Tiny Core Linux
Off-Topic => Off-Topic - Tiny Tux's Corner => Topic started by: bmarkus on April 14, 2010, 01:22:27 AM
-
There is an interesting review of small distros in Tuxradar:
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/whats-best-lightweight-linux-distro
-
Well they didn't test deeper and seem to have gotten the answer wrong.
I will supply the correct answer now:
Tiny Core Linux: 10/10
-
It is not a deep technical review but summarize experience facing thes distros from average customer point of view.
-
It is not a deep technical review but summarize experience facing thes distros from average customer point of view.
I wonder how tc with all the applications included in Slitaz installed (or equivalents) compares to the stock Slitaz.
Simple things like boot time, general performance, resources required, and package management. Would there be much difference?
-
I had been with SliTaz since beginning until I found TinyCore. SliTaz is an excellent distro but Tiny Core is better:
1. Architecture - more modular
2. More flexible. E.g. Any WM can be easily included.
3. Better implementation of Xorg, etc. SliTaz is still using HAL I think and does not always render proper resolution. TinyCore went a step further here and on the same hardware works properly.
4. Networking is better in TC according to my testing
5. Development cycle has been faster so far.
What TinyCore is missing to be rated better in such reviews is a showcase distro. Preserving the core and modular architecture a showcase distro should be composed such as proposed earlier or including more software so it is ready to go and reach vast population of users. Currently, easy as it is, still needs quite a bit of work for the user to configure a useful system and few spend the time to learn and do it.
-
The details offered about the demise of DSL are inaccurate. It's ridiculous, too, that DSL(no longer under active development and which is going to be increasingly marginalized due to lack of modern hardware support) gets a higher score than TinyCore and that Puppy (a single-user -- root -- system) gets the same score as TinyCore. What? At least the review didn't blather on and on about aesthetics.
It's a shame the reviewer didn't add in a comparable mix of TinyCore extensions and use that as the baseline from which to judge -- more apples to apples. After all, that's part of what makes TinyCore so unique, you get to choose how and what rather than have a lot of stuff given to you that you may not want -- a problem hinted at with using some of the repositories of the others in the review. The "problem" of bloat when adding things from repositories encountered with Ubuntu-based light remixes (CrunchBang is currently moving to Debian, fwiw) isn't such a problem in TC. Speaking of that, why is CrunchBang's score higher than and Lubuntu's (an alpha version!) the same as TinyCore's if the two Ubuntu-based distros have such an issue with bloated repo packaging? Most users are going to switch some applications around. Once you start doing that and start to make your system more Ubuntu and less CrunchBang, you're losing every bleeping advantage of using the "lighter" sub-distro.
My verdict: The article is complete crap. 2/10.
-
The article states:
"The important things that we'll look at here are the amount of space needed, how much processing power is required to get the distro running at an acceptable level, and the effort required to get it to work." It would be nice to know the weight given to each metric and how it contributes to the overall score. The absence of quantifiable scoring leads one to consider this article lacking.
SliTax, with its select bundle of applications, scored higher. Sure, you can load the same applications in Tiny Core with very little effort using the AppBrowser, but the author is evaluating the out-of-the-box experience. We place more importance on "the amount of space needed" than the author does.
So how do we address this? Remember, even if the author appears misguided, it means Tiny Core is perceived as requiring effort. The best step we as a community can take is to address the final words of the author: "it may have made things easier to aim for a slightly higher target to begin with."
The recent TinyCore for all - Remastering and Flavors (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=5695.0) thread is a step in the right direction. Identify a SliTaz-like bundle for Tiny Core, remaster it, and provide it as a download for new users. Then, there can be no complaint! :)
-
The article states:
"The important things that we'll look at here are the amount of space needed, how much processing power is required to get the distro running at an acceptable level, and the effort required to get it to work."
IMHO in this term article is correct. Remember, how much time it took for you to understand different installation modes, cloud, PPI, backup, etc.
-
True. It seems simple when you know it. but it's very difficult when you don't. I was aware of TC almost from the start of my Linux quest, but only after living some time with Ubuntu and actively reading about Linux did I understood more things about TC.
Now I don't want to be one of those "let's attract Windows users" guy, but Windows users, who try to shift to Linux often have a hard time understanding even the concept of mount which is a commodity in Linux.
-
Now I don't want to be one of those "let's attract Windows users" guy, but Windows users, who try to shift to Linux often have a hard time understanding even the concept of mount which is a commodity in Linux.
It is already too late and too little has been done to attract Windows users to Linux. It was perhaps possible early on but then Linux went to the dark side of bloat, slow and inefficient, not speaking of user-friendly.
