customized for the hardware), a libc, a shell and some disk-tools on that. That's great for repairs, or bootstrapping your old 386 and using it for vi. From the point-of-view of hardware, I also have a difficulty understanding why this is usefull; the devices in question have to be fitted with CD- or floppy-drives, so we're talking PCs here; if a PC had 50 MB of diskspace (say, a 386 or a 486; they're not using compression, are they ?) then all this fancy-schmansy gtk stuff is just going to kill it. Any PC above that would have a CD drive that I could stick a fully loaded CD in. And any PC that could really play the gtk stuff well, would have to be post-pentium at least. So, other than 'because we can' I see no answers that a project like this provides.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:I don't see the point by TERdON · · Score: 1

      industrial computer (pentium 2-ish or better) + solid state hard drive (expensive if big, but reliable) + DSL is a possible future application at my company. We'd use them as human interface devices, if the operating system is small enough we don't have to use a hard drive => more reliable operation, but to keep the costs down the size of the solid state drive should be as small as possible.

      --
      I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
    2. Re:I don't see the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha - but can you run a full CD from RAM?
      With 50MB's, I can run the entire OS from 128MB (possibly even 64) RAM. No HD needed. Completely silent, great for repairing a busted HD and blazing fast.

  34. Damn small runs on Damn thin computers! by DoninIN · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was using DSL on a pentium II 350 mhz computer for the last few months and I loved it, that's the beauty of DSL, more so than the "small" in terms of size, the thing part is of huge usefulness! What's the street value of a PII 350? $0.5? Seriously, it's a free computer someone gave me when we installed new hardware at their location, I threw it in my graveyard, and for a while made it a DOS V6.x game box (it's back to that role now, I eventually got bored and bought a modern computer) but during its run of several months I've been web browsing on it from home and haven't had any problem running firefox.

  35. PuppyLinux with 2.6? by molarmass192 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DSL is nice, but it's got a 2.4 kernel, PuppyLinux (one bone) fits in 25M and gives you a 2.6 kernel with all the accompanying hardware support goodness. To me that makes DSL very 2003, it's playing catch up in my books.

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    1. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It has a 2.4 kernel because it still supports older hardware. 2.6 does not. It doesn't even support some not-so-old hardware that 2.4 did, as I've elarned from personal experience.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    2. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Red+Alastor · · Score: 3, Informative
      What I like about Puppy is that it can save back to its own CD/DVD. If you burn it on a DVD, you almost have a hard drive. And like DSL, you can install more stuff on it automatically.

      Oh and it can be installed to hard disk to give a new life to old computer.

      http://www.puppyos.com/

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    3. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by sketchman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Indeed.
      I have it running on the hd of a PII 350mhz machine with a joke of a video card and only 64mb ram, and it will fly. Takes no longer than a minute to boot. Win98SE, on the same PC, took 5-10 minutes just to get to the login screen.
      My only complaint, I repeat, my ONLY complaint with Puppy is that it refuses to detect my PCI card with USB 2.0 ports on it. So, I can't use my thumb drive, but I can live with that if it gets M$ out of my house.

      --
      "In a world that exists without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
    4. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Arker · · Score: 1

      It has a 2.4 kernel because it still supports older hardware. 2.6 does not. It doesn't even support some not-so-old hardware that 2.4 did, as I've elarned from personal experience.

      What hardware, specifically?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another bad thing about Puppy, which otherwise is fscking brilliant, is that it runs everything as root.

    6. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of modules have changed of name and you have to use another way to accomplish some things, but all the support for old hardware is there. Just google a little, I had to do it in order to get some stuff to work.

    7. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I have it running on the hd of a PII 350mhz machine with a joke of a video card and only 64mb ram, and it will fly. Takes no longer than a minute to boot. Win98SE, on the same PC, took 5-10 minutes just to get to the login screen."

      Really? Years ago, I had a P2 350 with 64 meg of RAM and Windows 98. (not Special Edition. If it has a 'boot slower' feature, I'd be interested to hear about it...) That didn't take 10 minutes to boot. Maybe 2, but nowhere near 10. If it did, I would have switched to NT far earlier than I did.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by binarybum · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      yeah I heard that cable is better than DSL.

      --
      ôó
    9. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      My 98 used to go from power button to booted in 38 seconds. That beats my current average of 52 for Ubuntu.

    10. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Ferretski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the article, DSL-N has a 2.6 kernel.

    11. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Captain+BooBoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I will google "puppy linux" to find out more about this one bone deal. I am a DSL user and I like it alot. I do have a hard time getting help though. Its the same old story. Linux people are not always the nicest people to get to help you. I say this is IMHO.

