Earlier quoted context omitted.
And compare it against what? EDIT: nevermind, I see that it has the md5 in a text file here: http://www.tinycorelinux.net/16.x/x86/release/
Which is served from the same insecure domain. If the download is compromised you should assume the hash from here is too.
Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
21–30 of 258 posts
Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#22Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#23Looks really nice, I like the idea. But can they please empower a user interface designer to simply improve the margins and paddings of their interface? With a bunch of small improvements it would look significantly better. Just fix the spacing between buttons and borders and other UI elements.
One could argue that visible borders are a feature, not a bug. If you are trying to maximize for accessibility, that is.
Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#24Looks really nice, I like the idea. But can they please empower a user interface designer to simply improve the margins and paddings of their interface? With a bunch of small improvements it would look significantly better. Just fix the spacing between buttons and borders and other UI elements.
Modern UX trends are a scourge of excessive whitespace and low information density that get in the way of actually accomplishing tasks. Any project that rejects those trends gets bonus points in my book.
Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#25Looks really nice, I like the idea. But can they please empower a user interface designer to simply improve the margins and paddings of their interface? With a bunch of small improvements it would look significantly better. Just fix the spacing between buttons and borders and other UI elements.
Modern UX trends are a scourge of excessive whitespace and low information density that get in the way of actually accomplishing tasks. Any project that rejects those trends gets bonus points in my book.
I thought that would be immediately clear to the HN crowd but I might have overestimated your aesthetic senses.
Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Modern UX trends are a scourge of excessive whitespace and low information density that get in the way of actually accomplishing tasks. Any project that rejects those trends gets bonus points in my book.
Look at screenshots -> wallpaper window. The spacing between elements is all over the place and it simply looks like shit. Seeing this I'm having doubts if the team who did this is competent at all
I know that not everybody spent 10 years fiddling with CSS so I can understand why a project might have a skill gap with regards to aesthetics. I'm not trying to judge their overall competence, just wanted to say that there are so many quick wins in the design it hurts me a bit to see it. And due to nature of open source projects I was talking about "empowering" a designer to improve it because oftentimes you submit a PR for aesthetic improvements and then notice that the project leaders don't care about these things, which is sad.
Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#27Not to disrespect this, but it used to be entirely normal to have a GUI environment on a machine with 2MB of RAM and a 40MB disk. Or 128K of ram and 400 kb disk for that matter.
Or 32K of RAM and 64KB disk for that matter.
What's your point? That the industry and what's commonly available gets bigger?
Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is served from the same insecure domain. If the download is compromised you should assume the hash from here is too.
An integrity check is better than nothing, but yes it says nothing about its authenticity.
Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#29Re: Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop
#30Not to disrespect this, but it used to be entirely normal to have a GUI environment on a machine with 2MB of RAM and a 40MB disk. Or 128K of ram and 400 kb disk for that matter.
A single 1920x1080 framebuffer (which is a low resolution monitor in 2025 IMO) is 2MB. Add any compositing into the mix for multi window displays and it literally doesn’t fit in memory.