Talk:List of Linux distributions that run from RAM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linux (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To do[edit]

Convert list into a table, adding:

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

--Waldir talk 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

More info please[edit]

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

Content removal[edit]

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)

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


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

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)

All distros are able to boot from RAM[edit]

"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". -- (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
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. -- (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thanks to you for forcing me to go get an explanation, now I know a bit more about Linux -- (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Me too, now! - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

July/August 2012 Updates[edit]

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)

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)

Suggest additional column[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Refocus article ?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)
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. (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Reference? - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "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: (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Yes check.svg Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dates added[edit]

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 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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)