    12. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by rapidweather · · Score: 4, Informative

      I got my start remastering DSL, often winding up with 75 MB or so once I put Firefox, etc. in there.
      I then switched to Knoppix 3.4, using the 2.4 kernel to support older hardware as mentioned.
      Here is my Getting Started Guide, also have a technical blog here.
      There are some screenshots available there.
      One post that I need to draw your attention to is the one about "testcd" for Knoppix remasters. I did run into problems with some versions of DSL using isolinux, in that they would not boot on many of my older computers, due perhaps to the "testcd" problem. It is extremely important that any knoppix remaster pass that test, or there will be complaints concerning no-booting on boxes that used to run the distro flawlessly in an earlier syslinux version.
      For that reason, DSL often offers syslinux versions alongside isolinux versions.
      I don't feel that I have to, since I pass "testcd" 100%, and mine boots on all my older boxes, in addition to the newer P4 ones.
      One clue that I did take from DSL is to include lots of custom-made applications, found nowhere else. That makes a remaster different, and not just a re-arrangement of stock applications.
      I do have a bright yellow boot: command line against a black background, making it easy to enter long cheatcodes when trying out a new build. So many knoppix builds have a pale gray boot: command line with black background, very hard to see what you are doing!

      Also, see the main screenshots page link in my signature, below.

    13. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by G+Morgan · · Score: 1

      Can you not open a terminal and add a user.

    14. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      i'm going to say, as a slackware user, check the gentoo forums/irc channel for any linux help. In my experience the gentoo guys are the nicest when it comes to helping new users out.

    15. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by kobolt_115 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My Commodore 64 goes from power button to booted in 2 seconds, beat that!

    16. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Random+Destruction · · Score: 2, Funny

      My slide rule won't even shut off!

      --
      :x
    17. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by MrCopilot · · Score: 3, Informative
      From dsl N http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/dsl-n/f/viewtopic/3. html

      1. Kernel 2.6.11 and modules
      2. Mozilla Suite 1.7.12, browser,mail,irc,etc.
      3. Mplayer 3.3.5 audio and video
      4. Leafpad 0.7.9 editor/notepad
      5. Abiword 2.2.7 wordprocessor
      6. Gnumeric 1.4.3 spreadsheet
      7. gTFP 2.0.18 ftp client
      8. gaim 0.77 IM client
      9. Xpdf 3.0.0 pdf viewer
      10.Emelfm 0.9.2 file manager
      11.Xpaint 2.7.6 paint program
      12.Cups 1.1.14 printing
      13.unionfs supported as an optional boot parameter
      14.MyDSL system of extensions
      15.Frugal Installs
      16.USB Pendrive Install
      To me that makes DSL very 2003, it's playing catch up in my books.

      Update Your Books.

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    18. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by sketchman · · Score: 1

      While I admit, mine was a special circumstance, it actually did take at least 5 minutes to boot. I don't know why, but it did. I'd stare so long at the Win98 boot logo, that I believe I could have fallen asleep.
      Maybe it was a hardware bug. The PC was designed to run Win95, so it's pretty old, but you can't make people believe that even though there's a sticker on the case. It came from a school. They will do anything to save a buck, and then they will complain about how their "new" computer is so slow. Of course, the user has no idea what an Operating System is, so you can't even explain WHY their computer is so slow.
      Oh, and SE is 'Second Edition', not 'Special Edition'. Believe me, there was nothing special about it.

      --
      "In a world that exists without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
    19. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Brand new, my 450 Mhz Windows 98 laptop could boot up and have a browser window open in 40 seconds. After three to four years of installing code development tools, updating virus scanners and firewall software, media players and image viewers, the boot up time went up to around 3 minutes.

      I haven't tried installing Linux on it, but a Knoppix CD would boot up in a minute or less.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    20. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by gosand · · Score: 1
      My Commodore 64 goes from power button to booted in 2 seconds, beat that!


      My TRS-80 is up in 1.7 seconds.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    21. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by belal1 · · Score: 1

      I had xubuntu installed on my celeron 2 gig with only 256 MB RAM and a mobility radeon 7500. I had it for a few weeks until I found a copy of my old win98 SE edition lieing around in one of the pizza boxes. I installed it and I must say it is working like a charm. Much better than any linux distro really (in terms of speed). It boots up extremely fast, I have firefox for it, UT2k4 works amazingly well, everythings compatible for the most part (although I can live without most of those xp only apps), and it doesn't crash as often as I remembered probably because I have a beefier comp than my old pc. But I wish win98 was open sourced.

    22. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Oh, and SE is 'Second Edition', not 'Special Edition'. Believe me, there was nothing special about it."

