Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 16th May 2011 14:21 UTC
Linux How can you run a full range of current applications on older computers, netbooks, thin clients, and mobile devices? One way is to install a lightweight Linux like Puppy, Lubuntu, or Vector Light. Select the distro with the apps that meets your needs while matching your computer's resources.
Thread beginning with comment 473347
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by toomuchtatose
by toomuchtatose on Tue 17th May 2011 03:27 UTC
toomuchtatose
Member since:
2011-05-15

How does puppylinux compare to tinycorelinux?

I know that both are minimalistic, can boot from ram, allows for frugal install, fast...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by toomuchtatose
by j.dalrymple on Tue 17th May 2011 05:07 in reply to "Comment by toomuchtatose"
j.dalrymple Member since:
2011-03-29

Looking at the screenshots, I'd guess Puppy is a little easier to use and gives you more straight out of the box.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by toomuchtatose
by mikeinohio on Tue 17th May 2011 11:22 in reply to "Comment by toomuchtatose"
mikeinohio Member since:
2010-02-21

Tiny Core seems to be more minimalistic than Puppy. While things like web browsing email and word processing can be done with Tiny core, Puppy does those same things in a more polished way.

Or, to put it another way, when you are using Tiny Core, you know you are using a minimalist distribution. Puppy on the the hand has a fuller featured user interface.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by toomuchtatose
by tupp on Tue 17th May 2011 18:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by toomuchtatose"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Tiny Core seems to be more minimalistic than Puppy.

With an iso of only 10.5 MB, TinyCore is 1/12th the size of Puppy, yet it has a GUI and a lot of native tools.


While things like web browsing email and word processing can be done with TinyCore, Puppy does those same things in a more polished way.

Huh? TinyCore's repository has almost every web browser that works on Linux: Firefox, Chromium, Opera, Midori, Arora, Links, Elinks, Dillo, etc. TC's repository also contains LibreOffice, Abiword and the KDE and Gnome office applications.


Puppy on the the hand has a fuller featured user interface.

How so?

Puppy's default desktop is JWM (Joe's Window Manager).

JWM was the default desktop on TC, but they switched to a modified version of FLWM (Fast Light Window Manager). The FLWM window buttons behave a little differently, but you have a WIMP setup, with icons in a Wbar dock.

Of course, TC has many other desktops/window managers in the repository: KDE, Gnome, XFCE. JWM, Openbox, Fluxbox, Hackedbox, WindowMaker, IceWM, EvilWM, TinyWM, Windowlab, Wmii, Aewm, Compiz, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by toomuchtatose
by tupp on Tue 17th May 2011 19:33 in reply to "Comment by toomuchtatose"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Puppy is a phenomenal distro, and so is TinyCore.

However, TinyCore's iso is only 10.5 MB -- 1/12th the size of Puppy's iso. That's a contemporary OS with a fairly robust GUI that fits into 10.5 MB!

Of course, to keep things small, the TinyCore iso has very few applications included. The user chooses the programs to install.

As someone else mentioned further down in the thread, Puppy runs everything as root, TinyCore doesn't.

TinyCore has more options on how to configure the "persistence" of applications and user data. For instance, in TC, one can choose which applications load into ram, and one can choose whether to automatically save some data in an archived backup file with other data saved in a normal directory on a partition.

Like Puppy, TinyCore has an installer and it can be run live from CDs/DVDs, USB flash drives, flash cards, etc. However, TinyCore can also be installed merely by dragging two files from the iso onto one's hard drive, an then directing the boot loader to those files.

TinyCore is younger and growing rapidly, but most of the major growing pains are behind.

TinyCore also has an even tinier (<7 MB), non-GUI version: MicroCore.

Reply Parent Score: 2

toomuchtatose Member since:
2011-05-15

Just tested out both on vm.

Seems like puppy comes with more applications out of the box, along with codecs, also more user-friendly (for less technical purposes).

Contrastingly, TC feels much more modular and snappy, especially with its "odd" method of retrieving storing and "installing" packages and system directories.

Then comes a problem, I have issues trying to point Grub2 towards TC bootloader to boot automatically from config (and eventually had to manually boot it up), there is also a lack of easy frugal installation facility (I guess it is not a really important feature.)

Puppy in this case has improved (since 2008 when I last used it?) but I hope the boot time can be improved further.

Reply Parent Score: 1