Talk:List of Linux distributions that run from RAM

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Linux distributions that run from RAM article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

To do

Convert list into a table, adding:

latest release date
base distro?
minimum RAM needed
website
...?

--Waldir ^talk 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More info please

For instance: What are the differences in comparison to a simple live CD/DVD system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.209.18 (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

Ahunt, I appreciate your edits to the article, but I must say that IMO you have gradually stripped it down of most of its informational content, both in entries of the list/table, and in links. The maintenance tags exist for a reason -- and they don't have expiration times. Removing content that is likely valid (and not even completely unsourced, only poorly sourced) is in my view a disservice to the reader, and in this specific case much worse than protecting them from potential incorrect information (which was unlikely to cause significant damage anyway). --Waldir ^talk 13:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see if we can find some refs then. I should have some time to chase those down tomorrow. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the links included in the article's first version were the result of my own search. It's kind of a niche subject... But I'm looking forward to see what you will come up with :) in any case, I think many of the forum links that were improperly used as references could be reinstated in an external links section -- do you agree? --Waldir ^talk 21:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use forums in external links as per WP:EL. I'll see what I can dig up on the items of the list for refs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some diligent searching turned up all but two - see if you can find refs on them! - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that Nanolinux runs completely from RAM on its Wiki page. So I removed the remark that this could not be verified now (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ubuntu?

ubuntu has a live cd that runs entirely from ram. Useful for fixing a broken computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't run entirely from RAM, it swaps in and out and the CD keeps spinning the whole time. If it ran from RAM you could remove the CD once it was loaded, like you can with Puppy Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All distros are able to boot from RAM

"Technically, other distributions can be made to boot from RAM as well" Why is this marked as citation needed? One can have a login script that creates a tmpfs, copies everything under / into the tmpfs, and then executes chroot. Also, it is not "other distributions", but "ALL other distributions". --151.75.46.87 (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reference that says this then we can put that in as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, they explained at the Reference desk: "Puppy Linux, Knoppix, and many similar distributions, have been carefully designed so that they don't require the boot volume - which is the exception, not the norm." So I guess that the sentence in question (the one marked as citation needed) just means that the list is incomplete, and therefore it can be removed. --151.75.101.147 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the issue to the Reference desk and getting it clarified. I have removed the sentence. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for forcing me to go get an explanation, now I know a bit more about Linux --151.75.101.147 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, now! - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a light weight linux distribution that would run completely from RAM (like DSL and Puppy Linux) I was mighty disappointed to find this list includes lots of distros that can be run as "live cd" but that don't actually run completely from RAM. Like described above the latter would mean that you can (theoretically if not technically) remove the boot media and everything keeps working just the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.253.116 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't supposed to be any, so if you can point out which ones, we can clean up this list! - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July/August 2012 Updates

This page is in desperate need of updating. Many of these distributions listed are no longer active/supported or even flat out discontinued, sites 404'd etc. They can and should probably still be listed in the page but the fact that they are "dead" should also be provided henceforth. In addition there are some newer distributions that can take their place and/or serve the same purposes that are not yet listed here. The specific distro I had in mind is Lightweight Portable Security. I might or might not make the edits in the next day or two or week or two. If anyone sees this message, by no means should you wait for me to do it, just go right ahead and spruce it up. It would be good to get some feedback in regards to whether the dead distros should remain listed in the page or be removed and updated with viable replacements that are active and running projects. Armins (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia covers the history of a subject I don't see any reason to remove distros that are no longer current, but perhaps we can add a new column in the table to indicate their status. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest additional column

I observe that in the RAM required column the entries are a mix of RAM required and download size. The people that make entries seem to be confused here. Two separate columns should make it obvious. The download size differs from RAM required since often a compressed file system is used.([[1]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georg Potthast (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus article ?

I'm wondering: shouldn't we refocus this article ie by renaming it to "List of Live Linux distributions that allow running from RAM" ? Not all are focused on live use here, but the main benefit of running from ram is provided to linux distro's that are small and often portable (as when the distro is too large, the RAM quickly becomes full and when running from RAM, the system can crash). Also, usb sticks have much lower bandwith than say a harddisk (which connects via SATA or e-IDE), and also works slower than other solid state drives. ̣̣̣Also, an important aspect to mention would then be persistence (live OS's without that wouldn't be very useful to most people else) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs)

That does make some sense as long as we differentiate between distros that run solely in RAM (like Puppy) and those that can run from a live disc (like Ubuntu) and exclude the latter as "put of scope" for the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning that Live CDs of Ubuntu and Linux Mint can run solely in RAM by adding the boot option toram. 77.119.131.188 (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference? - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootToRAM: "Casper now includes a functioning toram option...". I've tested toram a few months ago on Ubuntu 12.04 and Linux Mint (I don't remember the version.). It was possible to safely remove the Live-USB-Stick after booting. In Fedora this is possible too by adding the boot parameter live_ram: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLiveCD/LiveOS_README#Suggested_Hardware 178.115.129.79 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates added