      That was my lame attempt at a joke. Heh.

      A thought struck me about the boot time. I wonder if you had extra services running in Second Edition that required more RAM...? I tried booting 2000 Server on a machine wih 96 megs of RAM and it took roughly 10 mins to boot...

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    23. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my linux bios system boots in under a sec beet that

    24. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Canon RebelXT boots in 0.2 seconds. Beat that!

    25. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I haven't had 98 on it ever but my IBM Thinkpad A21p (P3M-850MHz, 384MB, ~5400 rpm disk) boots windows 2000 in about half the time it boots ubuntu. Linux needs some serious help in the init department. Gentoo's dependencies are a start; now if only they'd start init scripts asynchronously (aside from dependencies.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by cgreuter · · Score: 1

      Plus, it runs nicely under Qemu. I keep a copy on my Fedora box to test the apps I'm writing for cross-distribution portability.

      (The distribution at the linked website weights in at about 200Mb including multiple emulators. That's still small enough to fit on an inexpensive USB key but presumably, there are ways to trim it down.)

    27. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I love how we can run Windows drivers under the NDISWrapper on kernel 2.6, but kernel 2.4 drivers - no way, that's crazy! :)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    28. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Boot and shutdown speeds of Windows 95/98/Me varies wildly, and the theoretical speed of the hardware doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Hardware can make a big difference, but I think it has more to do with driver idiosyncracies than actual the number of MHz. Adding hardware (whether an expansion card or a peripheral) often significantly changes the system start time with Windows 98. Even something as simple as a bog-standard ATAPI CD-ROM drive can make a user-noticeable difference.

      Another major contributing factor is network structure. Yes, really: adding another Windows system on the same LAN segment will often change the boot and/or shutdown speed of an existing system. I don't know why this happens but I am not making it up. Actually using the network, e.g. for file or print sharing, can have even more impact.

      And, of course, what software you have installed is always a major issue. Installing MS Works will add a few seconds to your boot time, for instance. OpenOffice (version 1.x at least; not sure about 2.x) is an example of an application that adds a few seconds to your shutdown time, although it has no noticeable impact on startup time (unless you turn on its preload feature, of course, and even then it only adds about the same amount of time the app normally takes to load). And so on -- various applications contribute varying amounts of time.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    29. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > My 98 used to go from power button to booted in 38 seconds.
      > That beats my current average of 52 for Ubuntu.

      Are you kidding? My Pentium II/233 used to boot PC-DOS 3.3 in nothing flat. If you blinked at the end of the POST banner the next thing you saw was the prompt.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    30. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by sketchman · · Score: 1

      Sorry about my slowness on the uptake. Sometimes my sixth sense doesn't work. And there you have my lame attempt at a joke.
      Your idea sounds better than what I had concluded, which was, uhh, not much of anything except that my computer took way too long to boot to be worth booting in the first place.
      So, I gave up and had an "HD reformatting to EXT2" party. Just as well. I like Linux better than any Windows version I've ever tried.

      --
      "In a world that exists without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
    31. Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Just as well. I like Linux better than any Windows version I've ever tried."

      Yeah, I totally understand that. My preference for Windows has nothing to do with feeling it's superior. My apps have me pretty much anchored. :/

      G'nite, man.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  36. Well... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Well, it's kind of hard to fit a 5" cd in your wallet. The 50MB limit allows the distro to be burned to a credit card sized CD.

  37. 50 megs? by AC-x · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pfft, I remember playing with a bootable floppy containing QNX with a complete GUI, web browser, texteditor and full network support.

    Ok, it had absolutely _nothing_ else but it was still damn cool.

  38. 16MB with X? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    Anybody to suggest a linux that would fit on my spare 16MB SD card and include X? A while ago there was some linux that fitted on 11 floppies and would include X and its goodies, but it's gone MIA and what's available nowadays is DSL (64M), some LiveCD distros of 100+M and 1-2 floppy microlinuxes that are cropped to bare bones and definitely don't have X. Any ideas?

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    1. Re:16MB with X? by RGRistroph · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might want to check this out:

      http://www.angelfire.com/linux/floorzat/2diskXwin. htm

      However, I believe your best bet is to avoid X. You need a very minimal hand-built linux that uses the svgalib and links, and maybe seejpeg, to do all graphical stuff. If you put it together consider posting an image of it somewhere.

    2. Re:16MB with X? by korbin_dallas · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be better to avoid X, even TinyX is going to be 6Mb or more.

      You could try hacking uClinux, and use microX and see where that goes.
      I am doing a hack to target i386, but theres lot to do yet to compile...

