MicroCore vs TinyCore

[lemming]

I have read a couple of posts in the MicroCore forum about installing the X components/libraries to the install to get a gui.

Why would people try this rather than installing TinyCore in the first place?

Is there a difference between MicroCore with GUI and TinyCore?

[gerald_clark]

There is no MicroCore and TinyCore any more.
There is only the Core.

[maro]

I guess it depends on how you define "GUI", if you would choose 'Xvesa' as the X server, 'flwm_topside' as your windows manager, 'wbar' as your launch bar and also want to use the TC specific GUI applications (e.g. appbrowser') then (at least AFAIK) "MicroCore with GUI" equals  TinyCore. BTW I believe the term 'MicorCore' is now a bit a of historical nature and should be rather replaced by 'Core'.

So, I would choose the "Core plus GUI" route if I want a different option (e.g. a different X server) and not have the "standard" TC component "lurking around" in my system. But for practical reasons I only ever download the TC ISO file as that represents for me the best choice (including the option to create my own 'Core' based remaster if I'd choose to do so).

[bmarkus]

There is no MicroCore and TinyCore any more.
There is only the Core.

Yes and no. TinyCore still exists and hopefully will exisit as long as Core to help newcomers to start with Core.

Most of the newbies are not hard core LINUX maniacs saying LINUX with GUI is not LINUX and due to unique aspects of Core even for an average LINUX user it is not so easy to put together Tiny Core on top of Core specially in the beginning.

[gerald_clark]

There may be a tinycore.iso, but there is no tinycore.gz or microcore.gz.
It is now core.gz with the gui in the tce or cde directory.

[lemming]

Thanks Guys for your replies.

I assume that "Core" is the same as the old MicroCore or are there some fundamental changes (obviously aside from the updated binaries).

[gerald_clark]

Correct.
The coreplus.iso and tinycore.iso have added some extensions to the CD image.