So far, i know xubuntu,damn small linux,puppy linux. Which of the portable linux are the smallest,fastest and has the most features?What is the minimum flash drive capacity for it to fully work?
New: Run-Command (Dec 2, 2024), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads Nov/Dec!, Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
Can't speak for the others, but I know that DSL is specifically designed to fit into 50 MB, so any drive should be sufficient.
Except for making it bootable, which is like another 25 mb.
The coloring of it is depressing as well.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
sadly DSL is dead
the dev moved onto tiny core.
I haven't gotten to look at this article myself yet, but perhaps it may be helpful:
Lifehacker Article
BlueFlopps. it is smaller than DSL. IT FITS ON 2 FLOPPY DISKS DOOD 8D and it comes with a VERY basic GUI and loads of nifty goodies that one would not expecty on a 2 floppy distro of linux
Personally, I prefer nimblex. Its 200 mb installed (I think) and you can create ISO images on the websites with different modules. It uses the KDE enviroment, but I'm not exactly sure what all it gets with it. Perl is in there, so is firefox. I haven't really been able to play with it except in virtual machines.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
I love puppy linux but most people I know like ubuntu. I haven't tried ubuntu out yet because it has errors when using qemu with it.
The only think I don't like about puppy linux is that it has seamonkey instead of firefox installed by default.
And I can't figure out how to change the display settings after first time configuration.
But Still I think Puppy Linux his the best linux distribution.
P.S. It's only 80 mb.
I don't like Puppy a lot for a few reasons:
For me to choose it as a daily OS it would need:
Puppy is, though, still a better choice than DSL, that the last time I tried it had no decent support for typing diacritical marks.
Also, I don't think Puppy should loose its small size, I just think a better apps selection would make it even smaller and nicer.
Blue is everything.
In my opinion Ubuntu is the fastest, smallest and the best portable Linux. I would like to recommend it for domain hosting as it provides better facilities when compared to others. Hope this reply will help you
>Ubuntu is the fastest, smallest
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
I think toms is just spamming the forum - check out his link - it has nothing to do with the thread/post and is a commercial site.
I am gruftie and so little bit slow thinking....;-)
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
In the following order are my favorites:
1) Puppy
2) Knoppix
3) Pendrive
4) DSL
DSL is the smallest, but I have yet to get it configured properly.
Hey! Where'd it go?
Tiny Core is the new smallest. The Developer of DSL is now working on it. Thats why DSL hasnt seen a update since november of 2008.
in other words DSL is left to be developed by one developer(the original owner) when it was developed by two previously (Owner and another Developer).
I'll have to check Tiny Core out, I guess.
In my list, DSL was the smallest, but I'll take your word on Tiny Core.
Hey! Where'd it go?
even then its not the tiniest. there is TBRST which is a 1.4MB distro (no GUI) and BlueFlopps is 2.88MB.
Y'know, you're really starting to piss me off.
I can't use VirtualBox to check all of these out. Are TBRST and BlueFlopps complete distros, or just some hacker messing around with the kernel? Tiny Core even says that it's not a complete distro, are the other two technically incomplete?
Hey! Where'd it go?
If you have kernel and few things to make human input and output sligtly comfortable then it is complete.
A floppy with DOS on it is also complete and so is any linux bootable floppy or similar media if it does the same thing.
Some people mean by complete 20Gb of games and similar, so this is difficult to decide.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
It is not a complete desktop nor is all hardware completely supported. It represents only the core needed to boot into a very minimal X desktop typically with wired internet access.
Tiny Core says, in the second sentence that it is not a complete desktop. So, does the same apply for the other two minimal OSes Mir was talking about?
Hey! Where'd it go?
Desktops... so DOS isnt a operating system just because it doesnt look prutty like windows Vista? well if thats the case lets get rid of the underlying core of XP/Vista/7 which is NT. Linux Kernel is the OS. from there you can build it to whatever you want it to look like. these so called "complete" ones you speak of are nothing more than precompiled goody bags of programs and eye candy like COMPIZ (shudders) or even a X windows desktop.
They are meant for recovery and older systems. people think that the smaller the distro the faster it will be. then they go into a support channel asking for help on why their install isnt working.
On another note what the *%*& is this complaint i see about people not getting their linux to install via PXE. What the *&$^! is this PXE %*#&^!
preboot execution environment
this is in general meant to do sort of install via network without actually running any operating system locally installed.
Operating systems can be so run from a central server and not be installed on each client computer. This is how present day large and physically scattered networks are built up.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
then the desktop has different meaning. It has nothing directly to do with the operating system. No linux has desktop included. Desktop under Linux is simply an additional application, needing some windows manager (nothing to do with windows operating system) and this application will then run with the help of the windows manager. There are many windows manager subsystems and many applications providing graphical user interface. The actual operating system does not provide any of those functions. This is different to the microsoft windows.
The closest similarity to linux and ms operating systems can be somewhere with older windows systems like w3.1 or w95 or w98 where operating system was dos (having no GUI) and the GUI was kind of an add on to the dos.
So talking of linux without GUI as not being finished or complete is not that much clear. Also asking an operating system to support all hardware, well this is a dream which never will happen probably. While new kernels support more and more relatively new hardware, the support for older hardware was dropped from the main kernel.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
Well said!
Slax is a Slackware-based portable Linux operating system, designed with a modular approach. Despite its small size about (200mb,) Slax provides a wide collection of pre-installed software for daily use, including a well-organised graphical user interface and useful recovery tools for system administrators.
I have to change my vote. Nimblex never worked for me. Go with Antix
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world