      Me, I'd use Twin (a console windowing kit, ala the DOS IDEs) and a load of console apps.

      And use Qemu to test it all...

      --
      They Live, We Sleep
    3. Re:16MB with X? by really? · · Score: 1

      Look for Jailbait(??) Linux, I think I remember that being just under 16M. I don't know it that's been updated recently...

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    4. Re:16MB with X? by SaidinUnleashed · · Score: 1

      XwoaF

      This puppy has X on a single 1.4 mb floppy.

      There is also Basic Linux 3, which is based on an older version of Slackware, and still actively developed.

      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
  39. Think VMWare + Truecrypt with DSL as the base by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Informative
    I don't see the point
    There are applications for a small distro. DSL + VMWare + Truecrypt is an interesting setup. All you'd have unencrypted on your HD would be the DSL install, and you could run your "real" OS from a VMWare Virtual Machine stored in an encrypted container, even in a hidden container. I haven't actually tried this, but I've seen posts by people using Puppy Linux (or was it Feather? can't remember) for just this setup.

    Now if only Truecrypt and VMWare could be automagically installed via apt-get or Synaptic. I can even learn to use the command-line version of Truecrypt, if I could just get it installed in less than an hour. I haven't even tried on DSL yet.

  40. Two web browsers!?! by Andrew+Tanenbaum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why in the world would they need two web browsers?

    1. Re:Two web browsers!?! by AlgorithMan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Why in the world would they need two web browsers?
      simple - one very basic stripped down browser (dillo) for weak machines and firefox for the ones that can't live without it and have the neccessary hardware to run it...
      --
      The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
    2. Re:Two web browsers!?! by ifishfortorque · · Score: 1

      Slightly offtopic, but the DSL version of dillo is not the standard version; it's patched to support frames and tabs . . . which makes it a heck of a lot nicer to use (albeit bigger) than the standard dillo.

    3. Re:Two web browsers!?! by martinultima · · Score: 1

      Personally I find that it's nice to have a stripped-down browser even on a really fast, modern system; my AMD64 tends to run Dillo and Lynx just as often as it runs Firefox, because even on the fastest machine I own it's just so much faster to load and use. Besides, the way I see it... if you can fit two browsers into 50MB (actually, I think it's three, because I remember it also having Links), WHY THE HELL NOT? The original idea was to see how much you could fit in; now you know.

      --
      Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
  41. That and by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Something that people see as bloat aren't, really. Take, for example, a good configuration interface. You decide instead of a rigidly defined text file or a simple binary dump you are going to have XML files underlying your config. Further, there's going to be a nice GUI interface to access them, with checks to make sure all input is in an acceptable range not just to predefined limits but with regards to other options chosen, and a robust context help system. You might find in the end that this is a significant part of your program. It's not trivial to do all that. However it's not bloat, it makes it much easier to use your program and to interact with it. The GUI/help aspect means that users need bery little knowledge to get things set how they want. The robust XML config files mean that other programs can easily interface with yours.

    Programs are much larger these days then they used to be but that's not a bad thing. EVen if it is because of something like moving to a managed language that needs runtimes and generates larger code, it's not bad if it makes it easier to maintain. You can still step back to more compact, less feature rich designs when needed as DSL demonstrates.

  42. Doesn't anyone see.. by movienut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...the value of having an extendable utilitarian linux distro in their wallet, credit card sized and 7 grams in weight, that will work pretty much on any tray load CD PC? I've used it to show off linux, test garage sale finds, check email in a pinch at a friends house without changing their system at all, troubleshoot sick systems, etc...

  43. Can't wait for this to hit PDAs by rwa2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Familiar's Opie and GPE can help breathe new life into PDAs ( http://hackndev.com/palm/tx ) but they still seems somewhat limited compared to packages DSL provides...

  44. Still DSL by Nazo-San · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The object of DSL wasn't to be so tiny you are amazed. The object was for it to fit on a business card CDR due to their small size and convenience. Well, business card CDRs are rare if at all made anymore. On the other hand, a mini-CDR still exists and is quite common (you can walk in Walmart and come out with some. Heck, I still have a bunch of mini-CDRW discs lying around for their handy nature.) These 8 cm radius discs can hold 210 MiB, possibly a bit more since, unlike with the DVD standard, back when they made the CD-R standard they actually didn't feel a need to try to cheat and trick the customer. If you think about it, since the smallest flash drive you can buy in a modern store is 128 MB (even if that may only be around 110 MiB or so,) you can't even find the old mini-CDRs that only held 185 MiB anymore, and finally business card discs are rare if at all existant anymore (and nearly no more convenient than a mini-CDR really) it just seems a little silly to be limited to 50 MiB for the sake of discs that if you actually had, you would not want to waste on that.

