Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

johnraff · 2022-04-06 04:40:49

Every Debian release the base system gets bigger, and I just did a test build of Beryllium 32 bit. Including the Paper Icon theme it came to ~950MB which is way too big to fit on a 700MB CD.

I could squeeze and squeeze it - drop lots of packages, leave out man pages, tweak compression settings, every trick in the book and possibly get something small enough to fit on a CD.

But... how many computers are there now in use which are unable to boot from a USB stick?
Would anybody in the community be seriously inconvenienced if the 32 bit iso was bigger than 700MB?

If that limit is taken away then the 32 bit system can have nice icons, man pages and a reasonable selection of useful applications. It will still use some lightweight alternatives, compared with the amd64 build, because after all 32 bit computers are going to be a bit old and under-powered. I'm guessing some people might want to install firefox instead of the default dillo, although dillo is wonderfully fast if you don't need javascript. The meta-package can also be used to get the standard package set, if wanted.

Anyway, OK to go over 700MB?

Bearded_Blunder · 2022-04-06 05:14:47

Hmmm... I think the point was for those with 32 bit hardware & potentially no usb boot..
If you're going to drop the 700MB limit, the next logical one is 4.7GB & require them to have something that will read/boot a single layer DVD or boot USB. 800MB CDs also exist (Phillips make/sell them) But that's still a LOT to squeeze down.

I don't think there's that many machines alive anymore with only a CD drive & no USB boot.. Basically XP (Or earlier) machines you couldn't install Windows Vista on without upgrading to that capability.

If anyone actually does need to install with that configuration, they could perhaps be pointed at the method currently being used to install the Dev preview, or your netinstall script when it gets updated? I mean I own such a machine.. but it struggled *running* hydrogen.. I don't think it has a prayer of being useable with beryllium even if I got it to install.

These days I don't think "The ability to boot from USB flash or DVD" is too much to ask... It's way better than dropping 32 bit support completely. That's just my opinion though.

Windows 32 bit is borderline to squeeze on a single layer (4.7GB) writeable DVD.. never mind a CD 64 bit hasn't fit for quite a few builds...

Last edited by Bearded_Blunder (2022-04-06 05:57:08)

johnraff · 2022-04-06 05:56:20

Bearded_Blunder wrote:

I think the point was for those with 32 bit hardware & potentially no usb boot..

Yup, that was the point. I'm suggesting we can now make usb bootability a requirement without leaving out a significant number of potential users. And as you say, there is always a Debian netinstall as a workaround.

If you're going to drop the 700MB limit, the next logical one is 4.7GB...

I doubt we'll reach that any time soon.

I don't think there's that many machines alive anymore with only a CD drive & no USB boot..

My thought too. The last one I had was originally Win 95, upgraded to 98.

These days I don't think "The ability to boot from USB flash or DVD" is too much to ask... It's way better than dropping 32 bit support completely.

Right. Many distros have dropped 32 bit, and I do see approving mentions of BL on Twitter etc as a good option for 32 bit machines. I think we should keep it up as long as Debian do.

But dropping the 700MB limit will make life a lot simpler for me when configuring live-build.

Bearded_Blunder · 2022-04-06 06:08:00

johnraff wrote:

I don't think there's that many machines alive anymore with only a CD drive & no USB boot..
My thought too. The last one I had was originally Win 95, upgraded to 98.

The few that are are commanding prices as retro gaming PCs & being restored back to the DOS or early Windows they came with..

They're really not viable for any other use.

I do agree with maintaining 32 bit support as long as reasonably feasible though, if that's as long as Debian or not is a slightly separate issue.. My cutoff would be Debian still maintaining a viable browser & productivity apps in 32 bit.. they might carry on with 32 bit in CLI form past where it's viable for a desktop operating system.

There's this other factor besides how easy or otherwise it'd be to squish & trim..
Namely how good the user experience is for 32 bit users.. you don't want to trim it so far it feels bare, or they feel uncared about.. nor do you want to push too many things into post-install & make the live session too spartan & post-setup a long dragged out thing like Windows OOBE. Personally I think the trimming got taken about as far as it reasonably should with Lithium.

Last edited by Bearded_Blunder (2022-04-06 06:36:31)

rbh · 2022-04-06 07:40:58

If you can't boot directly from usb, you can boot Plop boot manager from CD or floppy and then boot from usb.

