Best 32 bit version with support beyond 2023?

[Kjellinux]

I plan to test different lightweight distributions to bring new life to old hardware. As a first step I intend to test 32 bit versions. Having tried Linux Mint 19.3, I expect my first choice would be BionicPup32 8.0, since they are booth based on Ubuntu LTS 32 bit.

Given the fact that Ubuntu will end LTS for 32 bit in 2023, I would also like to test a 32 bit version that might have support beyond 2023.

I'm looking for the easiest possible versions to install as well as to run, where as much as possible is included out of the box. Which version would be my best choice beside BionicPup32 8.0?

[bigpup]

What is the computer?
Make and model?
Specs if you know them?

There are a few people looking at providing a newer 32bit Puppy version.
Who knows what or when they will provide it.

Really, Linux is dragging us all into 64 bit operating systems.
A lot of new software, is only being produced, for 64 bit OS.
the computer info may give use some ideas on maybe you moving to 64 bit.
Note:
64 bit Puppies can still run 32 bit software.

Given the fact that Ubuntu will end LTS for 32 bit in 2023, I would also like to test a 32 bit version that might have support beyond 2023.

This has nothing to do with Puppy support.

And get out of the idea that stuff needs to get constantly updated.
In Puppy Linux.
If it is not broken, do not try to fix it!
There is Puppy programs, still being used, that were developed years ago!

The only issue is the Puppy Package Manager can get software programs from Ubuntu repositories.
Those repositories may go away or no longer get new stuff in them, when the specific Ubuntu version, is no longer supported by Ubuntu.
This forum and other places the Puppy community posts software packages, is still there to use.

[Kjellinux]

What is the computer?

There's no specific computer yet. I'm primarily planning to test older hardware with 32 bit systems and 1G RAM or less. The object is to try to find out just how old hardware can still be useful for the average user who has little or no interest in computers.

And get out of the idea that stuff needs to get constantly updated.
In Puppy Linux.
If it is not broken, do not try to fix it!
There is Puppy programs, still being used, that were developed years ago!

My primary concern with updating is from a security point of view. I'm not particularly worried about old programs as long as they still work. And I do indeed agree with not fixing what is not broken!

So, my question remains, from a testing and learning pont of view:

Which version would be my best choice beside BionicPup32 8.0?

[mikewalsh]

@Kjellinux :- to the "kennels".

I agree with m'colleague, above. Puppy is rather different, both in philosophy AND operation, to most of the mainstream distros.

She's designed, above all, to be lightweight AND efficient, specifically for keeping older hardware still productive & useful. But, like everywhere else, things are inexorably moving towards 64-bit 'totality'.

64-bit hardware has been around for nearly 20 years, at this point. Folks didn't want 16-bit to die, but eventually it did; devs stopped supporting it, and building for it. Way of the world, I'm afraid; it's called (hah!) "progress".

Nevertheless, it's an inescapable fact that there's a ton of halfway decent, (mostly) Linux-friendly second-hand 64-bit machines out there, many of which can be picked up for VERY reasonable prices.....if you know where to look for 'em.

Puppy software may not have the fancy 'eye-candy' & 'bling' that you're perhaps used to with other OSs, but it's functional, and gets the job done. If it continues to do what you want from it, where's the point in upgrading it? If it ain't broken, don't try to 'fix' it. Simple as that.

-------------------------

The only stuff that SHOULD be kept 'up-to-date' is anything that faces t'internet; browsers, e-mail clients, chat clients, etc. These, we rigorously keep up-to-date.

You can't tell me you haven't got a 64-bit box somewhere there. Just for the hell of it, give a 64-bit Puppy a 'test-run'.....then tell me you've come across another distro that's more functional, and more lightweight.

I challenge you to prove me wrong...!!

As for suggestions, give Xenialpup 7.5 a look. Its 'parent', Ubuntu 16.04 'Xenial Xerus' has only JUST gone EOL; hence, everything will still be working on it for a good long while yet......browsers, etc, especially. (That's a direct link to the ISO file, BTW.)

Mike.

[amethyst]

I think now is a good time to start using Pup 412 again.

[Kjellinux]

Puppy is rather different, both in philosophy AND operation, to most of the mainstream distros.

She's designed, above all, to be lightweight AND efficient, specifically for keeping older hardware still productive & useful.

That's what brought me here.