Some bad strategic decisions were made such as Gnome and KDE huge cumulative libraries instead of keeping linux modular, fast and efficient.
Even more importantly, fragmentation of Linux into 207 distros makes attracting Windows users not likely. Such potential convert would have to do quite a research to determine which distro to pick. This is unlikely to happen and user will prefer to stay with Windows.
If there was a unified Linux strategy and effort was not wasted on 207 distro but rather to focus on one - efficient and user-friendly, then an OS would emerge far superior to Windows and provide a clear choice to users.
This time and opportunity has been lost. Now the only chance is a new revolution, such as system completely componentized, modular, user friendly such as new trend emerging in Linux world (TinyCore+, Igelle), but this needs to reject the past bloat legacy, such as bloated libraries and applications need to be self-contained modules...
I think TinyCore and Igelle are going in the right direction, each focusing on separate parts of this strategy...
This is unless it is too late for this too and such revolution will be Web OS, which will make underlying core system core irrelevant...
-
Now I don't want to be one of those "let's attract Windows users" guy, but Windows users, who try to shift to Linux often have a hard time understanding even the concept of mount which is a commodity in Linux.
Oh, the pirates are well aware of Daemon Tools ;) What surprises them in linux is that loop mounts are considered a part of the core os, not some payware.
-
So how do we address this? Remember, even if the author appears misguided, it means Tiny Core is perceived as requiring effort. The best step we as a community can take is to address the final words of the author: "it may have made things easier to aim for a slightly higher target to begin with."
Easier is debatable, and so is effort; I agree that TC's modularity is extreme and to some users (particularly those who don't care to learn enough about the system to use it) that's not desirable. It would've behooved the reviewer to first understand the underlying concepts and what's required to set up a system based on TinyCore and then set it up as desired.
The recent TinyCore for all - Remastering and Flavors (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=5695.0) thread is a step in the right direction. Identify a SliTaz-like bundle for Tiny Core, remaster it, and provide it as a download for new users. Then, there can be no complaint! :)
I don't know what the real difference would be between slitaz and tc-built-more-like-slitaz. All this talk about a "showcase" image with lots of stuff thrown into it, but you're likely going to run into similar complaints about "why does it contain this {application,driver} instead of that one?" as you already have now. IMO, the TinyCore project shouldn't worry about such a "showcase." Anyone with enough desire can do that and host it separately, but the fact that it contains preselected apps and some group of drivers and a variety of services by definition removes the whole issue of modularity. The users attracted to such a thing already have similar (even if less desirable in some cases) options; they'll also come to see the "showcase" as the "base" and expect more rather than less, particularly when it comes to which sets of default apps, which drivers, full ssh instead of dropbear, more aesthetic improvements, etc.
@Sandras: Windows mounts devices, too (users are supposed to "safely remove" USB devices, which is the same as unmounting). Many Linux distros have opted to use Windows-like auto-mounting by default. The concepts are the same regardless of operating system, even if the terminology is different and if one is a bit more automatic (and possibly more forgiving of ignorant user practices, such as not "safely removing" attached media) than another.
-
Probably the most difficult thing for people learning Tiny Core for the first time, is installing it.
I see an opportunity for someone to make an install script, which prompts for input from the user, downloads the extensions needed, and installs Tiny Core. I have mentioned this in another post. If someone starts, others may improve on it.
This will not work for people with wireless internet connections, as they can't connect to the internet until appropriate extensions are installed. This creates an opportunity for someone to make a remastered cd.
The Tiny Core team are doing a great job of developing Tiny Core. I don't expect them to do more.
If someone wants to create and host a remastered cd, it would be a benefit to new users. Anyone doing this needs long term commitment, creating a new remastered cd with each new release. It would not be so great if it is done once, then the person gives up.
Just my opinion. I know some people have different opinions.
-
Hi, I'm new here and I think TC is great, if not I wouldn't be using it or posting here :) Most modular (bar LFS) of any alternative out there.
But I also think there is slightly more effort required compared to some of the other "works-out-of-the-box" distros out there. To each their own. I have used puppy for a couple of years now, and not having to sudo 10+ times a day isn't really that bad, just got to be careful not to rm -Rf something to your system.
For what its worth, the order of my grub menu.lst (yes, I distro-hop, who doesn't ;) )
1) Puppy
2) MicroCore
3) ...
.
.
6) Slitaz
.
13) Windows XP (came with the laptop)
I've also got CAElinux (Ubuntu :( ) running on my workstation. I mainly use my laptop to remote login to it, hence the lightweight distros.