    What's important is the philosophy. The idea of distros like these is to pack as many useful tools as possible into as little space as possible while maintaining minimalism. They remove a lot of the unnecessary stuff and get quite a surprising amount packed into it.

    Personally, I carry a flash drive around which will boot on any system supporting USB-ZIP (read the readme.USBKEY file in the syslinux archive for how to do this and why you have to -- but, simply put, very few even modern BIOSes support USB-HDD even today.) Ok, it's a 512 MB model, but, I have to squeeze things in there because I have to store a lot of data, a copy of my browser for those systems that force you to use an old version of Firefox (IE is dead to me) and so on. I LOVE having a handy little live linux distro that can boot off of it and be used to repair/diagnose a lot of problems among other things. I can't afford to have some huge 1 GB large image of Ubuntu or something though on my little flash drive, so that's where a linux distro following this philosophy comes in. Honestly though, I am forced to admit I didn't really like DSL that much (remember, with linux distros it's all a matter of opinion and, as they say "to each to his own." I don't like it because it isn't good, I don't like it because it just isn't the type I want.) Personally I used Finnix (site's a little slow these past few days or so) which has much more up to date packages. It's one of the many live distros that follow the same sort of philosophy DSL follows. Squeeze handy stuff in there, remove unneeded clutter. It's my hope that we see even MORE distros like this in the future, not less.

    1. Re:Still DSL by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The object was for it to fit on a business card CDR due to their small size and convenience.
      Unfortunately the only blank business cards I got hold of were actually 46-48MB capacity so I nver used it this way. Perhaps I should read up on remastering it for the nine cards I have left. In the end I just went for full sized CDs and feather linux and knoppix.
    2. Re:Still DSL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, perhaps they weren't 50 MiB? I could swear I recall reading that DSL was targeted towards those, but, perhaps not. It had that sort of philosophy though, I still stand by that.

      Well, if this were last year, I'd tell you to go to walmart or best buy and get some of those lovely little mini-CDRWs as they are fairly cheap and hold 210 MB while barely being larger than the business card discs (the main thing to bear in mind is that on the business card discs, since it has to burn in a circle, it actually can't burn nearly as much data as if it could burn on the entire card.) You can even almost just count on being able to burn to a CDRW from the greater majority of systems even. However, this isn't last year. This year, you can buy a 128 MB flash drive for $20 maximum. In many places, 256 MB is $20. If you just use mkdiskimage from syslinux, then that drive will be bootable on just about any system that isn't positively ancient -- provided you can get to the BIOS that is. IMO this is the future of such things and CDs will eventually dissapear for doing such things on anything other than what will be legacy systems by then. Just too bad BIOS manufacturers (note that this isn't the same thing as the motherboard manufacturer, so even if you get, say a DFI, you get no guarantees that the BIOS will do more than have good overclocking options) are held to very low standards and can't be relied on to make stable BIOSes that are able to support things like booting USB-HDD mode even on modern systems, but, at least USB-ZIP has been practically standard on BIOSes for a number of years and you should be able to count on it these days. (Oh, and in case you're wondering why I said walmart or best buy and not newegg, technically newegg has them cheaper, but, after you add in shipping, you'll end up paying about the same only taking longer to get it. You might save a dollar or two, but, even I, as stingy as I am, will pay a dollar or so to be able to walk into a store and pick up what I want instead of waiting half a week or more. Profit margins on flash drives seem to be VERY low these days.)

      Oh. On the subject of handy things like mini-CDRWs, they have been making mini-DVD+/-RWs for a while now -- primarily for those little cameras. They still cost something like $20 for a 3 pack, but, you get 1.4 market gigabytes (which actually works out to something like 1.3 real gigabytes, eg gibibytes) and it will work in most DVD-ROMs with some exceptions. You can almost count on being able to read it in probably the majority of systems these days (though writing is a lot more rare when you're not working on your own system in my experience) and with all that storage you won't even care whether DSL is 85MB or 50MB. I have been maintaining one of these packed with a number of handy tools ranging from the Finnix live distro I mentioned earlier to my slipstreamed windows installation for when I decide to just wipe things out and start over (even Windows XP has a tendency to sort of stagnate over time as you install and uninstall things.) A very handy tool to carry around when diagnosing and trying to solve problems on other people's systems. They even fit in your pocket unless you have really small pockets or way too much junk. A 1+ gb flash drive is great, but, right now it's still far cheaper to get the little rewritable discs even though they do rip you off so much on them. Plus you are less likely to have problems with BIOSes not set to boot a CD/DVD drive than a flash drive (I have never seen a BIOS other than my own or one I changed which the user or manufacturer had actually set to boot a USB-HDD or USB-ZIP drive before the harddrive. Any such BIOS with a password on it will either be a complete block, or require you to reset the BIOS, which is a pain since you have to open up the system and locate the jumper, then fix the settings again after doing it, which is also a pain.)