A few days ago I begun work on adding Latest release date when looking for a distribution that is not abandoned. But it was removed quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.79.73 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the dates because they were unsourced, added little value to the article and would need a commitment from someone to update the dates on a regular basis. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Linux distributions that run from RAM. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Testing a distro in a virtual machine to see if it runs from RAM

Off-topic Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a method for testing any distro within VirtualBox for those who are interested. There are a couple of caveats; 1} You will still have to provide a reliable source for any distro you have tested, and want to include in the list. 2) The setup in VB needs to be in a certain way:

When setting up your virtual machine choose any name you want, but make sure the "Type" is Linux and the "Version" is Other Linux 64bit. You will want this setting even if you intend to test 32bit distros.
Once the machine is setup go to the settings and click on "storage" in the left panel. Then move to "storage devices" in the middle pane and click on the CD icon. Now move to "Attributes" in the right pane and make sure the "LiveCD/DVD" box is not ticked. Click the CD icon on the right across from where it says "optical disc" to choose the ISO image of the distro you downloaded for testing. Click ok and start your virtual machine.
Now that your distro is loaded, you want to see if it will still run without the virtual disc. It can be removed several ways. 1) Unmount, or eject it from within the desktop environment. This will cause it to crash if the distro can't run from RAM, but if it can, then you will be able to replace the ISO with a music or DVD ISO, or just keep running it normally. I like to open other apps just to make sure. 2) You can eject the virtual disc from the toolbar on the bottom of your virtual machine. This has the same effect as option 1. 3) You can go back into your settings and remove the virtual disc from there as well. This also has the same effect as option 1&2. I hope this helps add to the quality of the list! Huggums537 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can use this same machine to test many different distributions, just change the ISO before you start. That way, you don't have to create a specialized machine every time. The only time you will need to create a new machine is when you plan on testing any platform other than Linux. E.G., you will need a new BSD machine if you want to try out a BSD ISO. I hope that makes sense. Huggums537 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that the reason I posted this is because I want to help editors avoid wasting time chasing down reliable sources for distributions that don't really run from RAM. Having a method like this at an editor's disposal enables them to spend time searching for sources about the distros that truly do run from RAM. It's a useful editing tool for this kind of list imho. Huggums537 (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bust your bubble here, but having editors testing distros to see if they will run from RAM isn't really relevant. We can't include distros based on that anyway, as it would be WP:OR. To be included we need reliable sources to cite, see WP:RS. Also there is a much easier way to test than this method anyway, just boot the distro up from installation media and then eject the media, if it keeps running then it is all in RAM. But, as noted, you can't use that test to include a distro here, still need a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have already stated in the first paragraph that users would have to find a reliable source to include any distros they test in the list. I also stated it again in that last part I added at the end that this was only a tool to make it easier to help users find reliable sources. So, I'm not sure what bubble is being busted. Anybody can do as much original research as they care to do as long as they don't include it in an article without reliable sources. Wikipedia has no authority to tell people what they are, or are not allowed to do, or what research they are, or are not allowed to conduct in the privacy of their own homes or labs. The policy itself even says very boldly in the first sentence that it applies only to Wikipedia articles, and then in the first paragraph it says it doesn't apply to talk pages. It doesn't specifically say it, but it should be obvious that it doesn't apply to what someone does on their personal computer either. The only time it should be a problem is when someone is introducing OR into an article without a reliable source. I have not done that at all, nor have I advocated for it at all. So, it seems to me we have a solution looking for a problem, rather than a problem looking for a solution. Huggums537 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of non-notable content that doesn't have a Wikipedia article

Hi, Ahunt I noticed you recently reverted several editors because their content doesn't "have an article on Wikipedia" and it isn't "notable". (Diffs here: [2], [3], [4]) I find myself in a strange position with your reversions because I agree with every one of them that the content does not belong, but I also strongly disagree with your reasons for deleting it.

For example, this content doesn't belong because it really isn't a "distribution" just a minimal install. This is a valid policy compliant reason to have it removed.

This content does not mention anywhere in the source that it can run from RAM; a valid policy compliant reason to have it removed.

And, this content doesn't look like the source is very reliable, another policy compliant reason for removal.

However, what disturbs me is that you have used non-policy compliant reasons for removing the content when there are policy compliant reasons to do so. My concern is that other editors will see the non compliant policy reversions and have a misunderstanding of our policies.

