Ubuntu on lowram
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: tin: Some newsgroups that are not subscribed are not marked with u
Next: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 31 March 2010 NJLUG: Revolution OS Movie
From: Michael Black on 21 Mar 2010 19:33 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Douglas Mayne wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:32:00 -0400, Michael Black wrote: > >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Manuel Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> I run Ubuntu 7.10 on a 100 MB RAM Laptop very fine. But the new Ubuntu >>> 9.10 doesn't work (perhaps to less RAM on startup). But i need an >>> uptodate Linux for driver reasons, e.g. Wifi USB Stick, UMTS stick and >>> so on. >>> >>> My question is: which Linux distribution should I use for my 100 MB RAM >>> laptop (instead of Ubuntu)? I need one with a precompiled kernel for >>> lowram systems. >>> >> Even a decade ago, there was a problem for some distributions because of >> the installer. The problem wasn't that the linux distribution wouldn't >> run in low RAM, but that the installer wouldn't. At that point, some >> often had a less bulky installer. I suspect that may be the real issue >> here, Ubuntu so well known for being a distribution for the masses is >> less likely to have a smaller installer. Or a secondary explanation is >> that it only allows one type of install, and that will require a certain >> amount of RAM, so the installer folds if it can't fine enough. >> >> Slackware has the same sort of installer it's always had, and isn't >> likely to choke on a "mere" 100megs of RAM. And unlike the slicker >> distributions, you have lots of control over what gets used, so you can >> turn off daemons and servers you don't need, choose a smaller GUI, and >> all that. >> >> Someone posted about the usual roundup of limited distributions, but >> Slackware (and I'm sure some of the other distributions similarly still >> allow selective install and good control over it all) lets you run with >> a current kernel and such, yet get it working with a small amount of >> RAM. >> >> Michael >> > Just to clarify, have you tried running the install for Slackware 13.0 on > a system with about 100M RAM? I see that this page > http://www.slackware.com/install/sysreq.php > > asserts that the minimum requirement is 64M. > > I am certain it will run (including the installer) with 128M RAM, but am > a bit sketchy on whether the installer itself works with less than that. > Otherwise, I agree with your post and am interested in your response. > No, I haven't. But I certainly wanted to point out where the problem may lie, and that the limited distributions aren't necessarily the right choice. Michael
From: Douglas Mayne on 22 Mar 2010 10:40
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:33:31 -0400, Michael Black wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Douglas Mayne wrote: > >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:32:00 -0400, Michael Black wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Manuel Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>> I run Ubuntu 7.10 on a 100 MB RAM Laptop very fine. But the new >>>> Ubuntu 9.10 doesn't work (perhaps to less RAM on startup). But i need >>>> an uptodate Linux for driver reasons, e.g. Wifi USB Stick, UMTS stick >>>> and so on. >>>> >>>> My question is: which Linux distribution should I use for my 100 MB >>>> RAM laptop (instead of Ubuntu)? I need one with a precompiled kernel >>>> for lowram systems. >>>> >>> Even a decade ago, there was a problem for some distributions because >>> of the installer. The problem wasn't that the linux distribution >>> wouldn't run in low RAM, but that the installer wouldn't. At that >>> point, some often had a less bulky installer. I suspect that may be >>> the real issue here, Ubuntu so well known for being a distribution for >>> the masses is less likely to have a smaller installer. Or a secondary >>> explanation is that it only allows one type of install, and that will >>> require a certain amount of RAM, so the installer folds if it can't >>> fine enough. >>> >>> Slackware has the same sort of installer it's always had, and isn't >>> likely to choke on a "mere" 100megs of RAM. And unlike the slicker >>> distributions, you have lots of control over what gets used, so you >>> can turn off daemons and servers you don't need, choose a smaller GUI, >>> and all that. >>> >>> Someone posted about the usual roundup of limited distributions, but >>> Slackware (and I'm sure some of the other distributions similarly >>> still allow selective install and good control over it all) lets you >>> run with a current kernel and such, yet get it working with a small >>> amount of RAM. >>> >>> Michael >>> >> Just to clarify, have you tried running the install for Slackware 13.0 >> on a system with about 100M RAM? I see that this page >> http://www.slackware.com/install/sysreq.php >> >> asserts that the minimum requirement is 64M. >> >> I am certain it will run (including the installer) with 128M RAM, but >> am a bit sketchy on whether the installer itself works with less than >> that. Otherwise, I agree with your post and am interested in your >> response. >> > No, I haven't. But I certainly wanted to point out where the problem > may lie, and that the limited distributions aren't necessarily the right > choice. > Ok, thanks. I can do some more checking on my own. Ok, testing is complete. I have just tested that Slackware 13.0 will setup and boot on a machine with only 64M RAM. Thus, I have seen for myself that the stated minimum system requirements (as previously mentioned) are correct. Therefore, the OP should seriously consider trying Slackware, with version 13.0 highly recommended. A machine with 100M RAM is within the spec. -- Douglas Mayne |