Tiny Core Base > TCB Tips & Tricks

HD install for special purpose.

(1/7) > >>

I am running TC on 256 MB RAM machine which can give only 640x480x16 resolution on default X, therefore, I have to use Xorg.

I installed OSS, minefield, Flashsupport, Leafpad and emelfm2 and happily using it.

Then I began compiling gtk applications for which I had to load other dev packages. Then I wanted to compile pygtk which required to load Python and python-devs as tce.

With so many packages pygtk was compiling as if it will take 4 hours or more.

Then I thought that I should go for hard disk install to reduce the use of memory. One user had posted a method for HD install of TC on Ubuntuforums.. I used this method.

Then I had to install all the .tce packages on this installation. With this method the memory requirement reduced to less than half and I could compile pygtk within a few minutes.

The HD install method is simple. I copied the contents of Tc iso to one partition and moved bzImage and tinycore.gz to / of the partition then extracted the / tree:

--- Quote ---# gunzip tinycore.gz
# cpio -i <tinycore
# rm tinycore.gz
--- End quote ---

and added following to /boot/grub/menu.lst:

--- Quote ---title Tinycore
root (hd0,X)
kernel /bzImage root=/dev/hdd(X+1)
--- End quote ---


NB: There is one more advantage. I don't have to load the required devs for compiling since they are already installed on hard disk.

Thanks for sharing.

Please note that this type of installation is not officially supported though, so every user creating a permanent HD install is on their own for making it work :)

This is my personal opinion and not to be construed negatively.

I didn't write about this or even include it as a mode of operation, as one loses the benefits of Tiny Core.
That being a safe pristine boot as I wrote about in the Getting Started document, even the hybrid PPI will suffer from system rot, caused by user error, system bug, hardware glitch, solar flare, or space invaders. (just kidding). I once penned a article entitled "Not your Father's Operating System" in which I wrote why I feel it is no longer the best environment to do traditional hard drive installations. It has always been my design philosophy to offer an alternative But as with any free open source distribution, you can do what you want. If that is what I wanted, I would opt for one of hundreds of Linux operating systems that do that sort of thing better.

I know that there is my good old (I mean as old as my Linux experience) buntu for traditional HD install or Debian or Arch if I want lighter. TC is not designed for HD install and not supposed to be used like that.

Frankly I applied HD install as a solution to the problem I was facing for compiling on low resource machine.

There is one more bug in me, I don't burn CDs (or avoid burning them), therefore, there is a partition required for any new Linux and one was already there for TC.

Let me make it clear I am not supporting this type of HD install of TC and changing the title of this thread.


--- Quote ---I would opt for one of hundreds of Linux operating systems that do that sort of thing better.
--- End quote ---
I'd disagree.  From my experience there much less than hundreds that do that sort of thing better.  Most distributions today are useless on older hardware.  Many will install piles of useless software.  There are some (perhaps many?) that are no different than TC in that the installation consists of nothing more than extracting a compressed file system onto the harddrive.

I have a 400mhz/128mb machine stored away, with which I'll probably try this very simple HD install.  I wouldn't be surprised if it could be kept fairly stable by simply installing additional software to /usr/local.  In that case, upgrading or repairing the base system should be nearly as easy as upgrading any TC system.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version