I've tried both DSL and Puppy Linux. Why do so many Puppy Linux users consider their distro to be the ultimate lightweight distro when DSL is clearly much more lightweight? Puppy Linux users talk about their distro as the ultimate to squeeze more use out of old, obsolete computers. I think DSL is MUCH better qualified for this role.
I have a Dell L466CX desktop (7 years old) that has just 128 MB of RAM and is my legacy Windows 98 machine. It struggles with the Puppy Linux live CD but FLIES LIKE A ROCKET with the DSL live CD. On this IBM NetVista desktop (256 MB of RAM), I only have about 50-55 MB of free memory while running the Puppy Linux live CD while running the DSL live CD rarely uses more than 50 MB of RAM and often considerably less (like 20-30MB).
Puppy Linux has more stuff operational from the get-go (like Youtube and Flash viewing), but I find that DSL is FAR more lightweight than Puppy Linux. We should be pushing DSL as the ultimate lightweight distro for reusing old computers and the One-Laptop-Per-Child program.I think there are compromises in both Puppy and DSL. The Puppy distro seems to focus much more on keeping a cutting edge kernel along with more flashy graphics, which in some cases also means newer software than what is found in DSL. Many software developers have chosen to port the more recent releases of their projects to newer and bulkier (slower?) toolsets (such as from Gtk 1.2 to Gtk 2). The compromise here would be a either a larger system, smaller selection of applications, or both. DSL, on the other hand, tends to focus on keeping a strict 50mb size limit and support for older hardware, while providing the most flexible desktop system available. The compromise on this side is that the software, and hardware support, is not always the "latest and greatest".
As for the lack of Flash out of the DSL box, it's my belief that this is more about Flash being proprietary software than anything else.As I said not long ago in a similar thread in the Puppy forum: Puppy and dsl have different missions I think. They're less interested in tiny apps over there. In many ways, I always enjoy the simplicity of dsl. Simplicity's still a great virtue in the *nix world as far as I am concerned.
Puppy's getting quite complicated and is developing fast, since there are at least 4 developers working under Barry.
But why not use both, that's what I do. Use everything, linux is about choice and freedom : =)"But why not use both, that's what I do. Use everything, linux is about choice and freedom : =) "
amen brother. these OS's are just tools after all. sometimes we need a jewlers screwdriver, and sometimes we need a monkey wrench. use the proper tool for the job i say....
Quote (WDef @ June 03 2007,16:34)
But why not use both, that's what I do. Use everything, linux is about choice and freedom : =)
DSL is my default "I need a bash shell.." distro. I also keep a copy of Dyne:bolic on my desk right next to my DSL disk for when I need to do multimedia work.