I wonder why it needs 20MB minimum. Back in the day linux 2.0.33 would boot happily into a GUI and everything on an 8MB machine.

Or maybe I misremember... I know my machine at the time got upgraded to 24MB so maybe it was that machine I was running.

Anyway it's neat this can still be done.

▲

walrus01 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm going to guess from the size of the kernel, since for distribution it has to be a fairly 'generic' kernel with just about every driver built into it. If one were to compile a custom 6.14 kernel for a specific hardware target with only 1 model of NIC (3c509b for example), etc, it could be a lot smaller.

▲

Wowfunhappy an hour ago | parent [-]

Why does the number of drivers compiled in affect memory use? Shouldn't the kernel just load what it needs and ignore the rest?

	▲	nycerrrrrrrrrr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If it's compiled into the kernel it'll occupy memory regardless if it's being used. If it's built as a kernel module then it doesn't occupy memory until loaded.

▲

dcminter 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You could run X11 in 4Mb at one point, although I rather wished I didn't.

	▲	EvanAnderson 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yikes-- bringing back memories of frustration. X11 on my 486SX w/ 4MB was excruciating. It would swap like crazy. Adding 8MB more RAM made such a difference. Kernel compiles were much less swappy, too. (I can still the buy I bought the four 2MB 30-pin SIMMs secondhand from but I can't remember how much I gave for them in 1993 or 1994. I feel like it was more than $100, though...)

▲

kjs3 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you could run 2.0 + X11 in 4MB in a pinch. I know I ran 2.2 + X11 in 5MB on a cast-off i386SX; tight but useable. If I recall right, 2.0 & 2.2 would run in 2MB without X11 (but a GUI like MGR might fit). 8MB was pretty good and 16MB was positively spacious.

Edit: Add: 2MB/4MB boot with a stripped down kernel, not generic.