Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:50:12 -0500 (EST) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: proper place to discuss kernel 'bloatedness'? |
| |
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Michael Loftis wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Perhaps I need to re-iterate the problem... > > I'm not concerned about speed issues nor other issues... Simple the huge > footprint the kernel has. Many people (like myself) run Linux on small > systems where popping open a 40MB tarball would overfill the disks. And > even if you 'clean out' stuff manually you'll probably not have enough > space to compile it and you run the risk of messing up the kernel... > > Below is df -h from my largest system running x86 Linux here > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > /dev/hda1 382M 315M 48M 87% / > > As you can see there's no way Linux could be compiled. This system will be > effectively stuck at 2.0.35 forever. > [SNIPPED]
This is not the kernel! This is about 300 megabytes of stuff that came off a distribution disk. A lot is text in /usr/info. A system that has a 'C' compiler and its necessary includes, X11 with its comprssed fonts, some man pages, and a current kernel, only takes about 40 megabytes.
If you remove the man pages, you save another 15. Note that you can make a bootable system that will run the vim editor, mount, and a few other basic 'fix-your-system` tools on two floppy disks with no RAM disk. I have such a rescue disk pair.
Cheers, Dick Johnson ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** Penguin : Linux version 2.1.131 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips). Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology. Wisdom : It's not a Y2K problem. It's a Y2Day problem.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |