Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

galarneau · Mar 10, 2003, 03:26 AM

I've seen some people take Linux/Unix systems and really pare them down to the point that they can be run off very small hard drives, or even a RAM drive. If one were to turn off all the extra stuff in OS X, and just run a minimal system (that could still run all basic software), how small do you think it could be?

I've been thinking about the rumor of an Apple PDA now that Steve Sakoman has come back to Apple, and was imagining if OS X could be pared down to fit on a 128MB flash RAM disk.

Gul Banana · Mar 10, 2003, 05:54 AM

128 MB = not likely. Getting it onto a CD is hard enough. Technically, you /could/ get it down very small, but it wouldn't really be Mac OS X any more.. just Darwin.

BJPirt · Mar 10, 2003, 06:55 AM

the key point in this discussion is in the title;

apple could probably make os x easily small enought o fit on a 128Mb flash disk or something as they have the source to everything. (I know - darwin is open source, but darwin does not os x make). In the embedded linux world the common thing to do is recompile against a slimmed down libc (i think called ulibc) which reduces binary size significantly. They could also recompile slimmed down versions of various apps (finder, etc). os x is so modular compared to 9 that you could probably replace the finder with finder lite or something specifically tailored to pda use and miss out lots of the specific drivers and things to get it running on a pda (hypothetically).

As to whether one of us could pare it down to 128Mb, I doubt it, but you never know.

It would certainly be an interesting project :-)

all the best,
BJPirt

- - e r i k - - · Mar 10, 2003, 08:21 AM

If only they'd remove that dang debug-code already. That should certainly do away with most of the bloat.

*ducks*

Earth Mk. II · Mar 10, 2003, 08:52 AM

debugging code? I thought that was gone with 4K78? hum.. maybe there were 2 versions...

Um.. Apple could probably get X onto 128MB if they really wanted to.... but unless a PDA would be running on a PPC chip (which isn't likely) - what's the point? It's not like you'd be gaining any extra compatibility with your desktop.

bradoesch · Mar 10, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by BJPirt:
the key point in this discussion is in the title;

apple In the embedded linux world the common thing to do is recompile against a slimmed down libc (i think called ulibc) which reduces binary size significantly.

There must be some sort of disadvantage to this, right? It'd be nice to have a slimmer OS X system, but what's the sacrifice?

Brass · Mar 10, 2003, 06:39 PM

OS X could be vastly reduced in size. Just off the top of my head, you could remove all the non-English (or whatever you native language is) files, all the man pages (unix help), all the Help files, all the applications.

The OS X system directoy on my HD is less than 1 GB. After removing the above stuff (I know the Applications are not in the System directory), it would be significantly reduced. Then I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that I don't know about that could be removed - anything that is rarely used or desktop specific.

VValdo · Mar 10, 2003, 06:43 PM

If one were to turn off all the extra stuff in OS X, and just run a minimal system (that could still run all basic software), how small do you think it could be?

I've been thinking about the rumor of an Apple PDA now that Steve Sakoman has come back to Apple, and was imagining if OS X could be pared down to fit on a 128MB flash RAM disk.

I think the answer to this would depend on how you define "OS X"-- obviously at that size you wouldn't include the iApps, for example.

Even with bare-bones Unix systems there are a standard number of binary executables that are usually included, such as "ls" and "cd" and then-- depending on the purpose of this mini-distro-- you might want to include other tools or libraries. If the distribution is intended to be used as an emergency disk, for example, you might include things like fsck and other diagnostic tools. Or, if it's meant for a routing device, you might have firewall scripts, log stuff, network monitoring tools, etcf. A server would have its own tools...etc.

So I guess what I'm asking is-- what do you expect to do with this mini-OS X system? How expandable would you want it to be? Would you also want to support or depend on other devices? What are they?

Answering those questions would help tell you what stuff you might need to include and how tight you could get "OS X".

W

Graymalkin · Mar 10, 2003, 06:53 PM

In order to fit a usable OSX port onto a 128MB flash disk you'd have to slim down 500+ of frameworks into 128MB of space which is no mean feat. You might think to remove some frameworks altogether but that leaves you with nothing to work with. Most of OSX's functionality comes from application frameworks.

Brass · Mar 10, 2003, 08:36 PM

Currently, the Frameworks take up 505MB. It would be difficult to pick and choose any that you would leave out (if you could still call it Mac OS X afterwards).

MindFad · Mar 10, 2003, 08:40 PM

Pffft. The debug code alone would take up a 128-MB flash disk. Oh, someone already put in the obligatory debug code joke.

fisherKing · Mar 10, 2003, 08:40 PM

2 1/2 inches, more or less.