SliTaz Forum
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Ok this iknow is gonna get lots of ppl upset maybe
however would be nice to release a slitaz version based on
for example fedora or debian to get the smallnest from slitaz but
the ease of packages allready out there, Fedora-Slitaz, Debian-Slitaz? 
Please feel free to tell me im an idiot just thinking this 
Sincerally
Martin
Not a bad idea - Puppy is already is doing it. Only problem with how Puppy does it is that it kind of expects you to stick to Puppy's conventions. I know because I tried to use XFCE with it... and failed horribly.
The trouble with using the kernel of a distro is that we'd need to apply several patches so we could use the compression trick we do with SliTaz. There are several other issues that will pop up too. A good example of this is Unity Linux, which recently moved over to using the Mandriva Kernel. Some of the issues they now face is incompatible packages and a semi-unstable kernel. Either way, there is no easy way out on making a distro.
Offline
>based on for example fedora or debian to get the smallnest from slitaz
you have just divided by zero.
We turn off useless compilation-time options to reduce memory usage and dependencies, we remove bloat from packages. And we have a package system made specifically for SliTaz.
If you need debian, you can install debian:
XFCE in 40Mb of RAM: http://auriza.site40.net/notes/debian/xfce-minimal-installation/)
Offline
devl547 thanks for the link.
I'm just now learning to install ubuntu from minimal cd. 
Offline
thanx Trixar_za
//Martin
www.slitaz.eu
And our kernel version is broken. Especially with cooking. In SliTaz 3 it's lacking certain features like the Bluetooth drivers. I understand sacrificing some options to save space, but to sacrifice usability is a totally different thing. Debian has also been used as the basis for Damn Small Linux. They got so much to fit in only 50MB using that bloat copy of the Kernel. We could probably do it too and make it even smaller. Yeah, we might not be 30MB or under anymore, but we'd have a solid base to work off of.
You know what? I'm going to look into how DSL did it. I'm also going to look into how Puppy flavours like Lupu were generated. Maybe our compression tech, DSL's ultra-thin design and a modified form of the Puppy distro generation script can help us build a Hybrid version of SliTaz.
Offline
Sounds great Trixar_za and yea maybe it doesnt have to be under 30mb, but close enough
let me know if i can help in anyway Trix.
Sorry, but I don't understand why you are thinking that slitaz is somewhere around 30mb
It's just below 100mb once it's uncompressed .
talking about it compressed
Hi Martin,
that is something, I am thinking too - here are my thoughts......
what is very near to slitaz is arch
ctkarch - http://ctkarch.org
It is done with Archiso - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Archiso
I have recently discovered 2 other arch distros done with archiso -
Synthbox - http://obsoleteaudio.org/software/synthbox and DidJiX - http://didjix.blogspot.com/
so perhaps it is possible, to strip down one of these distros as much as possible and transfer all the slitaz tools to this iso.
Stripping down ctkarch - http://ctkarch.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3&t_id=3
create a custom, bootable version of the Arch Linux: https://kroweer.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/creating-a-custom-arch-linux-live-usb/
here are maybe some useful scripts from sythbox: https://github.com/seanbutnotheard/SynthBox
maybe also some useful things in it .... archbang - http://archbang.org - http://bbs.archbang.org/viewtopic.php?id=7
Offline
Another way to go is Ubuntu Mini Remix based on debian, but they allready done alot of
the ground workw that kernel would do wonders and simular package method
http://www.ubuntu-mini-remix.org/
Or at a closer look i rather would look at lubuntu:
lubuntu is a faster, more lightweight and energy saving variant of Ubuntu using LXDE, the Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment. It is targeted at "normal" PC and laptop users running on low-spec hardware.
So for now im just gonna check slitaz and install lubuntu virtually and install
same packages as in slitaz to view to ram usage/diskspace etc.
