Damn Small Linux Not So Small 222
An anonymous reader writes "According to DistroWatch, Damn Small Linux (DSL) is currently the most popular microLinux distribution. Linux.com (Also owned by VA) takes a look at why this might be the case, and how you can best take advantage of it. From the article: 'What began as a toy project to stuff the maximum software inside a 50MB ISO file has matured into a refined community project known for its speed and versatility. DSL includes the ultra-lightweight FluxBox window manager, two Web browsers, Slypheed email client and news reader, xpdf PDF viewer, XMMS with MPEG media file support for playing audio and video, BashBurn CD burner, XPaint image editing, VNCViewer and rdesktop to control Windows and Linux desktops remotely, and more. If they could do all this in 50 megs, imagine what they could do in more space. Last month the DSL developers released DSL-Not, a.k.a. DSL-N 0.1 RC1. It's 83.5MB of DSL coated with GTK sugar. Yummy!'"
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the increasing size, DSL is still an awesome tool. It manages to pack almost as much coolness as Knoppix (less cohesive, 'cause it's not all KDE, but most of the functionality is still there in discrete applications) in a much smaller size that is more convenient to download when you need a quick but useful bootable Linux disc.
Kudos to the developers, keep up the good work!
Not that big Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
The OP seems to have missed the whole point of DSL. There are plenty of other choices of distro if you take away the size limit.
I use it all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess at two reasons for the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Second I have found many non Linux users who think DSL sounds like a good way to start because they're so sick of bloat. Could be that a lot of them download it just to see what it's like. This second reason is probably somewhat unfortunate since DSL can be a bit frustrating for someone unfamiliar with FOSS distros.
I used to have some machines using DSL, but I found that Knoppix with fluxbox just made it so much simpler.
It's popular because.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not that big Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what they meant was, "imagine what it would be like to have a distro that wasn't full of bloat."
You may now begin telling us how #insert_your_favourite_distro_here# is bloat free. :-)
Re:Not that big Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one of the reasons why all modern OSes are so large, they all strive to attract as wide a userbase as possible. They want to appeal to EVERYONE.
Re:yuk! gtk! Fluxbox is much nicer anyway. (Score:2, Insightful)
Different *DSL sizes make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
What is up with DSL and Samba? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was really disappointed after downloading DSL-N and finding out it still has this same disappointment.
Now, please, somebody make a fool of me. Show me I'm wrong. Tell me there is a way to do a samba connect without downloading anything with DSL or DSL-N.
Re:Not that big Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Two web browsers!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
That and (Score:5, Insightful)
Programs are much larger these days then they used to be but that's not a bad thing. EVen if it is because of something like moving to a managed language that needs runtimes and generates larger code, it's not bad if it makes it easier to maintain. You can still step back to more compact, less feature rich designs when needed as DSL demonstrates.
Re:Slax? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not that big Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
NetBSD (Score:3, Insightful)
Also NetBSD libc is alot smaller than the bloated glibc of linux. The resulting binaries are smaller for standard apps. Kde seems a little faster but perhaps its my imagination.
NetBSD is great for older systems that wont modern software.
Re:I would guess at two reasons for the numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Years ago, I had a P2 350 with 64 meg of RAM and Windows 98. (not Special Edition. If it has a 'boot slower' feature, I'd be interested to hear about it...) That didn't take 10 minutes to boot. Maybe 2, but nowhere near 10. If it did, I would have switched to NT far earlier than I did.
Re:PuppyLinux with 2.6? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not that big Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the QNX day ... (Score:2, Insightful)