-
"My verdict: The article is complete crap. 2/10."
Thank you lucky13 for my best laugh of the year.
Yes, TCL takes some effort to learn, but to create the setup you want (rather than what somebody else thinks you should want) there's no Linux better.
-
Summary: Taking constructive posts of Danielibarnes, Guy and Bmarkus it looks to me some steps need to be done in that direction.
-
I have used puppy for a couple of years now, and not having to sudo 10+ times a day isn't really that bad, just got to be careful not to rm -Rf something to your system.
This is really bad when security is a priority. sudo itself is a security risk.
I agree with lucky13 on the idea of a showcase TC, if its not updated and supported then it is not that useful, it will also further confuse newcomers and aggravate developers.
I also agree with Guy. Having an installation script can be the single best tool for those who are new to TC (and reviewers) for them to evaluate its usefulness. After all, if you can't figure out how to install/use TC then its not going to be very useful to you.
The concepts behind TC are not in line with a traditional installation and the TC team has done a good job in explaining this, but many people don't RTFM, to be blunt. The average user (my definition of average user is some who can push the power button on the comp to turn it on) won't read the core concepts, won't try TC because it doesn't wipeout your harddrive to create a 'fresh' installation, and more then likely won't move from windows (because its already there and/or they think its too hard). So what am I saying? I'm saying users are lazy and they want everything done for them...which is where the installation script comes in...moving along...
I think it would be beneficial to have a help text in the base (I know roberts just removed it a little while ago). But I believe one of the best things DSL had was that initial help screen that came up upon startup. This will put the concepts of TC more or less right in the faces of the users (there should be a boot option to disable for those who already read it). Also a simple explanation of the use of the appbrowser should be in it also. This would prevent users from giving up or going here to post/search for a question on how to install applications.
Just some thoughts/rants...
-
I think it would be beneficial to have a help text in the base
I think, in the future, it would be a good idea to have a help extension.
Those who want it, can install this extension. Those who don't want it, don't need to install it.
The same information can also be available from the website.
However, if you look at the wiki, there is some useful information, but much room for improvement.
The help extension needs to be of a professional standard. If it is done poorly, this will also make Tiny Core look bad.
The help extension should include information helpful for new users, but not everything in the wiki.
The Tiny Core team are doing a great job developing Tiny Core. We shouldn't expect them to do more.
If anyone else can make a contribution in any of the areas mentioned, it would be a positive contribution. That is:
Making an installation script.
Making a cd with extensions. Being committed to update this with each new version.
Improving the wiki. When the information is at a professional standard, making a help extension.
A number of users are already making good contributions.
More and more people are using Tiny Core.
Expect more users to make contributions in the future.
Expect things to get better and better.
Keep in mind, Tiny Core is very new compared to the mainstream Linux distros.
The primary focus, has been, and needs to be, developing a high quality operating system. This is being done. The other things will follow.
-
As I said, I wouldn't have any problem if TCL offered a demo ISO (in addition to the true TC and MC ones) with a "basic" set of apps. I probably just wouldn't use that ISO. And of course additional help features (if done right) are fine.
In a more general sense though, I'm puzzled as to why anyone would use a Linux distro if they don't agree with its basic design concepts (in TCL's case, a minimum core which enables the user to choose whichever apps he/she wants, and careful separation between static and dynamic code). If these concepts aren't of interest (or you don't think they're good ideas) then why use TCL? There are numerous other distros which have a different emphasis (e.g. lots of apps out of the box, more traditional ways of installing). As far as Linux, if a distro doesn't do what it claims to do (or does them badly) then you have grounds for complaint. But if you just don't like its overall approach, it seems like the best thing to do is find another distro.
-
As far as Linux, if a distro doesn't do what it claims to do (or does them badly) then you have grounds for complaint. But if you just don't like its overall approach, it seems like the best thing to do is find another distro.
Respectfully, this is why you need "207 distros." With Windows, you are stuck with what Microsoft implemented. Linux distributions can pick a target audience and customize for its needs. There are heavily localized distributions for various countries, distributions for easy use by children, distributions for clustering, or distributions for firewalls (try that with XP) for example. Windows is "one OS to rule them all, one OS to find them / one OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them / in the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie." :)
-
Well, the "207 distros" bit was from tclfan, not me. But actually that's my point. If you've got 207 distros to choose from, why do they all have be alike? And who cares if some have more users than others? As long as each one meets the needs of enough people to sustain it where's the problem?