More info at https://www.plop.at/en/bootmanager/plpbt.bin.html

Bearded_Blunder · 2022-04-06 11:51:42

rbh wrote:

If you can't boot directly from usb, you can boot Plop boot manager from CD or floppy and then boot from usb.
More info at https://www.plop.at/en/bootmanager/plpbt.bin.html

You can try, I've had (now dead & recycled) hardware that didn't work on, I'm sure it mostly works judging by reviews & reputation, but my actual experience with it is literally 50:50 one system it worked & one it didn't.

sleekmason · 2022-04-06 14:32:16

With the firmware reaching around 200MB, I would think even keeping it under 1,000MB will be difficult without providing a separate package to just replace what would have to be removed in order to make it 'Bunsen Labs'.

It will be interesting to see how it's done:)

DeepDayze · 2022-04-06 15:50:53

sleekmason wrote:

With the firmware reaching around 200MB, I would think even keeping it under 1,000MB will be difficult without providing a separate package to just replace what would have to be removed in order to make it 'Bunsen Labs'.
It will be interesting to see how it's done:)

Firmware is an important part of the experience and it seems to be taking up the most space in an image, so it sure is pretty difficult to keep a cd-sized live image around for 32 bit. Later 32 bit machines mostly do have the capability to boot from USB or DVD so a USB image should be an option for those who want to install BL on a 32 bit machine. It's just those older machines that don't and maybe a netinstall cd image can be provided.

Bearded_Blunder · 2022-04-06 18:15:21

DeepDayze wrote:

It's just those older machines ... .

I'm honestly wondering just how many of those older machines meet the other minimum requirements 1G ram? & that's for Lithium.
It's going to be a RARE motherboard that doesn't support USB boot & does support that much, P3 & older the motherboards rarely support that much RAM.. P4 & onward.. no USB boot is RARE, & then subtract from those low numbers ones that have a DVD drive & could boot a burned DVD size iso rather than only a CD.

I think we're in territory it's uncommon enough to point them at a CLI netinstall using the Debian CD image & instructions how to install the metapackage, or @johnraff's netinstall script. I don't think there'll be enough candidates who actually "need" it to justify the work of a third special image over using that approach..

I think there'd be more actual demand for an ARM / R-Pi ediition.

DeepDayze · 2022-04-06 19:04:55

Bearded_Blunder wrote:

DeepDayze wrote:
It's just those older machines ... .
I'm honestly wondering just how many of those older machines meet the other minimum requirements 1G ram? & that's for Lithium.
It's going to be a RARE motherboard that doesn't support USB boot & does support that much, P3 & older the motherboards rarely support that much RAM.. P4 & onward.. no USB boot is RARE, & then subtract from those low numbers ones that have a DVD drive & could boot a burned DVD size iso rather than only a CD.
I think we're in territory it's uncommon enough to point them at a CLI netinstall using the Debian CD image & instructions how to install the metapackage, or @johnraff's netinstall script. I don't think there'll be enough candidates who actually "need" it to justify the work of a third special image over using that approach..
I think there'd be more actual demand for an ARM / R-Pi ediition.

Most P3 based machines usually have 1-2GB max from my experience as I have an IBM Thinkpad T42 that accepts 2GB max. That one can boot from USB albeit slow, but it is fairly usable from usb boot. It's even older P3 based systems that usually don't boot direct from USB but with a helper program like PLOP they then can but those oldies most likely have just USB1.0 or 1.1 ports which will make the experience really slow so people with patience can get BL installed on these.

johnraff · 2022-04-07 01:03:57

sleekmason wrote:

With the firmware reaching around 200MB, I would think even keeping it under 1,000MB will be difficult without providing a separate package to just replace what would have to be removed in order to make it 'Bunsen Labs'.

Well, the trial build, including firmware, came to ~950MB. I used a lot of hacks to squash it down (as with Lithium CD) but if an attempt were made to get it down to 700 then firmware would have to go, except perhaps just the Broadcom wireless. The new "firmware" stage of bl-welcome might get whatever else was needed, presuming it was possible to boot to a desktop without it...

Actually trying to squeeze out a CD iso might be an interesting little project to try after the Beryllium release.

johnraff · 2022-08-08 04:50:03

Beryllium netinstall script is now available.
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=8250

#1 2022-04-06 04:40:49

Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#2 2022-04-06 05:14:47

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#3 2022-04-06 05:56:20

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#4 2022-04-06 06:08:00

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#5 2022-04-06 07:40:58

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#6 2022-04-06 11:51:42

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#7 2022-04-06 14:32:16

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#8 2022-04-06 15:50:53

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#9 2022-04-06 18:15:21

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#10 2022-04-06 19:04:55

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#11 2022-04-07 01:03:57

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

#12 2022-08-08 04:50:03

Re: Beryllium 32 bit iso, need to keep below 700MB?

Board footer