On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Brenton Edgar Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm, comparing compressed packages sizes (which can be comparable to > iso compressed space used), you get the following: > nano = 85kb > leafpad = 34kb > beaver = 69kb > vi = none if busybox version is used
Thank you for checking - I just made a guess based on the download size of e3 vs nano sources and adjusted a bit for lzma vs gzip... and I guess I was way off. As for bloat and overall size, as long as we want to include the features already present in Slitaz, there's simply going to be a limit to how small it can be. Projects like TinyCore sacrifice some of the things which make Slitaz so desirable. Poly-p-ux goes further by using a homemade init/rc system (http://www.polypux.org/projects/snailit/) and also a 2.0 kernel (for size and usability on ancient machines) - aside from adopting uclibc, or replacing all of the scripts with compiled binaries, I suspect Slitaz is about as small as it will get -- it's only gone over the 30MB mark by a little, and a big part of that is from taz* improvements and updated packages. Whatever the case, the KISS philosophy should be as much about usability as it is development. I'm one of the many users who wants a small, lightweight distro that works OOTB and has the basic features Slitaz already includes. --- SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/