Nevertheless, it's an inescapable fact that there's a ton of halfway decent, (mostly) Linux-friendly second-hand 64-bit machines out there, many of which can be picked up for VERY reasonable prices.....if you know where to look for 'em.

I know, I will have one delivered any day now, an Acer Aspire 3100 with 0,5G RAM (upgradable to 4G). This will be my test rig for a variety of distributions.

Puppy software may not have the fancy 'eye-candy' & 'bling' that you're perhaps used to with other OSs, but it's functional, and gets the job done. If it continues to do what you want from it, where's the point in upgrading it? If it ain't broken, don't try to 'fix' it. Simple as that.

I totally agree. My one and only criteria for success is that it must be possible to use a browser to connect to the internet. Anything beyond that is a bonus.

The only stuff that SHOULD be kept 'up-to-date' is anything that faces t'internet; browsers, e-mail clients, chat clients, etc. These, we rigorously keep up-to-date.

That's a good point!

You can't tell me you haven't got a 64-bit box somewhere there. Just for the hell of it, give a 64-bit Puppy a 'test-run'.....then tell me you've come across another distro that's more functional, and more lightweight.

I do. I even have three of them. One desktop and two laptops. They all run Windows 10 because that's what the vast majority of my customers and clients run and I have to stay compatible with them.

I also have an old Dell Latitude D610, upgraded from 0.5 to 2GB RAM that currently runs Linux Mint 19.3. Not at great speed, but enough to be quite useful.

As for suggestions, give Xenialpup 7.5 a look. Its 'parent', Ubuntu 16.04 'Xenial Xerus' has only JUST gone EOL; hence, everything will still be working on it for a good long while yet......browsers, etc, especially. (That's a direct link to the ISO file, BTW.)

If it only JUST went EOL, would I not be better off with BionicPup32 8.0, where EOL is two years from now? What's the main diference/diferrences compared to BionicPup32 8.0?

How would a version that's NOT based on Ubuntu, e.g. Slacko Puppy 7.0, compare? Or wold some other non Ubuntu version serve me better?

[mikewalsh]

@Kjellinux :-

If it only JUST went EOL, would I not be better off with BionicPup32 8.0, where EOL is two years from now? What's the main diference/diferrences compared to BionicPup32 8.0?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're displaying the 'classic' symptoms. Whether you agree with my assessment or not, you've been "conditioned" to think that way.

Well; this may sound daft (and it's only my personal opinion, when it boils right down to it).....especially in a world where we're conditioned to think that newer ALWAYS means better/'safer'. In a nutshell; stability. Xenial has had 2 more years of development, and figuring out the weak points. On top of which, Canonical introduced a lot of new concepts with Bionic Beaver, some of which STILL haven't quite been fully fixed yet.

I may be biased here; on top of a bunch of 64-bit Puppies, I also run 32-bit Xenial myself. I initially ran one of the 'beta' versions nearly 5 years ago, when Phil B. was first putting it together, and really liked it. That disappeared after a few months - for reasons I won't go into - and I re-installed the final version about a year ago. I'd forgotten what a sweet, easy-to-use Puppy it was..!

---------------------------------------

How would a version that's NOT based on Ubuntu, e.g. Slacko Puppy 7.0, compare? Or wold some other non Ubuntu version serve me better?

There's a load of Puppy versions out there, based on all sorts of things; Slackware, Debian, Arch.....even TinyCore & Void Linux.The one advantage of the 'buntu-based versions, I always find, is that they tend to come with a lot more stuff, OOTB, which makes setting them up & installing apps/progs, getting things working, etc., just less of an ordeal compared to some others......several of which often come as a very 'basic' OS which then needs an awful lot of dependencies & other stuff adding simply to get things functional. But many here like doing things that way, ending up with a Puppy which has JUST what they want, and nothing else; nothing 'extraneous' hanging around, taking up space.

For general user-friendliness, the 'buntu-based Puppies have a lot going for them. The only advice I can really give is to download a bunch of Pups, burn 'em to CD or a flashdrive, take 'em for a spin as a 'Live' session, and see what you think. There IS no 'best' Puppy, at the end of the day; it's all highly subjective....."one man's meat is another man's poison", and all that.

We must get variations on this same question a dozen or more times every year. You ask a hundred members on here these same questions, and you'll get as many different answers. It all boils down to what "works" for YOU.

Mike.

