Tiny Core Linux Is Your Smallest Choice For An Operating System

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by lotuseclat79, Aug 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
  2. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Nope, that would be MenuetOS (followed by KolibriOS).
     
  3. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi J_L,

    Both MenuetOS and KolibriOS (a free fork from MenuetOS) are not Linux. Yes they are small, and while KoibriOS is open source, MenuetOS is not. Both appear to be targeted at the real-tiime market for use.

    -- Tom
     
  4. inka

    inka Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Posts:
    406
    Smallest as in "lemony fresh"... or smallest in terms of "mines is biggern yours" ? :shifty:

    Here's a strong contender for "smallest practical Operating System" ~~ it fits into a single statement:

    01100100011011110010000001101110011011110010000001100101011101100110100101101100
     
  5. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    The title states smallest OS, and the article never said Linux-only (implying doesn't take back a statement).

    I've used all three, but they're all rather limiting until a lot of changes are made.
     
  6. stapp

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    7,289
    Location:
    England
    I don't use a lot of Linux, it's mainly LiveCD's.

    The best small one I've used was SliTaz (35MB) download
     
  7. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi J_L,

    Did you not read the article linked in msg #1 which was all about Linux variants? Despite the author's title of their article - there was no mistaking that the article was all about Linux variants and infers that regardless of what the title of this thread states literally. Being literal about the title's meaning does not give readers leave to not read the article before commenting, thus assuming they think from a literal interpretation of the title that they know what the article was all about.

    I used the original title of the article for this thread's title - so, take up your issue with the article's author! Next time, read the article before commenting, so that you understand its context - and then you will not be misled by your assumptions, i.e. that implying doesn't take back a statement. Indeed, implications, inferences and metaphors regarding the contextual meanings of what is stated offers us all a much more vibrant tapestry in order to understand the issues of the day.

    -- Tom :rolleyes:
     
  8. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    So you're fine with marketing lies that aren't even addressed (but simply ignored) in the content. FYI, I already read the article and its title. Just because they said Linux doesn't only mean sole coverage of Linux, but also Linux as the exclusive option.
     
  9. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi J_L,

    Instead of mounting an Ad Hominem argument, you would do well to enlighten us all by delineating the "marketing lies that aren't even addressed (but simply ignored) in the content" and refuting the claims of the author of the article - with whom it would seem you have an issue.

    Regarding the title and its meaning (that ship has already sailed BTW), if you indeed read the article as you claim - then why try and hijack this thread so that you can rant about the semantic meaning of the title and talk about what you think you need to talk about - open up your own thread and discuss your issues there.

    -- Tom
     
  10. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Marketing lies means the title by definition. The article content doesn't address it by stating they actually mean Linux-only. I have nothing against the author or the (other) claims, only the unaddressed title used.

    You really think this is worth a new thread? Or do you just want me outta here? Either way, it doesn't matter because the ship has indeed already sailed. You were the wind who blew it after all.
     
  11. hogndog

    hogndog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Posts:
    628
    Location:
    In His Service
    Best one I've tried comes in at 132 MB called Puppy Linux Lucid and it has persistent, that's the ability to save your settings. I can't remember if SliTaz has that feature..:)

    Its the fastest OS I've tried

    Hogndog
     
  12. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Please take your issue up with the original author of the article at the webpage located at the link in message #1, and the so-call marketing issues. At least the original author did some tests to arrive at their conclusions which is more than I can say about your semantic drivel.

    It was very clear upon reading the article that the content was Linuux-only - and please don't protest otherwise since it appears you are trying to hijack this thread to make it broader than Linux only. If that is what you want to talk about then start your own thread.

    Take your broader than Linux only and marketing issues elsewhere - they are non-existant as far as this thread goes since all you do is complain about them and have never once mentioned what you think is a so-called marketing issue let alone discussed why it is so important to distinguish.

    Another option for you is to discuss some technical data from you own testing of alternative Linux distributions that are small - they are out there if you do the work. I'm sure that kind of contribution to this thread would be worthwhile.

    -- Tom
     
  13. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Linux only in a UNIX section, okay someone made it clear who and what's not welcome. The marketing issue is plenty clear once you pay enough attention.

    To expand on post #5, I've also tried Puppy Linux and Damn Smaller Linux, they were pretty fully featured when it came to essentials, unlike Tiny Core Linux. Still needs more programs added for daily use.
     
  14. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi J_L,

    The all things Unix subforum at Wilders Security Forums includes Unix-like Linux FYI in case you simply did not know.!

    No one made it clear (as mud so-you-state) who and what's not welcome.

    The marketing issue (that you have never once stated nor discussed) has yet to be clarified by anyone - so, do you intend to enlighten us all on that so-called issue, and thanks for finally making a positive contribution in your 2nd paragraph!

    -- Tom
     
  15. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Of course, but this thread only appears to allow only Linux. Any other OS and those who commend them appears unwelcome.

    The issue is that the title is basically a lie often used for marketing. Then the author just moves on without clarifying it's actually meant for only Linux. Regular readers may think it's obvious, but newbies may be mistaken that Tiny Core Linux or Linux in general is the smallest choice for an OS.

    Also tried xPUD, which is like ChromeOS, but smaller and more compatible. It's probably worthwhile to dual-boot if you only need the basics sometimes, but I prefer doing everything in one reasonably fast OS or at least multiple ones at the same time. For that, xPUD needs a lot of modifications.
     
  16. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi J_L,

    I seriously doubt that there are any marketing issues whatsoever with the author's original article or this thread. Linux distributions (for the most part except for Enterprise level distributions) are Free! There is no marketing whether the author clarified it was meant only for Linux or not. No money nor profit was to be made by the author by writing that article that would necessitate the need for a marketing budget to convince readers (even newbies) of your hypothesis. Regular readers and even newbies are interested in Linux - not the smallest OS possible, except for anyone genuinely interested in embedded OSes such as something like BusyBox (a Unix-like variant) which is extensively used in that context in the industry, e.g. my router from Verizon.

    I don't personally unwelcome anyone in this thread. The issue is to be on topic. You have demonstrated that you wished to hijack this thread to expand its scope according to your own interpretation. And I, in response, have advised you to start your own thread to discuss those off topic issues.

    Please move on from your marketing issue/and with your concern about newbies whom at any rate have at least heard about Linux and have some level of interest in it most likely for an older PC or just to get started with it. Newbies are not usually interested in the choice of the smallest possible OS - just something that will work for them.

    Your concerns have now been noted and acknowledged.

    Thanks once again for making a positive contribution in the 3rd paragraph of message #15.

    -- Tom
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.