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: Manuel Rodriguez on 21 Mar 2010 06:34 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.
From: DenverD on 21 Mar 2010 06:57 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. you try/choose: - Puppy Linux. <http://www.puppylinux.org/> Needs 64MB RAM for versions before 1.0.2. More recent versions need 128MB RAM and 166MHZ CPU - Elive <http://www.elivecd.org/> (has Enlightenment window manager). Needs 100MHz CPU and 64MB of RAM for one of the older versions. More recent version needs a faster CPU and more RAM - DSL (DAMN Small Linux).<http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/> needs 16MB RAM on a fast 486 CPU. But that will be slow!! Better off with 64 MB RAM and a Pentium with 200MHZ CPU - Vector Linux. <http://vectorlinux.com/> Needs 32MB RAM and 166MHZ CPU. I suspect much more RAM is desirable. - AntiX 8.2 <http://antix.mepis.org/index.php/Main_Page> will run in 128MB. It's based on MEPIS/Debian. -SliTaz <http://www.slitaz.org/> When it runs, the 25 MB compressed CD image expands to about 80 MB, so any computer with 128 MB of RAM will be able to load it fully into memory, ensuring blazing fast program execution. -Tiny Core Linux is for those who think Puppy Linux is too heavy. Just 10MB it includes a 2.6 kernel and graphics by the Fast Light Window Manager. Includes software from the BusyBox bundle. If 10MB is too much you can go to Micro Core which is under 6 MB. http://www.tinycorelinux.com/ -- DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (20090817), KDE 3.5.7 "release 72-11", openSUSE Linux 10.3, 2.6.22.19-0.4-default #1 SMP i686 athlon
From: Manuel Rodriguez on 21 Mar 2010 08:45 On 21 Mrz., 11:57, DenverD <spam.t...(a)SOMEwhere.dk> wrote: > 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. > > you try/choose: > > - Puppy Linux. <http://www.puppylinux.org/> Needs 64MB RAM for > versions before 1.0.2. More recent versions need 128MB RAM and 166MHZ CPU > > - Elive <http://www.elivecd.org/> (has Enlightenment window manager). > Needs 100MHz CPU and 64MB of RAM for one of the older versions. More > recent version needs a faster CPU and more RAM > > - DSL (DAMN Small Linux).<http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/> needs 16MB > RAM on a fast 486 CPU. But that will be slow!! Better off with 64 MB > RAM and a Pentium with 200MHZ CPU > > - Vector Linux. <http://vectorlinux.com/> Needs 32MB RAM and 166MHZ > CPU. I suspect much more RAM is desirable. > > - AntiX 8.2 <http://antix.mepis.org/index.php/Main_Page> will run in > 128MB. It's based on MEPIS/Debian. > > -SliTaz <http://www.slitaz.org/> When it runs, the 25 MB compressed CD > image expands to about 80 MB, so any computer with 128 MB of RAM will > be able to load it fully into memory, ensuring blazing fast program > execution. > > -Tiny Core Linux is for those who think Puppy Linux is too heavy. Just > 10MB it includes a 2.6 kernel and graphics by the Fast Light Window > Manager. Includes software from the BusyBox bundle. If 10MB is too > much you can go to Micro Core which is under 6 MB.http://www.tinycorelinux.com/ > > -- > DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird2.0.0.23 (20090817), > KDE 3.5.7 "release 72-11", openSUSE Linux 10.3,2.6.22.19-0.4-default > #1 SMP i686 athlon It seems that on lowram systems the kernel 2.4 is often used (instead of kernel 2.6).
From: Michael Black on 21 Mar 2010 12:32 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
From: Douglas Mayne on 21 Mar 2010 13:04
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. -- Douglas Mayne |