[Kjellinux]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're displaying the 'classic' symptoms. Whether you agree with my assessment or not, you've been "conditioned" to think that way.

I'm here to learn, not to score points.

In a nutshell; stability. Xenial has had 2 more years of development, and figuring out the weak points. On top of which, Canonical introduced a lot of new concepts with Bionic Beaver, some of which STILL haven't quite been fully fixed yet.

A very good point! Again!

The one advantage of the 'buntu-based versions, I always find, is that they tend to come with a lot more stuff, OOTB, which makes setting them up & installing apps/progs, getting things working, etc., just less of an ordeal compared to some others.

That's exactly what I'm looking for!

I'm still fairly new to Linux, and I think I might need to understand better what gets updated, when, by whom and why.

The only advice I can really give is to download a bunch of Pups, burn 'em to CD or a flashdrive, take 'em for a spin as a 'Live' session, and see what you think.

That's exactly what I plan to do.

We must get variations on this same question a dozen or more times every year.

I did search for some kind of "selection guide", but I culdn't find one. Does one exist?

[perdido]

I plan to test different lightweight distributions to bring new life to old hardware. As a first step I intend to test 32 bit versions. Having tried Linux Mint 19.3, I expect my first choice would be BionicPup32 8.0, since they are booth based on Ubuntu LTS 32 bit.

Given the fact that Ubuntu will end LTS for 32 bit in 2023, I would also like to test a 32 bit version that might have support beyond 2023.

I'm looking for the easiest possible versions to install as well as to run, where as much as possible is included out of the box. Which version would be my best choice beside BionicPup32 8.0?

Hi Kjellinux
I would take a look at the 32-bit versions puppy developer peebee has been putting together. He built the 32-bit BionicPup you reference and has a very up to date FossaPup32 (long term Ubuntu) he is currently maintaining as well as a bleeding edge HirsutePup32 and an in-between those two GorillaPup32. They would all be good test vehicles, the GorillaPup & HirsutePup have some later build software installed & peebee has been constantly maintaining and upgrading all 3 versions.
I'm pretty sure he plans to keep these going as long as the updates keep coming. So long term stable FossaPup32, short term bleeding edge HirsutePup32 and inbetween those two is GorillaPup32.

See those versions in this part of the forum viewforum.php?f=144&i=1

[Kjellinux]

@perdido

I would take a look at the 32-bit versions puppy developer peebee has been putting together. He built the 32-bit BionicPup you reference and has a very up to date FossaPup32 (long term Ubuntu) he is currently maintaining as well as a bleeding edge HirsutePup32 and an in-between those two GorillaPup32.

That sounds very interesting indeed. Does this mean it's possible to build a 32 bit release based on a 64 bit release?

[perdido]

@perdido

I would take a look at the 32-bit versions puppy developer peebee has been putting together. He built the 32-bit BionicPup you reference and has a very up to date FossaPup32 (long term Ubuntu) he is currently maintaining as well as a bleeding edge HirsutePup32 and an in-between those two GorillaPup32.

That sounds very interesting indeed. Does this mean it's possible to build a 32 bit release based on a 64 bit release?

Not that I know of. Those builds are using a variety of resources, it is explained in the first post of each thread which packages are used. They are all 32-bit puppy builds by peebee using the official repositories supported in Woof-CE.

Nothing 64-bit about any of them as far as I know.

[Kjellinux]

@perdido

Nothing 64-bit about any of them as far as I know.

Isn't Hirsute Hippo a 64 bit release?

I realise that there may be a very simple answer/explanation, but this is where me having limited experience of Linux comes into play.

[TerryH]

@perdido

Nothing 64-bit about any of them as far as I know.

Isn't Hirsute Hippo a 64 bit release?

I realise that there may be a very simple answer/explanation, but this is where me having limited experience of Linux comes into play.

Not entirely, ubuntu still have 32 bit repos for the newer versions, they are just diminishing in coverage.

See thread on how 32 bit version is built: viewtopic.php?f=144&t=2736

[perdido]

@perdido

Nothing 64-bit about any of them as far as I know.

Isn't Hirsute Hippo a 64 bit release?

I realise that there may be a very simple answer/explanation, but this is where me having limited experience of Linux comes into play.

Not entirely, ubuntu still have 32 bit repos for the newer versions, they are just diminishing in coverage.

See thread on how 32 bit version is built: viewtopic.php?f=144&t=2736

Exactly, well said.