I tried Ubuntu-mini-remix and Lubuntu. One is ~200MB to download and the other ~700MB. Yes, that would mean we'd have to strip away a whole lot of junk to build SliTaz off either. I have half a mind to compile my own kernel version (based on the source provided by a distro instead of directly from Linux.org) and add the needed patches beforehand.
Anyway, I've been thinking about new forms of compression. Recently a new format has come out called xz. It's similar to what we're already using to compress the distro and it's packages, except it's faster and compresses smaller. What does that mean? It means we can fit more in less space. The downside? If we adapt it for our packages instead of just our distro then it means having to rebuild all our packages in the new compression format. It will also mean that the distro MUST ship with xz for everything to work. One positive thing is that other distros (like Slackware) have now started switching over to using xz for their packages.
Offline
gentoo and slackware already switched to it.
>MUST ship with xz for everything to work.
busybox includes xz (afaik, only decompressor).
and we can add xz to toolchain.
Offline
xz sounds like a great impliment
the discussion about compression size ratio for the ios is a stupid one - the discussion must be - how much ram are needed to run SliTaz
Here is a good article about compression and speed
http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/
I just use gzip compressed Slitaz isos - they boot quicker on older machines
Offline
It's not a stupid one. The upper limit for all packages installed with SliTaz is about 160MB if we want to be able to use it as a LiveCD that we could remove after boot. This boots OK, takes forever to compress and generally is about +-30MB to do with lzma. Now imagine if we can use a smaller and faster implementation of lzma (which xz is) which equals faster boot times and better compression (think +-25MB for what lzma needs about 38MB to do). Not only that, if we converted over packages to this, it would mean smaller package downloads which will equal faster setup from scratch, even on slow and crappy connections. Wouldn't that be worth your attention?
Offline
sorry - I cannot edit anymore - I was just interrupted..
if you really want a quick and good compressor - nanozip 0.09a http://www.nanozip.net/download.html it beats with the argument "-m.5g -cd" everything I know - to compare with lzma - 7zip uses lzma and lzma2 compression
see the list: http://compressionratings.com/sort.cgi?rating_sum.brief+4n
Offline
In my experience xz compresses smaller than 7z. And yes, both uses lzma as it's basis, yet both are faster than pure lzma or lzma2.
Offline
"Not only that, if we converted over packages to this, it would mean smaller package downloads which will equal faster setup from scratch, even on slow and crappy connections. Wouldn't that be worth your attention?"
No, because in those places, where you have slow and crappy connections you have slow and crappy computers and like on my P I with 256 MB Ram lzma does not boot, but gzip without any problem
I have nothing against adding xz compression - I just think - for me boot time matters and not space - eg. the smallest media I found on normal shop is 64MB CF-card - but its more expensive than a 1 GB
Offline
For me xz sounds like the best choice regarding speed / compression
and recompile debian/ubuntu kernel to smaller one to be equal to our own slitaz kernel
martin - no problem with xz, but what counts is the uncompressed OS - and the limits are: 128 MB Ram - 256 MB Ram and the next is 512 MB Ram - and the absolute limit for a system with 256 MB Ram is something 180 MB - better less 160 Mb as it is in Slitaz now, because the integrated grafic eats something and websites with fotos..... - if you are going bigger - than you can be quite bigger
compression is just a side problem
like thats the cheapest stick I found: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B003NSJYOE?SubscriptionId=AKIAIXNYVO2SJEYIT5VA&tag=geizhals07-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=12734&creativeASIN=B003NSJYOE
Offline
Ofc we want to keep it small as possible, and fast boot times, im just looking for
a good way to keep this spinnoff being good and easy compatible with software
alldready compiled.
Generally, you get smaller archives for similar performance and resource usage (it's slightly slower) when compared to gzip. I think it would work well even on older computers - even better than the current lzma compression we're using now anyway
Offline
Totally agree with you Trixar_za
Pages: 1
[ Generated in 0.015 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.58 MiB (Peak: 1.77 MiB) ]