Tiny Core Linux

General TC => General TC Talk => Topic started by: NoMoreNoLess on January 06, 2011, 11:32:58 AM

Title: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: NoMoreNoLess on January 06, 2011, 11:32:58 AM
Hi TCL folks,

TCL is a great accomplishment!  Cramming a fully functional OS into 10MB just astounds me.  And booting just to ram none the less.

I am curious if there are any other OS projects with a GUI, linux or non-linux based that come close to the footprint of TCL, past or present?

The only thing I can think of is Window 3.1, which came on 6 floppies (~8.64MB).

Thanks,
NMNL
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: jls on January 06, 2011, 11:44:04 AM
kolibrios
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: NoMoreNoLess on January 06, 2011, 12:39:15 PM
Assembly?!  That is insane.
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: tinypoodle on January 06, 2011, 04:40:45 PM
There have been dozens of Linux distros bootable from floppy into a ramdisk, but such is not really supported anymore starting with kernel 2.6.

e.g. cramdisk and tomsrtbt are still historical references though.

Also I could remember having had geexbox on a CD around 8MB.

ELKS and menuetOS (of which I think upper mentioned kolibrios is a fork of) wouldn't even manage to fill all space of a floppy... (and did I mention that one could get 3D graphics from a 1200KB OS?).

P.S.: debatable if what resides in a path like C:\PROGRAMS\WINDOWS\ could be called an OS...

Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: NoMoreNoLess on January 06, 2011, 11:04:58 PM
Curious as to why one would not consider the contents of C:/... an operating system?
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: tinypoodle on January 07, 2011, 02:21:55 AM
I think as you are misquoting me, therefore you wouldn't or couldn't understand what I meant to imply.

When it comes to Windows 3.1, \WINDOWS\ would just be one amongst many (optional) folders within the \PROGRAMS\ folder of a DOS operating system.

Also one would boot DOS, but (optionally) run Windows 3.1 (as a program).
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: Guy on January 07, 2011, 02:31:22 AM
Most other small operating systems are lacking functions.
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: beerstein on January 07, 2011, 06:10:34 AM
Hi: If you are looking for competition to TC you have to search a lot.
We had the floppy disk linuxes for a long time.
Then AUSTRUMI 2.1.7 is compact but not as powerful as TC
There is SLITAZ from switzerland which is compact (50 MB) but has a different philosophy and look at theit forum. I do not like it at all.

The TC forum is outstanding with a lot of activity every day.

I am glad to have Tiny Core and now I am not looking any further. There is nothing out there what can touch
this system. ( Especially when it comes to size and flexibility) Our primary goal should be to really
understand the "philisophy" behind this piece of work and . The more I work with TC the more
facinated I get.

I hope this post is not to much off topic. But I think TC is a revolution. For 2011 I hope to to get a new ANDROID Smart-Pad_Phone (all in one) with a free partition to run my personal TinyCore on it.

Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: tinypoodle on January 07, 2011, 02:45:23 PM
For 2011 I hope to to get a new ANDROID Smart-Pad_Phone (all in one) with a free partition to run my personal TinyCore on it.

Doubtful that would be x86, so TC as of now could not work on it.
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: NoMoreNoLess on January 07, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
I think as you are misquoting me, therefore you wouldn't or couldn't understand what I meant to imply.

When it comes to Windows 3.1, \WINDOWS\ would just be one amongst many (optional) folders within the \PROGRAMS\ folder of a DOS operating system.

Also one would boot DOS, but (optionally) run Windows 3.1 (as a program).

Gotcha.  It's been so long, I had not even considered the DOS + Windows 3.1 combo.
Title: Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
Post by: NoMoreNoLess on January 07, 2011, 06:12:21 PM
Our primary goal should be to really
understand the "philisophy" behind this piece of work and . The more I work with TC the more
facinated I get.


I am fairly new to TCL and OSes with fairly small footprints.

May I ask, what are the "core" philosophical differences, in your own words, behind SliTaz and TCL?