tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5023590240909870844.post772472916745200951..comments2008-12-27T15:46:26.512+08:00jun auzahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14949001210993384627noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5023590240909870844.post-33185278619265010472008-12-27T15:43:00.000+08:002008-12-27T15:43:00.000+08:00Yeah, run Puppy 4 on the Presario 4505 (48 MB RAM) that I run DSL on and see which distro rocks.<BR/><BR/>Join the Linux Recycling Brigade today!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5023590240909870844.post-16017885192126591112008-10-27T06:31:00.000+08:002008-10-27T06:31:00.000+08:00Good review but I think your test bed computer is too fast to draw an accurate picture. With a system like this, you could compare any number of other lightweight distros, including Xubuntu.<BR/><BR/>In fact, there's no reason you couldn't run any of the feature-rich distros out there or middle-range linux offerings.<BR/><BR/>For older desktops/laptops, the responsiveness of the systems would have been more obvious and made the issue of system speed an important criteria - as it was, one of the most important features of these two OSes were completely ignored.<BR/><BR/>DSL's ability to run purely in memory, boot off a hard drive, run on CD, make packages available as DSL (dsl-extensions) files (so you don't even need an internet connection), etc - makes it a truly portable, flexible and light weight solution. Some of these extra features were left out in the comparisons.<BR/><BR/>There are also a new line of netbook computers that don't pack the punch of full-blown laptops/desktops. For users on this type of hardware, available resources after the OS take what it needs becomes an important factor. So system responsiveness continues to be one of the key features of these mini-OSes and shouldn't be overlooked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5023590240909870844.post-9221722902319432722007-11-27T22:27:00.000+08:002007-11-27T22:27:00.000+08:00Puppy and DSL seemed to have different goals. Puppy tends to be more cutting edge with later stuff, a later 2.6 kernel and comes with DVD playback built in. As a result, it tends to be larger and have more stuff build in. On the downside, Puppy is a single user system. When you boot, it automatically log you in as root. Everything run as root. You cannot set up separate accounts.<BR/><BR/>DSL is designed to remain small, so they stay with the smaller 2.4 kernel. Its advantage is that it will work better with older hardware and in smaller size. It is also a multi-user system so you can set up multiple accounts.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02645876084663217088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5023590240909870844.post-23313079073243534632007-11-05T17:22:00.000+08:002007-11-05T17:22:00.000+08:00I used Puppy 3.01 and finally found a distro that will allow my Broadcom wireless card in my desktop to connect without having to compile something or pay for Ndiswrapper etc.<BR/>Very light, stable, and just allows me to get on and work.<BR/>Much better than a lot of larger versions out there.Coznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5023590240909870844.post-36494493918116582872007-10-27T15:07:00.000+08:002007-10-27T15:07:00.000+08:00Nice post.Puppy definitely has the advantage over DSL and I'm wondering why DSL is ranked higher than Puppy in distrowatch.Kennoreply@blogger.com