One other interesting 32-bit puppy is ScPup32. That puppy is based on slackware current 32-bit version. A plus is that it is also a peebee project that should feel similar to bionic (maybe). ScPup32 also appears to be long term supported.
The topic is here viewtopic.php?f=122&t=168

There are also other currently produced 32-bit puppy versions that may or may not be long term supported, one of them is DevuanPup 32 by puppy developer josejp2424, the topic is here viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3083

Plenty of up-to-date puppy versions to choose from, some to be long term supported. Whatever direction you go, there you will be.
Have fun!

[bigpup]

Something you need to understand about Puppy Linux.

It has no constantly updated repository, of all the core files and programs, that are needed to make a basic Linux OS work.
These basic files and programs are in every Linux OS.
About 1/3 of Puppy is this stuff.

What Puppy does is get this stuff from a main stream Linux OS, that does have a maintained repository.
So, we say the Puppy version is based on that Linux OS.

The only things, I repeat the only things, Puppy and that other Linux OS have in common.
They are both using the same versions of these Linux core files and programs.
Puppy in no way is a version of that other Linux OS!

Computer specs:
With a computer having 500MB of RAM
You will get Puppy to boot on it and use up about 150 to 300 MB of RAM just to get to a working desktop.
Very little RAM left to run any programs.

A web browser, that is new enough to actually work to display a web site, is going to eat up 300MB or more of RAM.

1 GB of RAM is minimum and only if you only need to run one program at a time.

[amethyst]

"1GB or less" RAM. You will have a frustrating experience to run heavy apps like the latest browsers with that specs. A customised version (a bit of an upgrade to be able to run the latest internet browser for example) of Precise is probably the best option to go (although the official release of Precise 5.7.1 will run a fairly recent browser OOTB). The best customised version thereof available to the Puppy community is probably jrb's Precise Light. Boot with pfix=nocopy and create a swapfile/partition. I run my own customised version of Precise as my main operating system. Does everything I can do with a newer Puppy however the specs of my old laptop is not too bad.

[Kjellinux]

@bigpup

The only things, I repeat the only things, Puppy and that other Linux OS have in common.
They are both using the same versions of these Linux core files and programs.
Puppy in no way is a version of that other Linux OS!

I'm beginning to understand that Puppy does things differently...

Are the Linux core files and programs that you mention independant regrdless of wether they run on 32 or 64 bit systems?

Computer specs:
With a computer having 500MB of RAM
You will get Puppy to boot on it and use up about 150 to 300 MB of RAM just to get to a working desktop.
Very little RAM left to run any programs.

A web browser, that is new enough to actually work to display a web site, is going to eat up 300MB or more of RAM.

1 GB of RAM is minimum and only if you only need to run one program at a time.

My current quest into the world of lightweight Linux distributions was triggered by a video on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJcWcQ8ew6Q
The part with BionicPup 32 starts at 11.39. Here it's idling at less that 100MB of ram. The Light Web Browser seems to run fairly well. The computer used has 1 GB RAM though, so it's not a perfect comparison.

As I mentioned earlier, my only criteria of success is that it must be possible to use a browser to access the internet. Everything beyond that is a bonus.

The computer I'm having delivered runs Firefox on Lubuntu with 512MB RAM, so it shouldn't be completely impossible. And this is exactly why I want to test different lightweight distributions to see how they perform on low spec hardware.

Whenever I'm ready with the testing, I just might upgrade the test rig to the maximum 4GB RAM and possibly even upgrade the HDD to an SSD. Time will tell...

[Kjellinux]

@amethyst

A customised version (a bit of an upgrade to be able to run the latest internet browser for example) of Precise is probably the best option to go (although the official release of Precise 5.7.1 will run a fairly recent browser OOTB). The best customised version thereof available to the Puppy community is probably jrb's Precise Light. Boot with pfix=nocopy and create a swapfile/partition.

That sounds like a very interesting version to test.

What would those customisations be?

What does pfix=nocopy do?

[amethyst]

@amethyst

A customised version (a bit of an upgrade to be able to run the latest internet browser for example) of Precise is probably the best option to go (although the official release of Precise 5.7.1 will run a fairly recent browser OOTB). The best customised version thereof available to the Puppy community is probably jrb's Precise Light. Boot with pfix=nocopy and create a swapfile/partition.

