3 ms·

The "damn small" linux has 2 windows managers and 3 browsers. Doesn't look like it's small, looks like it's a collection of things the author enjoys.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
And how much space do those packages take?
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
  Take 3x what they could take.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    Not really; the 3 browsers are dillo, links2, and badwolf. Of those, dillo and links2 are <10MB each including dependencies, while badwolf uses webkit which AFAICT is on the order of ~100MB. It's not practical to only have dillo or links2, so what it "could" take is >100MB for one browser, or >120MB for 3, and 120 is less than 3x100.
nlunbeck 3y ago
> All the applications are chosen for their functionality, small size, and low dependencies I wouldn't mind a few extra mb of software if it improves my overall user experience. The nice thing about DSL is that its slim despite having a pretty comprehensive app suite.
warner25 3y ago
I also raised an eyebrow at the three web browsers, but then I was thinking that it's quite likely that none of them are reliable for opening a modern webpage, so users might have to routinely try more than one. I'm more amused by the inclusion of a GUI application for SCP and FTP. As someone who uses a full-featured desktop Linux distro as my daily driver, and uses SCP on a daily basis, I've never felt the need for anything but the CLI for that. Also a number of games? To be fair, the page states that "The new goal of DSL is to pack as much usable desktop distribution into an image small enough to fit on a single CD," so it is explicitly more about showcasing a collection of lightweight applications than it is about providing the smallest distro.
- I_like_pigeons 3y ago
  I believe one of the browsers mentioned (badwolf) just uses webkit, so it probably can browser the modern web just fine. Dillo and links2 might have a harder time with js and css tho, I'm not even sure if they support js at all.
yellowapple 3y ago
The original DSL had a similar redundancies in its available applications. Even more so for DSL-N, which was free to break the "under 50MB" rule but still stayed remarkably tiny and efficient. That was one of the things that made DSL so cool: "I can get multiple browsers, a full office suite, multimedia tools, and even games on a bootable disk that fits in my wallet? Hell yeah!". Program sizes have ballooned by an order of magnitude or more, so unfortunately so must DSL's target size if it expects to retain feature-parity, but it's still a lot of bang for one's disk-space buck by the looks of it.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

And how much space do those packages take?

lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
Take 3x what they could take.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Not really; the 3 browsers are dillo, links2, and badwolf. Of those, dillo and links2 are <10MB each including dependencies, while badwolf uses webkit which AFAICT is on the order of ~100MB. It's not practical to only have dillo or links2, so what it "could" take is >100MB for one browser, or >120MB for 3, and 120 is less than 3x100.

nlunbeck 3y ago

> All the applications are chosen for their functionality, small size, and low dependencies I wouldn't mind a few extra mb of software if it improves my overall user experience. The nice thing about DSL is that its slim despite having a pretty comprehensive app suite.

warner25 3y ago

I also raised an eyebrow at the three web browsers, but then I was thinking that it's quite likely that none of them are reliable for opening a modern webpage, so users might have to routinely try more than one. I'm more amused by the inclusion of a GUI application for SCP and FTP. As someone who uses a full-featured desktop Linux distro as my daily driver, and uses SCP on a daily basis, I've never felt the need for anything but the CLI for that. Also a number of games? To be fair, the page states that "The new goal of DSL is to pack as much usable desktop distribution into an image small enough to fit on a single CD," so it is explicitly more about showcasing a collection of lightweight applications than it is about providing the smallest distro.

I_like_pigeons 3y ago
I believe one of the browsers mentioned (badwolf) just uses webkit, so it probably can browser the modern web just fine. Dillo and links2 might have a harder time with js and css tho, I'm not even sure if they support js at all.

yellowapple 3y ago

The original DSL had a similar redundancies in its available applications. Even more so for DSL-N, which was free to break the "under 50MB" rule but still stayed remarkably tiny and efficient. That was one of the things that made DSL so cool: "I can get multiple browsers, a full office suite, multimedia tools, and even games on a bootable disk that fits in my wallet? Hell yeah!". Program sizes have ballooned by an order of magnitude or more, so unfortunately so must DSL's target size if it expects to retain feature-parity, but it's still a lot of bang for one's disk-space buck by the looks of it.