-
Conventional Wisdom is that a Linux Distribution = A turnkey desktop.
Tiny Core, as I have stated many times, and on our website, is not a turnkey desktop.
Comparing turnkey desktop systems with one that is not will always result with Tiny Core scoring low.
But a turnkey system is not what Tiny Core is all about...
I would not have started this project, if I was to make a "me too" turnkey desktop.
I have had these concepts for a tiny modular system for a long time. It is interesting and challenging to make and improve Core with a great team and based on feedback from the community.
I am happy to see that those who get it; get it! And those who only go by conventional wisdom sadly will not.
-
This is devolving off-topic... why does a comparison about Linux distros invariably turn into a hate-fest against Windows?
Respectfully, this is why you need "207 distros." With Windows, you are stuck with what Microsoft implemented.
Riiiiiight, that's why there aren't any proprietary applications people can buy to run on Windows -- because consumers are stuck and Microsoft wouldn't dare let third parties create applications. And as far as choices, I guess we should overlook the fact that Microsoft released too many distinct versions of Vista for the market to bear (more even than the official Canonical releases of Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu...). You know Microsoft wouldn't dare release Windows in any language but American English, so I guess you have the localization thing to hang onto. And thank goodness none of the open source projects cater to Windows, either, because that would mean people could run Windows AND open source applications and you know Microsoft wouldn't let that happen.
Oops, snap... even that one's fail:
http://www.opensourcelist.org/oss/suggestedapplications.html
Let's recap (counting GNU-style so as not to offend anyone):
0. Linux can be customized. Windows can be customized.
1. Settings in Linux can be tweaked. Settings in Windows can be tweaked.
2. Linux can be localized. Windows is localized.
3. Linux has access to open source applications. Windows has access to open source applications.
4. Linux requires learning things to get the most out of it. Windows requires learning things to get the most out of it.
What was your point again? Oh yeah, that you need hundreds of variations of Linux to get less than 2% of desktop marketshare compared to the "handful" of Windows versions (not XP versus Vista, but Home Premium versus Business Premium) that still make up >90% of consumer and enterprise workstations. Because <2% needs to be liquidated into tiny fractions of per-distro marketshare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
I concur with tclfan that fragmentation hasn't served Linux adoption well. Neither have all these misguided attacks on Microsoft, which more often than not are total BS. (I don't consider myself a big fan of Microsoft but I'm also not a reflexive hater of Microsoft, either. OpenOffice.org, texlive, emacs, vim, gimp, firefox, thunderbird, etc., all run the same on Windows as they do on Linux -- they're OS-agnostic. Back on-topic for a moment: Most people are OS-agnostic, too, but want to stick with what's already familiar to them. That comfort zone thing also applies here since TinyCore is quite unique compared to what people expect when installing and using a Linux distro. They've come to expect -- and now demand -- Windows-like installation and operation. They freak out when it requires learning something new or different from what they already know, and thus they want "pre-configured TinyCore" -- which is no longer TinyCore since it moves the entire discussion from building to suit personal tastes to trying to achieve some kind of "standard" or ideal about what a Linux distro should be or do -- images, etc. The question is whether they should be catered to and to what extent. I used to say this a lot somewhere else: if you want a Debian-like system, just install Debian. There's nothing wrong with that. But TinyCore isn't slitaz or Puppy or anything else. It is TinyCore and what makes it so unique also makes it not so universally acceptable. If a moderator wants to strike this post for being off topic, at least leave this part.)
Linux distributions can pick a target audience and customize for its needs. There are heavily localized distributions for various countries, distributions for easy use by children, distributions for clustering, or distributions for firewalls (try that with XP) for example. Windows is "one OS to rule them all, one OS to find them / one OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them / in the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie." :)
Oy. Comparing Linux to XP? Well, if you do that then it's fair to compare Windows 7 (or Vista even) to kernel 2.2 and KDE 1. Sure ya wanna do that?
FWIW, Microsoft makes more than one flavor of each operating system and it separates its products with respect to workstation and server -- has since way back in the NT days. Some Linux distros don't even do that so you end up installing server software on a workstation and workstation software (like X, haha) on a server.
If you take the time to search for Windows Server Firewall... well, never mind. This is already way off topic and I think I've made my point.
-
This is devolving off-topic... why does a comparison about Linux distros invariably turn into a hate-fest against Windows?
You are right. My apologies to you and the readers. My judgement suffers after a long day and little rest.
That said, I think it would be neat for a small group of users were to put together a remaster of Tiny Core with an assortment of bundled apps. SliTaz seems to fit quite a bit into 30MB. If I had the time, it would be fun to see what extensions could fit into the 20MB remaining after the TC base.
