A "green" distro of Ubuntu?

[Albert Wagner]

On 07/02/2011 02:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Avi wrote:
>> Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> No indication that it's Debian based or compatible.
>>
>> Where did you look?
> NOT sure MEA CULPA MEA CULPA
>> Its Debian heritage is mentioned on the front page.
>>
>> What do you mean by Debian compatible, though?
>
> Two things:
>   1. look and feel - admitedly vague terms
>   2. using "Debian" update/dependency protocols
>      {I've read enough to I _suspect_ they would be preferable
>       to RPM equivalents}
> >Just DFSG friendly?
>
> And "DFSG" means what? ????
>
>> You're not going to get below 50MB if you want to have the whole of
>> dpkg as well as the rest of the OS.
>
> And "dpkg" means what? ????
It means #2 in your list "Two things:" above.
>
>> http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html
>>> 50 MB is not really small.
>>
>> Nowadays, I'm afraid it is. You'd perhaps be best off looking at one of
>> the DIY distros - something like LFS[0]?
>>
>> What sort of size are you aiming at?
>> http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html
>
> W-E-L-L-L-L
>   Tiny Core Linux
>     { http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html
>     claims fully functional at ~10 MB }
>
> IIRC Win 3.1 had a competitor ~1979 which ran ontop of MS-DOS.
>
> Can't modern *nix do better?
Did you just pop out of a time capsule?  Memory is cheaper than dirt.  
Far cheaper than millions of programmers working non-stop to write more 
efficient code.  It's cheaper in terms of time also. None of today's 
applications would ever make it to market if they waited until the code 
was "sufficiently" efficient to suit your standards.  Personally, I 
think that you are just teasing us.  What does "fully functional" mean 
to you?  You already said that you didn't use all of the functionality 
of Win3.1.
>
> I can not find it at moment, but I believe Ive seen refetrences to 
> under 10 MB Linux distros ? ?? ??? ?????
>
>
>
>