Talk:Tiny Core Linux/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deletion

I recreated article hoping that this time it won't be deleted for copyvio since I did not violate any copyrights this time. Please do not delete it or block it from recreation. Pmlinediter (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I am sorry if I did anything to harm Wikipedia or WPLinux. Pmlinediter (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiny Core Linux Team

Is there any need to have the Tiny Core Linux Team section in the article. It doesn't add any useful information. DavidMarsh (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

More info on licensing please!

"Various" is not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.117.4 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Added the license. OreoMadn3ss (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision

I'm planning on revising this article. The TCZ system has evolved qutie a bit since this article was written, and there is other useful information about TinyCore that isn't on the page. Also, the "Timeline" seems fairly useless. any objections to removing it? --Libertyernie2 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Content Removal

The sections "Team Tiny Core" and "Release History" do not add anything to the article, and as such I will delete them in a week if no objections are made. HMman (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Seeing no objections, I will go ahead. Instead of my original proposal, I'll do some major trimming to the "Release History" as opposed to outright deletion. HMman (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC).

CorePure64 and Fatdog64

It appears (at least to me) that Fatdog64 has at least some traits of CP64 - notably, Puppy's standard "bulk-file" is stored within the core GZ, the TinyCore way. And the "save wizard" only occurs when shutdown/reboot is initiated out of GUI, else it shuts down without question, and its thorough shutdown/reboot preparation script is reminiscent of Tiny Core's (though it puts more effort into spinning down the physical hard drive/CDROM). So, Fatdog64 appears to be a blend of CorePure64 and Puppy, scrapping TinyCore's TCE tools but retaining the Puppy SFS loader tools. This is obvious even to a non-tech-savvy guy, and is also evidenced by double presence of Control Panel (both in System menu and in menu's root). Another thing potentially pointing at this is the ability to use a sub-folder instead of a save state (though this could be a new feature relying on both Puppy's and Tiny Core's existing features). This is something that may be of note to people comparing Linux distributions (such as tech bloggers). - Yura87 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiny Core Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shingledecker.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

File sizes

I am going through our this page and verifying all of the citations.

I have a question about file sizes Here are the sizes I personally verified:

• ISO size of Core x86 Version 12.0: 15.3 MB (16,054,272 bytes)
• ISO size of TinyCore x86 Version 12.0: 20.0 MB (20,971,520 bytes)
• ISO size of CorePlus x86 Version 12.0: 155 MB (162,529,280 bytes)
• IMG Size of piCore Version 13.0.3 (after unzipping): 84.0 MB (88,080,384 bytes)

Right now I just put these results in edit comments -- I am hoping to find a reliable secondary source to confirm my WP:OR.

My question is about dCore. For dCore x86 I have bionic, jessie, stretch, trusty, wheezy, and xenial.[1] For dCore 64 I have bionic64, buster64, focal64, and stretch64.[2] Which should I use for measuring the size of dCore?

Related: dCore FAQ,[3] Question "Why offer so many Debian and Ubuntu flavors?" --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, for the dCore sizes I would choose the most current stable builds to represent the file sizes of both the x86 and dCore 64 versions because those will be the most likely to appear in future secondary sourcing, and that is what appears in the current sourcing. I also think you can use the primary sources for the data per talk here:

User_talk:Guy_Macon#Answer_to_questions_about_Linux_Categories. Absent of secondary sourcing, you could always list all of the file sizes of each version explaining that there are different sizes available depending what version you choose, but that is a whole lot of un-needed work when you can still explain that there are many sizes available and simply list the most current stable version as an example of one of them. Nothing at all wrong with that... Huggums537 (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)