Tiny Core ... is not a turnkey desktop.
I for one am thankful for that. Tiny Core is a great foundation, and Micro Core even more so. It allows me to do things that would be more difficult otherwise. Just yesterday, I created a 9MB bootable CD with gpsd/ntpd. I can boot it on anything with a GPS plugged in and get an instant time server. To me, that's pretty cool.
-
It allows me to do things that would be more difficult otherwise. Just yesterday, I created a 9MB bootable CD with gpsd/ntpd. I can boot it on anything with a GPS plugged in and get an instant time server. To me, that's pretty cool.
This is the key. TC is not a distribution, it is a tool set.
-
The way I see it:
TinyCore is (Linux based) system and application infrastructure (in the form of extensions) designed on modular architecture and separating static state infrastructure from dynamic data to preserve pristine infrastructure state.
Various target systems (Distros?), both desktop, server and special purpose - can be built by assembling various modules (application and system infrastructure modules) called extensions.
-
@bmarkus: I believe it still qualifies as an distribution :)
-
@bmarkus: I believe it still qualifies as an distribution :)
Of course it does. I wast just a bit sharp as for many a distribution means not only a base but a set or sets of applications resultin a nearly out of box ready to go system.
-
Based on the review and this discussion look for a change in the promotion of Tiny/Micro Core.
-
The new promotion of Tiny Core and Micro core will kick off with the roll out of 3.0 alpha. ;D
-
*crosses fingers* hope it's gonna be named PhatCore. J/K : )
-
I hope distrowatch won't be writing tc/mc is for "old computers". That is off-putting.
One of the things that make tc a winner for me is the fact that I am back in full control of my PC. The modularity and fresh setup at each boot make it like lego, build your own from what you want and how large you want, while retaining dazzling speed.
You like gnome with Compiz? Yep you can have it. Or flwm? LXDE? Sure, just a few clicks away, show me another distro that can do that. Or do you like terminals with scrolling text without zillions of bits devoted to X? Have at it.
So some nice eye-candy screen shots and some comparative boot charts to attract the masses.
(Oh and the title of this thread is wrong too, it should be what's the best Linux distro.)
Lego-linux. (legonux?) The future of computing has arrived. ;D
-
But a turnkey system is not what Tiny Core is all about...
I would not have started this project, if I was to make a "me too" turnkey desktop.
I have had these concepts for a tiny modular system for a long time. It is interesting and challenging to make and improve Core with a great team and based on feedback from the community.
Some interesting comments here. Can I give my first impressions? I have been busy distro-hopping in order to find a product that overcomes my latent Linux-ignorance enough to get me productive - by which I mean that despite my lowlevel knowledge of Linux, I need to be able to use a distro to help me access my (Windows) hard drive and copy (rescue) files to a usb stick. If I can also get on the internet and play music files too, then thats an added bonus.
However, now that I have found several distros that ALMOST do everything I want, I have a thirst for a distro that I can tailor to my real needs. That is why I am here, and I guess I would urge all contributors to stay on the path of avoiding inherent bloat, even if it means not winning awards for popularity.
Having said that, the first two things I missed during my first look at TC are:
1) Can't see how to browse my hard drive.
2) I don't have a router/dhcp. I have had to connect with PPPoE when I have used other distros. (because I connect via an IP-wireless type of gateway/modem).
TC relies heavily on dhcp access being available. If there was some way to add Roaring Penguin PPPoE and maybe dialup ability (pointless for many but possibly a lifesaver for some...) it might be handy.
Keep up the good work. I'm hooked.
-
Having said that, the first two things I missed during my first look at TC are:
1) Can't see how to browse my hard drive.
2) I don't have a router/dhcp. I have had to connect with PPPoE when I have used other distros. (because I connect via an IP-wireless type of gateway/modem).
1 - a file manager by default would be bloat ;) the included one is *the* file manager, also known as the command line. There are several graphical ones in the repo if you want.
For a Win hd, you'll also want to grab NTFS support.
2 - pppd can do that. Will take a couple lines of script, or use a script/dialer like pppsetup.
-
2 - pppd can do that. Will take a couple lines of script, or use a script/dialer like pppsetup.
This would be an excellent addition to the "Setting Up" part of the wiki. I am unfamiliar with pppd, otherwise I would help.
-
I don't have a PPPoE connection myself, but I remember pasting instructions here before. Anyone with a connection like that could have a test and then set up the wiki.