That sounds like a very interesting version to test.

What would those customisations be?

What does pfix=nocopy do?

Here is a link for Precise Light: viewtopic.php?p=238#p238
Some libraries have been upgraded to make it possible to run newer versions of web browsers (Palemoon is recommended) for example and the old browser has been removed and so on. With pfix=nocopy, the base sfs of a frugal installed Puppy will not be copied to RAM at bootup which will free up some RAM of your memory challenged machine.

[stevie pup]

I can fully understand what the OP is trying to do, in fact I've been considering something similar myself recently. Don't think I would be brave enough to try anything with less than a gig of RAM though, but we''ll see. Couple of points I'm interested in, what is your purpose for doing this, is it purely for your own entertainment, or do you have other goals you're aiming for? Secondly, what made you go for Puppy, is it just the "lightweight" element, or are there any other reasons?

I'm sure you're aware there are a few other distros that still support 32 bit which may be worth considering. I fully agree with what others have said regarding not fixing things that aren't broken, but if you're really concerned about long term support it may be worth looking at something that's Debian based. Unlike Ubuntu, Debian haven't shown any signs (so far) of giving up on 32 bit. The latest version, Debian 11 due for release some time this year, still supports 32 bit. I believe some Puppies have been built based on Debian but it's not something I've looked into in any detail.

Finally, are you aware of the Emmabuntus project, based in France? Their whole purpose is the refurbishment of old computers that would otherwise go for scrap. If you're not familiar with them, you may be interested to have a look at their website.

No matter what route you eventually take, I wish you every success with your project.

[Kjellinux]

@stevie pup

Couple of points I'm interested in, what is your purpose for doing this, is it purely for your own entertainment, or do you have other goals you're aiming for?

First and formost my Linux journey is fuled by curiosity. A desire to explore and learn.

My current quest may eventually fill a purpose. There are plenty of old machines gathering dust that could be given a second life. Depending on my degree of success, the result may later be used to supply people in need with a computer that at least lets them brows the web.

Secondly, what made you go for Puppy, is it just the "lightweight" element, or are there any other reasons?

I studied a number of "Best XX lightweigt Linux distros"-lists and tried to select suitable candidates for different hardware configurations. Apart from Puppy, I intend to try out Damn Small Linux, Tiny Core Linux, Linux Lite, Bodhi Linux, Lubuntu, Zorin OS Lite and maybe a few others, based on what I learn along the way.

I'm sure you're aware there are a few other distros that still support 32 bit which may be worth considering.

I have found some, but I'm open for more suggestions.

I fully agree with what others have said regarding not fixing things that aren't broken, but if you're really concerned about long term support it may be worth looking at something that's Debian based. Unlike Ubuntu, Debian haven't shown any signs (so far) of giving up on 32 bit. The latest version, Debian 11 due for release some time this year, still supports 32 bit.

This is in line with some of my thoughts so far. I don't yet know which distributions that would be though. Again, it's a learning experience.

Finally, are you aware of the Emmabuntus project, based in France? Their whole purpose is the refurbishment of old computers that would otherwise go for scrap. If you're not familiar with them, you may be interested to have a look at their website.

Never heard of them. I will definitely have a look at their website.

No matter what route you eventually take, I wish you every success with your project.

Thank you, it's much appreciated!

My test rig arrived today. An Acer Aspire 3100 with 1.6 Ghz single core AMD CPU and 512GB RAM. As luck had it, the included RAM-module was identical to an SO-DIMM that i pulled from another old machine some time ago, so I can easily upgrade to 1GB. For simplicity I will probably start with the smallest ditribution and then work my way towards the minimum 1GB ones.

[rockedge]

look into Void Linux which continues to support 32 bit

[darry19662018]

I studied a number of "Best XX lightweigt Linux distros"-lists and tried to select suitable candidates for different hardware configurations. Apart from Puppy, I intend to try out Damn Small Linux, Tiny Core Linux, Linux Lite, Bodhi Linux, Lubuntu, Zorin OS Lite and maybe a few others, based on what I learn along the way.

Wouldn't even bother with Damn Small is way of date.

[Kjellinux]

look into Void Linux which continues to support 32 bit

Thank you for your tip, I will add it to my list.

[Kjellinux]

Wouldn't even bother with Damn Small is way of date.

But VERY small indeed!

Who knows, it just might give new life to som ancient hardware that would othewise be lost forever...

