Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.

Pi-Lovers? There Are Two New OSes for You to Bite

posted by mrpg on Tuesday July 03 2018, @12:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the nobody-think-of-the-NUC dept.

"exec" writes:

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

[...] While it has been possible to get Alpine on the Pi for some time – Raspberry Pi 2 owners have been able to get it working since version 3.2.0 – this is the first version to add support for the Raspberry Pi 3 Model B+ and also offer an arm64 (aarch64) image to ease deployment.

The Pi 3 Model B+ packs a surprising amount of power into a small package, rocking a 64 bit 1.4GHz processor and gigabit ethernet (over USB 2.0). The 1GB RAM (unchanged from the previous Model B) should give the slimline Alpine incarnation of Linux more than enough headroom, depending what else you decide to run.

[...] Alpine's frugal nature makes it appealing as an alternative to some of the more resource intensive distributions available for the Pi, with optimisations such as OpenRC replacing systemd as the init system. A minimal disk installation will only consume around 130MB and the maintainers claim a container only needs 8MB.

-- submitted from IRC

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Pi-Lovers? There Are Two New OSes for You to Bite | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 53 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 03 2018, @03:29PM (2 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Tuesday July 03 2018, @03:29PM (#701950) Homepage
    Is there a way of benchmarking how much of the time is wasted in FP-emulation? I don't do any "computation" on the device, so would hope it would be close to zero.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @04:55AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @04:55AM (#702385)

    When armhf was still just a port (not official arch) in Debian, the published benchmarks for armhf vs. armel were around 15-30% faster. I was running it on an original Panda board back then, perf was adequate for such a low powered board, but I never benchmarked it.

    • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Wednesday July 04 2018, @09:03AM

      by bitstream (6144) on Wednesday July 04 2018, @09:03AM (#702460) Journal

      How fast ARM (say Cortex-M3) is needed to software encode 640x480 video? what fps will that provide?
      Or 320 x 240 ?
      (no audio)

      Minimum RAM?