      Anyway, back more on subject, the point I'm getting to with all this is that media is growing very quickly and it's getting k

  45. mulinux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://mulinux.dotsrc.org/
    Old as hell (1998), but the base system is 1 floppy, another for the workstation progs, another for the x11... So for a 16 mb SD card I think it can work...

  46. Very useful by PhotoGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since it's inception, I have used DSL frequently as a recovery tool. And it's gotten quite a bit better since the early days (a lot more GUI stuff, and such). For those who argue the "Damn Small" name isn't appropriate for a 50M distribution, don't forget that most distributions these days take multiple 650MB CD's and/or a lot of downloads after installing. At, say 5% of a two-CD Linux install, it is indeed "Damn Small."

    Not quite as elegantly small as the QNX Demo Diskette of olden days, which, on one 1.44MB diskette, had an OS, networking stack, GUI, window manager, and Web browser. It was truly amazing. I'm not sure why they have withdrawn this incredible demonstration of their elegant technology. (Has QNX itself become the subject of a bit of bloat, perhaps?) It was limited to one make of network card or serial modem for the networking, which was the main shortcoming of it; but regardless, it was truly unique.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  47. as long as you are mentioning minis... by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ..I'll plug Austrumi, similar size at 50 megs, 2.6 kernel, loads right to RAM and ejects the disk (freeing up the optical drive), and now comes with enlightenment 17 as the stock windows manager.

  48. We move from Damn Small Linux to by bdwoolman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not Too Big Linux and from there to Won't Fit on a DVD Linux.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  49. Good for by kahrytan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DSL is only good for those moments when you visit a friend who insists on using Windows but you hate it. Just take out your little 1-4gb flash drive with DSL on it. You won't be stuck with using Windows if you don't have your laptop with you or allows people without a laptop to be more mobile.

    --
    \
    1. Re:Good for by Scott+Swezey · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean, but many of my friends, my school, and my job would all freak out if I ran it on one of their computers. Period. (I know it wont do anything to their system, but they don't.)

      Oh well, some day in the future it will be nice when you can really go to any "public terminal," pop your thumb drive in, and have all your stuff right there, and secure.

      --
      Scott Swezey
  50. Crossing the 50mb level by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is sort of a shame. The beauty of DSL is that it would fit on one of those business card cd, that you can shove in your wallet.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  51. NetBSD by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NetBSD is not only small but uses significantly alot less ram for a slim base install.

    Also NetBSD libc is alot smaller than the bloated glibc of linux. The resulting binaries are smaller for standard apps. Kde seems a little faster but perhaps its my imagination.

    NetBSD is great for older systems that wont modern software.

    1. Re:NetBSD by Slashcrap · · Score: 0, Troll

      NetBSD is great for older systems that wont modern software.

      Agreed - installing NetBSD is a great way to ensure your system won't run any modern software.

      Seriously, your post was the lamest attempt at advocacy I've ever seen. Where's the link to the NetBSD live-CD that fits in the same space as DSL, supports all the same hardware and has equivalent apps? If it doesn't exist, the only conclusion one can draw is that you're a fucking time waster. And let's face it - it doesn't.

      Kde seems a little faster but perhaps its my imagination.

      I expect so - in my experience NetBSD advocates have wonderful imaginations. I'm particularly thinking of the guy on OSNews who claimed he was running the Nvidia Linux drivers on NetBSD under binary emulation and getting 30% higher frame rates for Quake 4. Classic.

  52. Damn stupid name by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 0, Troll

    DSL is already taken, so DSL is pretty confusing. Does ADSL stand for Absolutely Damn Small Linux?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  53. i dig it by Danzigism · · Score: 2, Interesting

    after a little messin with, I got DSL to work on my Toshiba Satellite 425CDS, p100 mhz with 16mb of ram.. used the Install To HD feature, and it worked like a charm.. the reason I went with a distro like DSL, is because first of all its a livecd, with tons of bundled drivers for all sorts of hardware, including my 16-bit PCMCIA nic cards, and modem card.. many distros like Mandriva, Fedora, even Slackware and Debian had issues installing on this laptop.. i tried Fbsd, and it installed ok.. however, i didnt have nearly enough HD space to upgrade to a STABLE release.. even once it was installed, I couldn't even get my PCMCIA devices to work.. so i wasn't even going to try netbsd.. NetBSD is great on one of my old desktops, but for this old lappy, DSL was the way to go.. its a perfectly functioning portable computer, with a lightweight and small distro, with all the apps I need for now..