For example, there is no policy or guideline anywhere that says content entered into lists "must have an article on Wikipedia". In fact, right at the top of this list it says that users should "help by adding missing items with reliable sources.", and every example above added sources (not all reliable), but my point is that we should remove based on the reliability of the sources, not based on if they have Wikipedia articles or not. Especially since the very point of having some lists is so that we have a way of grouping together information that doesn't or couldn't ever have their own articles...

Also, there is no policy that says article/list content must be notable. In fact, we have several policies saying that content in articles/lists does NOT have to be notable: Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists from WP:NNC. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable,... from WP:LISTN, and it also says Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever., but this does not mean not to include the content because the content can still be added in plain text without either a blue or red link. SEE: WP:LSC Huggums537 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. No, it is not a policy, but it is a longstanding editing consensus on this particular article that to avoid WP:PROMOTION we only list distros here that have their own article to link to. If you look back a few years, like here you will see how it was getting and why it was cut down to "notable distros". - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, I see absolutely nothing "promotional" about the example you have provided. I also don't see "how it was getting", except maybe it was getting to be a complete list and somebody decided they didn't like to see red links. I also see absolutely no "consensus" whatsoever as this being "we only list distros that have own articles" because the only person I see trying to form that consensus is you by removing the red links yourself as well as many other links over time. That isn't a "longstanding editing consensus", that's a slow WP:OWNership takeover by one individual. If you call that consensus, then I cannot believe you have over 175,000 edits. Perhaps you've been editing so long you have some "old school" editing values you adhere to that no longer apply, or maybe your editing status gives you the idea you're like a king who can do whatever they please, but whatever the reason, removing those links by consistently accusing other editors of adding spam [5] [6] or accusing them of adding external links against editing policy [7] when it is very clear in all cases the editors are only trying to add content with proper references, but just don't know exactly how to do it from inexperience is not a good way to invite new editors to get experience and become regulars. Huggums537 (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to add here on your behalf that if it were up to me, I would have probably removed about 6 out those 12 red links in the example you provided. So, I do understand where the idea of wanting to clean up the list comes from, and it's a commendable idea for the good of the project of which I don't doubt your good faith. I just disagree with some of the rationales, and methods that's all. I hope I don't seem too harsh with my critical viewpoint. Huggums537 (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is an editing consensus with only one editor working on it is that until now no one else has shown any continuing interest in this article. An editing consensus is really just "no objections". I decided to clean up all the non-notable distros and in many years you are the first editor to even join in the conversation on it. Not only do I not have any "ownership" over this article, I have only a peripheral interest in the subject, but have kept it on my watch list because it requires constant clean up and no one else has been watching it. I would have been happy to collaborate with anyone working on this article over the years, but until now no one has shown any interest.

In fact, over the years watching this article I have often considered that it should be just sent for deletion for two reasons:

While it has lots of refs, they all basically say "distro X will run from RAM". There are no refs that deal with the actual overall topic of "Linux distributions that run from RAM" as a discrete subject, so it fails WP:GNG as all refs cited are just mere "passing mentions". The second ref gets closest to explaining it, but is really just a set of instructions. The lede para, which explains that the subject is "a thing" is actually all uncited and not supported by any of the refs in the text.
Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. "List of Linux distributions that run from RAM" is no more an encyclopedic list than "List of Linux distributions that have blue default wallpaper".

I should note that at AfD articles on Linux distros get deleted regularly for failing WP:N and there is a constant stream all over Wikipedia of people trying to promote non-notable Linux distros that they just put together, by writing them in to articles like this one.

In a lot of ways I look at this list as being similar to Aircraft in fiction, where a large consensus of editors has had to establish very tight inclusion criteria to avoid large scale issues over the last two decades. There, by consensus, we do a weekly clean-up.

Regardless, if you would like to see some distros added back in here then please do propose some criteria for doing so. I have been using "needs an article to link to", but if you would prefer "third party refs" I would be fine with that as a criteria. I think if you want to use "only has first party refs" then that will get us back to where we were.

If you would like to take over monitoring this article then I would be very happy to leave you to it, without further ado. Alternatively I can just send it for deletion, which will negate the need for endless discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you win. I'm shutting my trap. Thank you for participating. Huggums537 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of "winning", I have just found trying to maintain this article tiring and pointless, since I don't think it is a notable subject and its a spam magnet. From your response I guess you are not interested in fixing it and then maintaining, then? Frankly, having just re-read the whole history of this article and the refs cited I think it should just go for deletion, for the reasons I outlined above. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a hasty reply on my part. I think it is admirable that you offered to collaborate on the list in spite of me being critical of you. I also think it is a great compromise you have suggested to allow "third party" secondary sourced items, and to restrict "first party" primary sourced items if you would still like to move forward monitoring the article as a team. Huggums537 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go with that, then and see how the article looks over time. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]