-
No doubt that the best distribution is ubuntu linux. Specially for new linux users
[removed spam]
-
No doubt that the best distribution is ubuntu linux. Specially for new linux users
You missed the point, see title: lightweight
-
Ubuntu is not a lightweight. - the best lightweights are TC and Puppy/Quirky
It is a good distro and I lile it- but watch out what#s on the
horizon!
Thew will leave the x-server, they will have their own browser and they will
turn away from the desktop PC as we know it for years.
Ubuntu will go after the pad market and we will find us in the dust.
This is my opinion and what are you guys thinking?
-
No doubt that the best distribution is ubuntu linux (http://tips-linux.net). Specially for new linux users
You missed the point, see title: lightweight
Go easy on him. That was his first post ever. :)
Ubuntu can be lightweight (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal): "64 to 128 MB of RAM, less than 1 GHz processor, ... the total installation size is a little under 1 GB." It's an order or two of magnitude greater than an equivalent Tiny Core installation, but less than a full Ubuntu installation. Other examples (http://www.wikihow.com/Install-Minimal-Ubuntu-Linux) are out there (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1155961), too.
-
Ubuntu can be lightweight (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal): "64 to 128 MB of RAM, less than 1 GHz processor, ... the total installation size is a little under 1 GB." It's an order or two of magnitude greater than an equivalent Tiny Core installation, but less than a full Ubuntu installation. Other examples (http://www.wikihow.com/Install-Minimal-Ubuntu-Linux) are out there (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1155961), too.
Right. Agree, a week old elephant baby is much lighter than her mom, but anyhow a bit heavier than a 5 years old fat lazy cat :)
-
Hahaha, bmarkus, you made my day ;D
-
I'd like to respond to a few of the posts but first I want to point out that most people (mom, dad, computer
for the kids, etc.) don't install operating systems, they buy a new computer with it already installed.
bmarkus reply#7: I still don't fully understand them. The Core Concepts page as I view it does not focus
clearly enough on the various operating modes by mixing in terms like grub, boot codes, dependency
checking. Someone new to Linux will just walk away confused.
Guy reply#12: A simple tutorial (if it does not exist yet) on how to walk up to a wired machine with a TC CD
and USB stick to set up a PPI installation and then run it on the target machine would solve the wireless
problem. I think that helping people to help themselves is a better solution than a remastered disk.
roberts reply#21: New computers with Windows typically come with very few worthwhile applications
installed. A browser and file manager which are basically one and the same, notepad, and wordpad. The
copies of Word, Excel, PPT, etc. are 60 day trial packages that you can pay for if you wish to keep using
them. That isn't really a full turnkey system either as far as I'm concerned. The difference is you are doing
it the right way by starting with a basic desktop and leaving the rest to the end user.
lucky13 reply#22: You are being way too hard on Vista. Two years ago we got my mom (she's 73) a new
computer, unfortunately Vista was the only choice available. It boots in 3 minutes, shuts down in 1, and
in general is slow, which should not be the case for a 3Ghz machine. Yes, thanks to the software model
(fatter, dumber, and slower) used by MS I have started using Linux as much as possible, thanks Vista.
jur reply#21: I disagree. I'm glad I don't have to upgrade to faster hardware due to the software model
mentioned if I install a newer version of linux.
bmarkus reply#40: I used to have one of those, cat that is.
Personally I think Linux is a wonderful operating system and that TC's architecture is well thought out.
-
bmarkus reply#7: I still don't fully understand them. The Core Concepts page as I view it does not focus
clearly enough on the various operating modes by mixing in terms like grub, boot codes, dependency
checking. Someone new to Linux will just walk away confused.
Any improvements to the docs are welcome. ;)
-
Let me second that as well.
I also see some nice videos on Tiny Core posted on YouTube.
Contributing videos to our collection on any area of Tiny/Micro Core would be very much welcomed. It could really make things clear for new users.
If you have made such a video or willingly to do so please contact me or a team member.
-
@ roberts && curaga: I agree, so i decided to try my hand at documentation.
@ roberts: I have read in various posts that you want TCL to be flexible and users to have
choices as to how they install TCL. These instructions are not intended
to undermine that goal, merely to push newcomers to a known starting
point so that they can try TCL and become comfortable with it before trying
more advanced installs. Feel free to suggest changes, corrections or
reject it as you see fit. This was written in an attempt to take the newcomer
by the hand and walk them through the process.
[EDIT]: Attachment moved to http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,11257.msg58894.html#msg58894 (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,11257.msg58894.html#msg58894)
-
I hope distrowatch won't be writing tc/mc is for "old computers". That is off-putting.