[amethyst]

It's not about what is smallest, it's what you will be able to do with your hardware AND which applications you actually want to run. No matter how small your distribution, if your hardware is limited you are going to struggle to run the heavy progs of nowadays like modern browsers (watch videos online, etc.). I ran Pup 412 on a Pentium I with 128MB RAM in 2007 and I think I ran Wary Puppy with 256MB RAM in 2010. I have a fully functional customised Racy Puppy (base sfs = 56MB, maximum compressed) which I still use occasionally. Can't run the very latest internet browsers with this but fairly current with a bit of tweaking. My day to day Puppy is a customised Precise Puppy (base sfs = 82MB, maximum compressed). The latter does everything I need. One thing about Puppy is that it is basically a full featured distribution (for the basic desktop user) yet is still small (especially the older versions).

[Kjellinux]

@amethyst

It's not about what is smallest, it's what you will be able to do with your hardware AND which applications you actually want to run.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I plan to TEST severel different distributions, not just read about them. As I mentioned earler, my one single criteria of success is the ability to use a browser to connect to the internet. Everything beyond that is a bonus. With the most memory challenged hardware, step one is still that it must be possible to run att all. How well it runs will be step two.

No matter how small your distribution, if your hardware is limited you are going to struggle to run the heavy progs of nowadays like modern browsers (watch videos online, etc.).

My test rig arrived yesterday. It has 512MB RAM and runs Lubuntu 16.04. It idles at just over 100MB and runs Firefox at 225MB, so I imagine some of the even lighter distributions with a lightweight browser could potentially run reasonably well with even less. And, again, that's what I aim to find out.

One thing about Puppy is that it is basically a full featured distribution (for the basic desktop user) yet is still small (especially the older versions).

That's what brought it to my attention and put it high on my list of distributions to test.

[amethyst]

@amethyst

It's not about what is smallest, it's what you will be able to do with your hardware AND which applications you actually want to run.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I plan to TEST severel different distributions, not just read about them. As I mentioned earler, my one single criteria of success is the ability to use a browser to connect to the internet. Everything beyond that is a bonus. With the most memory challenged hardware, step one is still that it must be possible to run att all. How well it runs will be step two.

No matter how small your distribution, if your hardware is limited you are going to struggle to run the heavy progs of nowadays like modern browsers (watch videos online, etc.).

My test rig arrived yesterday. It has 512MB RAM and runs Lubuntu 16.04. It idles at just over 100MB and runs Firefox at 225MB, so I imagine some of the even lighter distributions with a lightweight browser could potentially run reasonably well with even less. And, again, that's what I aim to find out.

One thing about Puppy is that it is basically a full featured distribution (for the basic desktop user) yet is still small (especially the older versions).

That's what brought it to my attention and put it high on my list of distributions to test.

Another thing to keep in mind is that all of the Puppy forum will tell you to do a frugal install instead of a traditional full install (like other distributions). This is correct and definitely the way to go but if you do have a special case of severely limited resources a full install may actually work better. BTW - I don't know of any light full featured modern up to date internet browsers.

[mikeslr]

"My test rig arrived yesterday. It has 512MB RAM and runs Lubuntu 16.04. It idles at just over 100MB and runs Firefox at 225MB" Emphasis supplied. Web-browsers and their need to access graphic-rich content on web-sites will always be the determining factors of just how little RAM you can get away with.

The purpose of exploration I reported here, viewtopic.php?f=119&t=692 was to examine the effect on available RAM of stripping out 'builtin' applications, among the data revealed was how quickly available RAM was exhausted by just normal use of a web-browser.
By the way, I chose 'Seamonkey' as a browser to use in that exploration because previous tests showed that just starting it required about 50 Mbs less than palemoon.

FYI, the 48 Mb K-Office Suite I used in that test remains available, viewtopic.php?p=3412#p3412 as does the stripped busterpup, http://www.mediafire.com/file/ffsqqzardvbs6ll/file,

[Kjellinux]

@amethyst

Another thing to keep in mind is that all of the Puppy forum will tell you to do a frugal install instead of a traditional full install (like other distributions). This is correct and definitely the way to go but if you do have a special case of severely limited resources a full install may actually work better.

Sounds like a good reason to try booth methods.

BTW - I don't know of any light full featured modern up to date internet browsers.

I guess I will end up testing that too...