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
    1. Re:i dig it by Danzigism · · Score: 1

      not to mention, all the other distros i tried, required more than 32mb of ram to even begin the install process.. was able to bypass that easily with DSL, and had no probs.. its pretty damn small.. the other small distros don't have nearly enough out-of-the-box driver support..

      --
      *plays the Apogee theme song music*
    2. Re:i dig it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been thinking of rehabilitating an old computer of mine. How fast does the distro feel on your laptop? I have a slower 486 DX 120 Mhz (also with 16 MB RAM). Do you think it would be usable? I remember it crawled on Windows 95, so if it somehow runs faster with DSL it would be a big plus.

    3. Re:i dig it by Danzigism · · Score: 2, Informative
      oh man, you'll be in business with damn small linux installed on there.. as far as "fast" is concerned, you might notice a bit of lag when you're in X windows.. i honestly use more Console apps or things i can run in an xterm.. although, it comes with a lightweight web browser called Dillo.. its perfectly fine for your simple browsing.. i use mine for IRC, some old games, web browsing, and a GREAT thin-client for when I'm RDP'ing into my XP machine from a remote location using 'rdesktop'..

      read the docs as carefully as you can, and you should be fine.. there's some great support out there surprisingly.. another reason i prefer this distro.. it has a decent package system as well.. you can use debian's "apt-get" to install most major things.. but they have a good collection of .dsl files that are super easy to install using they "mydsl-load" command.. good luck!

      --
      *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  54. Don't bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows he's a troll. Hell, he's probably some Microsoft astroturfer trying to make linux advocates look bad*.

    *Like they need any help.

  55. QNX mini-system by Animats · · Score: 1

    QNX is no longer pursuing the small-user market, so they don't do that any more. But the QNX distribution disk is bootable from CD only, without using any hard drive space. This gets you a little memoryless system that will connect to the Internet via Ethernet or PPPoE, and offers a web browser.

    You can build a useful mini-distro for QNX today, if you have a development seat with redistribution rights. Make your own Internet appliance, with everything in flash memory or even ROM. The i-opener was such a device.

    Bringing back the stateless i-Opener concept could be useful, if it had an Ethernet port instead of a dial-up modem. Good for kiosk systems, public-access Internet terminals, hotel room systems, and other places where you don't want to bother with system administration.

  56. imagine what they could do in more space by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    Wow! This ranks right up there with "all you have to do is".

    Obviously, not well-versed in OS development.

    -r

  57. Re:I just don't get it by G+Morgan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some people can find actual uses for old hardware. Because the idea of turning an older box into a firewall etc escapes you doesn't mean others should abandone otherwise useful hardware. Besides the main point of DSL is use as an admin tool.

  58. Yeah,I wish. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I've tried using it as recovery disk. But usually it lacks a specific tool that I need, and then I discover the true meaning of its name as I yell " DAMN SMALL LINUX!".

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  59. Re:Standalone Server www.clarkconnect.com by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 1

    Used to use Smoothwall, switched to Clarkconnect several years ago and never looked back. It has a standalone install option that will give you all the server apps you'll likely need. I copied the list of modules from their site to give ya a quick overview. - Jonah Hex
    Software Updater cc-apt
    Web Site Reports cc-awstats
    Backup/Restore System Settings cc-backuprestore
    Backup cc-bacula
    Bandwidth Manager cc-bandwidth
    Caller ID cc-callerid
    Console Tool cc-console
    Print Server cc-cups
    Content Filter cc-dansguardian
    Caching DNS Server cc-dnsmasq
    Mail Server - POP and IMAP cc-dovecot
    Maildrop cc-fetchmail
    Gateway Firewall Tools cc-firewall-advanced
    Photo Gallery cc-gallery
    Web Server cc-httpd
    VPN - IPsec cc-ipsec
    System Statistics cc-mrtg
    Database Server - MySQL cc-mysql
    Network Tools cc-nettools
    PHP cc-php
    Mail Server - SMTP cc-postfix
    Mail Server Log Analyzer cc-postfix-report
    VPN - PPTPd cc-pptpd
    Banner Ad and Pop-up Filter cc-privoxy
    FTP Server cc-proftpd
    Windows File Server cc-samba
    Web Proxy Reports cc-sarg
    Intrusion Detection cc-snort
    Intrusion Detection Reports cc-snort-report
    Antispam Quarantine Tool cc-spamassassin-filter
    Web Proxy cc-squid
    Webmail cc-squirrelmail
    System Status cc-status
    Wireless cc-wireless
    Webmin Software webmin
    System Watcher cc-syswatch

  60. Bingo!!! by Dante333 · · Score: 1

    It's the Business card CD's. I carry on in my wallet.