Anyone can put comments on Distrowatch. It may be worth letting them know about this.
-
True, I think tc is not nice with old computers. With 16 Megs of RAM Debian would run fine and tc not at all.
That's why we don't think in black and white.
I would also like to see simpler documentation, but it seems to me that everything is in constant flux because of rapid development, so I never know where to start...
In my experience it was often faster and more rewarding to read the source rather than docs, release notes and changelogs. Commands like vi `which tce-setup`got very important for me to track development.
-
Oh, the pirates are well aware of Daemon Tools ;) What surprises them in linux is that loop mounts are considered a part of the core os, not some payware.
Heh, that's why I use tinycore. It feels so great to know each app I use has been automatically MOUNTED just like when I used to run Daemon Tools. ;)
-
@Rich, Thank you for your submission. It is currently under review and will likely be distributed in the packet to be given out at the upcoming Scale9x event. It will then be added to the website.
-
@roberts: Thank you for allowing me to contribute to TCL.
-
Rich's document renamed to Quick & Easy Overview is now incorporated into our website (tinycorelinux.com:/overview.html (http://tinycorelinux.com:/overview.html)).
It is linked near the bottom of tinycorelinux.com:/intro.html (http://tinycorelinux.com:/intro.html) and near the top of
tinycorelinux.com:/install.html (http://tinycorelinux.com:/install.html)
Also linked in the forum at http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=7495.0
-
Hi roberts
I'm sorry to say I spotted 2 small errors (mine not your's).
For the minimum CPU it should be i486DX
On the AppBrowser instructions I forgot to mention clicking the set button if the
destination is modified.
-
Edit done. Thanks.
-
Excellent addition! I wonder if I might comment - this great overview is linked a bit obscurely... it seems to me that this is something that might be placed more prominently, near the top, and indicated with bold font. Or it might get its own link on the front page under the logo?
One further suggestion: I think it could do with a description of the differences between OnBoot and OnDemand and when to use what. I looked all over the tcl site and couldn't find this description anywhere.
-
Hi jur
Thank you for the compliment. The primary focus was to get someone up and running. I therefore limited
my explanations to how the listed installation modes differed so that they could make an informed choice.
While knowing the difference between OnBoot and OnDemand may be relevant in fine tuning one's setup
it is not required knowledge for the first time user. Like it or not, somebody who is new to Linux probably
won't care about technical details, they just want to see it run. If you can get them that far, hopefully they
will like Tinycore and you can ease them into what makes TC work the way it does. Half the battle is
getting people to read the documentation, short and to the point is the easiest way to get there. If roberts
asks me to I will try to write up a clear and brief discription on the differences, however I don't believe it
belongs in this overview.
-
This article might help you to decide what is the best linux distro (http://"http://tips-linux.net/en/linux-ubuntu/linux-articles/choosing-best-linux-distro-you") for you
-
The URL http://"http://tips-linux.net/en/linux-ubuntu/linux-articles/choosing-best-linux-distro-you" contains characters that are not valid in the location they are found.
;)
-
But why don't they include tinycore and what is with all the flashy java scripts on this page?
-
But why don't they include tinycore and what is with all the flashy java scripts on this page?
Yes, and why would friends let friends use ubuntu?
-
My vote is for Swift Linux.
Swift Linux 0.1.0 is now available at http://www.swiftlinux.org and based on the new antiX Linux M11. There are two plain vanilla editions (Diet Swift Linux and Regular Swift Linux) and four special editions (Taylor Swift Linux, iCarly Swift Linux, Magnum P.I. Swift Linux, and NASCAR Swift Linux).
Swift Linux is lightweight, fully compatible with the large Debian software repository, and user-friendly. No other distro can compete with Swift Linux on all three of these criteria. If you wish that Puppy Linux had a large software repository, or if you wish that Linux Mint could be as lightweight as Puppy Linux, then this is the distro for you.
Swift Linux gives that old computer a new lease on life! Windows XP support ends on April 8, 2014. Instead of spending hundreds of dollars on a new computer or slowing down your old computer with a costly and bloated "upgrade", make the REAL UPGRADE to Swift Linux.
P.S. Swift Linux NEEDS more developers! The version control system is GitHub (https://github.com/swiftlinux), and the bug/goal tracker is Launchpad.net (https://launchpad.net/swiftlinux). Developers who have worked on any of the following distros are especially appreciated:
Linux Mint (very successful track record and user-friendly)
Puppy Linux (very lightweight and user-friendly)
antiX Linux (parent distro of Swift Linux)
-
Have you considered a job in the advertisement business?
