Damn Small Linux - Not!

Keeper of the Grove · Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Your Mother's house

I have to say that it is great thing you guys do here.

I have used DSL and I am excited by the new DSL-N mostly because the 2.6.* kernel. I have just succesfully remastered in Openoffice.org 2.0.1, Ntlmaps 0.9.9.5, Python 2.1.*, certain unmentionable video libraries, Firefox and Mozilla plugins. It is a lot of overhead on top of a small distro I know, but I love the interface and the lite foundation DSL-N gives to build on. Fluxbox is just perfect. I don't think I'll ever switch back to gnome.

I only have one question: Why does it boot so slow compaired to the original DSL. Is it the new kernel? does it need that ISO defrag script thing that Klaus Knopper does?

Thank you.

lefty.crupps · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 3

I too am interested in the slower bootup; the 2.4 kernel was the "bad" part of the original DSL, but changing that to a 2.6.x kernel and trading off boot up speed isn't very fun. Will this be addressed as new RCs are released, or is that the rocks of working with a newer system these days?

cbagger01 · Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 27

I think that "slower bootup" is the price you pay for the new kernel version.

There are things that can be done to speed up the process like optimizing the block layout in the compressed filesystem but this could also be done with the old 2.4 DSL livecd.

lefty.crupps · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 3

too bad! i thought DSL boot times were faster because overall its more minimal. Was the one DSL with a 2.6 any better? (only one version of DSL was released with a 2.6 kernel, as far as I know). DSL-N has, i think, somewhat different architecture...

I was looking forward to having a good solid 2.6 minimal setup (DSL-N) with great wireless tools and a speedy boot up... maybe not though, huh?

Still, the fact that DSL-N is happening is very fun indeed!