    1. Re:Bingo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there Business card DVD's? For same CD/DVD data density ratio as it is for full size discs, that would mean roughly over 300MB of space.

      Besides, if there was a way to use the whole area of business card CD instead just that of its internal circle, that would be a great improvement too. Anyhow, ... who cares? It seems that thin, small, flash memory cards used for music and photos are imminent killers of optical storage future. They fit in your vallet, they have capacities in excess of full size CD and, although they cost much more, they are much smaller, can be reused more times then CDRW and most importantly, they need no bulky "electric beer can holders" - only a micropower suffices for them to be accessed, the access speed is much higher, they can be used in handheld devices and photocameras. Oh, yes, and: dust doesn't affect readability of flash cards. At present, we bury CD's (full size...small CD's are already killed with dirt-cheap 64MB and 128MB thumb drives) tomorrow 4.7G DVDs and soon new formats will be caught up with. Eventually, even HDDs will roll over and stop spinning, perhaps not done in by Flash, but by Ferroelectric RAM.

    2. Re:Bingo!!! by toleraen · · Score: 1

      I doubt optical storage will die out that soon. It's not about storage capacity and size, it's about cost. I doubt software companies, movie studios, and record labels are going to start shipping their wares on CompactFlash anytime soon. I have absolutely no proof to back this up, but I would imagine that the data storage market isn't quite as large as the entertainment industry. We may get there some day, but that day is a loooonngggg way off.

  61. WARNING: Non Updated Mirrors - Torrent by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 2, Informative

    The only mirror showing file dsl-3.0.1.iso 20-Jun-2006 is http://dsl.thegeekery.com/current, all the rest, including ibiblio, only have dsl-n-0.1RC1.iso 01-May-2006.

    I've got 9+ hours remaining for this 50M file, someone please tell me there is a torrent.

    Jonah Hex

    1. Re:WARNING: Non Updated Mirrors - Torrent by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 1

      Ignore Me, I totally missed the missing -N from the first filename. Let me rephrase my warning: thegeekery doesn't have DSL-N and I'm downloading the wrong file. ;)
      Jonah Hex

  62. Back in the QNX day ... by xav_jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why I remember the QNX demo floppy disk (all 1.44MB) packing the OS (posix compliant), GUI, PPP or networking, Web browser, file browser, and several demo applications including web server, vector graphics program and a text editor. Pffft kids today ...

  63. Re:I just don't get it by Frightening · · Score: 1

    I was joking.

  64. Reminds me of that MS advert by Lord+Graga · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can just imagine Steve Ballmer going "With DAMN SMALL LINUX, you can get TWO WEBBROWSERS, a PDF READER, a MPEG PLAYER, a PAINT PROGRAM, a CD BURNING TOOL, and MUCH MUCH MORE!... in how much do you think? HOW MUCH? 500 MEGABYTES? A THOUSAND? NO! It's just 83 MEGABYTES! 83 MEGABYTES!"

  65. It's Called SME, Buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From our friends at SourceForge.

  66. Not only, but also ... by donak · · Score: 1

    Puppy Linux (or PuppyOS) at http://www.puppyos.com/
    First time I encountered it, it was 35MB.

    --
    Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post ...
  67. Small CD's all suck by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    A guy at LinuxWorld was handing out all of his literature on 'business card' CD's instead of printing up brochures. I told him, "no thanks, that'll destroy my slot-load DVD drive." Apparently he only owns tray-loaders. He was somewhat flabbergasted.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  68. Can use for Diskless Folding by Sb1 · · Score: 1
    Last few days I've been useing it diskless, for Folding@Home. I just put my P4-2.4 to use with no hard drives installed (for now) for this purpose. I downloaded a special ed F@H one from FAHLinux.com

    Comes with F@H preinstalled, however you have to change the username and team name to yours (he's with Extremeoverclocking), but it's for everybody. I Fold for Team 32 so just changed that. It comes with Samba so can control Folding utilities like EMIII with WinXP, Rdesktop, VNCviewer (no clue how to do these yet, but if need to I'll learn how).

    Next going to use it on old PII 366 Mhz. I will probably just install that to old hard drive and start learning Linux. Next will dual boot main machine with one of the flavors of Ubuntu?

    Only problem is I really don't understand Linux as I am wanting to update Firefox to 1.5.0.4 but no go so far. Can you update with LiveCD using only Ram (756mb)?