-
"Swift Linux requires just 128 MB of RAM (256 MB recommended), which is ridiculously low even by Linux standards."
O RLY?
"Of course, if you know how to configure Debian, you can create an even swifter distro than Swift Linux."
Hehe...
And contrary to what you guys say on your page Debian/Ubuntu and even tinycorelinux runs on hardware with less than 128MB Ram.
-
I've run several linux systems on a 4MB RAM laptop.
My router which has 16MB of RAM allows me to run Linux plus store Micro Core in tmpfs.
-
The description of Swift Linux given above sounds very enticing and likely worth a look, but even the light version seems a bit hefty around here.
And why do they give the download size in bits anyhow? Very unusual.
-
My vote is for Swift Linux.
Swift Linux 0.1.0 is now available at http://www.swiftlinux.org and based on the new antiX Linux M11.
I have AntixM8.5 full on my old box (and TCL).
It tooks me 3hours for upgrading M8.5 to squeeze last week.. and it takes approx 2,5GB of my "big" 10 GB HDD.
I keep AntixM8.5 for showing friends that Linux is a bit like windows.
But..
I m having TCL as productive linux on my box.. the frugal type is still attractive for me.
(after trying Puppy, DSL, Ubuntu, Partedmagic, kNOPPIX).
swift? a bit late for me.. I have not so much time and efforts anymore to test this one. I will monitore the effect of the announcement in the net.
-
Have you considered a job in the advertisement business?
No, marketing:
There are now four special editions of Swift Linux: Taylor Swift Linux, iCarly Swift Linux, Magnum P.I. Swift Linux, and NASCAR Swift Linux. All special editions are regular Swift Linux with special wallpaper and a special audio clip that plays when you boot up. There is NO official status whatsoever. Thus, these special editions are just marketing gimmicks to promote Linux.
Kind of strange coming from a EE, though. It's worth noting that Tiny Core is the opposite of this. If something in Tiny Core isn't absolutely required, it is isn't there. Even dropbear is not included in the base distribution. No gimmicks here, just value.
I'd figure remastering Tiny Core with pre-packaged forensics tools would be far easier than building a new distro based on a bigger one. Debian packages work under Tiny Core, so just pulling in the binaries should be possible.
-
I tested Porteus the other day. Less than 200MB and it booted frugally on my NTFS hdd so easy to install.
title Porteus OS does allow me to change menu.lst as root = toor
rootnoverify (hd0,0)
kernel /porteusboot/vmlinuz rw changes=/porteus/slaxsave.dat
initrd /porteusboot/initrd.lz
boot
this part allow it to save changes and personal preferences like local time and keyboard and such.
changes=/porteus/slaxsave.dat
It is a modern Slax which is losely based on Slackware. They use the Sw repository for software.
I kind of like it. TCL is the most lightweight from scratch but grow fast when one add things, Puppy being some 128 to 220 or so is my fave but Porteus is not bad at all.
Slitaz is very small starting out as 30 MB or so but I fail to set it up like I want it to so too fancy high tech for me.
Knoppix "micro" version is way too big but I have it as a Debian version that I can find their software repo.
Antix is a good but it does not allow me to do things that Porteus allowed me to do and Knoppix and Puppy allow me to do.
Peppermint is rather small too. 400 MB? But it need grub2 to boot. And being a live system it is not easy to set up persistence on it.
Apart from these what else is small? CDLinux but then I rather use Porteus both being Slax varieties.
There are no more small ones are there? Oh maybe Archiso from Godane but he got into Slitaz so he took a big break away from Arch. godane.wordpress.com
I like things small so I find TCL rather cute. But one need to know the linux software to be able to use it. So it will take a long time me get confident enough to make use of it.
-
one day or another, you have to get in touch with in depth linux knowledge, and that's where everything change, because you take hand of your technology and your ability. it tooks me years (and will take me years again) in order to be confident with linux, but even if the curve can be steady, what you'll get for it is worth the time spent. in the linux world, i think there is nothing challenging tc/mc know in every respect... even kolibrios (not linux though) or puppy (no offense, there are super distros, too, i have used them, but tc/mc is the path to follow).
-
I guess the Q would be... Best for doing what? The best distros are made to do something well.
Trying to "do it all" is a sure sign that it doesn`t do much very well.
Ubuntu is a great example of trying to do it all. A legacy model OS ( old school ).
Puppy was made to be a simple OS for home use. It does it well with good built in apps. Legacyish OS too.
I think TC has the same type of user group as Puppy, but it`s package setup is vastly superior.