User Feedback :: Smaller, nearly apps-less DSL?



I say just be patient. I'm sure robert and jhon are still considering DSL-M as a option. It may or may not be available in the future.
Small Size is not only 'size', It is a 'concept' of software. I started using small Linux distros like mu-Linux for the pleasure to have a minimal OS. Presently DSL is for me the main Linux in my multibooting CD. All the complementary apps I need come in the extensions. Some of the built desktop app in the basic DSL distro are not useful for me, but I find in the extensions all the other I need.

My ideal DSL distro would be a OS with libraries, utilities, X windows and 'good' browser (Firefox) altogether as small as possible, and all the desktop apps in 5 different basic UCI packages:
-Edit
-Image
-PIM
-Play
-System.

*JT.
Hello,

i would love to see a DSL-s(small) which is expansible via uci.
In my point of view it should NOT replace DSL.

It should be the small brother/sister.
Handling of uci/myDSL sould be equal in all DSL'S (DSL-s, DSL, DSL-N) to minimize development.

regards
Frank
I'm not sure if my opinion is worth much, but I'm willing to bet that I'm one of the "target audience".

You can see my first impression here.

Until this previous weekend I had never used Linux before...  As I write this I have very little idea of what all is being talked about as relates to all the acronyms and stuff being used in the previous replies to this thread.  So if I end up stating something which has already been said then I apologize...

I had an old Presario which I was trying to get up and running.  Initially I ran though the system restore disks which came with the machine, but after running through the windows updates the system became so bloated as to be unusable.

I was going to toss the machine but thought "I'd give this linux thing" a try.  I'm not a complete idiot and am fairly good at following directions.  At the same time I have some preconceived notions which might or might not be correct, but none the less are what I believe.  For instance in my mind O/S's should install to the hard drive.  (I'm kind of scared now that I've read thought the thread about the reasons why I might not should have thought this)

My "trying this Linux thing" out attempt turned out to be a REAL chore.  I didn't think that my prerequistes were too much to ask for but finding a distro that fit my requirements turned out to be quite a challenge.

My prereqs were
1.  Straightforward GUI
2.  1024x768 Resolution
3.  Automatic Network Connection (to my router so as to get to the internet)
4.  Browser
5.  Email
6.  Fast enough to be usable

I seriouslly went through no less than 15 different distros before I cam across DSL.  I wish I'd started with it.  It met everyone of my criteria out of the box.

For me... and I imagine for other non-linux users who want to try this linux thing out we're probably going to be attempting this on a second home computer which is older and too slow to run XP or a fully updated 98.  So having legacy support is crucial.  I'm thinking my 10 year old Presario is about as old a computer as someone in my situation would be making this attempt, but just to be safe Win 95 coincided with the lauch of the p-60's so possibly that would be a good cutoff.

The only "purpose" i have for the old presario is being able to surf and check email while my wife is on the XP machine.  Having IM up would be nice...  (I'm going to try and get Miranda working on it tonight).

So my suggestion would be to do whatever is necessary to make sure that when someone who knows nothing about linux downloads and runs DSL on an older computer it does just that... runs...  and runs with a GUI that is as close to the way windows works as possible (the current one is fine).  It should also have a browser and email client.  Honestly though, when it comes to the rest of it as of right now I plan on using my xp machine because its' what i'm familiar with... As i learn more I'm sure this will change...  but...  this is what "I" was looking for.

As to other aps...  Maybe this is isn't "Correct" but its what I bet alot of users are going to think...  Pretty is important...  If an app is included it should be pretty.  Just as a for instance I ran through the IM clients that were installed in the current distro and none of them were "pretty" enough for me to want to use.  If the app is different program from what we've come acustomed to using in Windows then at the bare minimum it should at least resemble what we're used to and have similar functionality... otherwise it will scare us...  I know this is stupid and that usability should be the primary focus...  But "pretty" is paramount.

So for me... and in summary...  If it were me I would make sure that DSL's base package loads on as many p-60 or newer machines as are possible.  Once it's loaded it should have found any network connections and already setup connectivity.  I would also consider having the browser preloaded to the google homepage so that the user knows "hey this is the interweb thingie".  The apps that are included should be functional and pretty vs having multiple apps that do the same thing but are all "ugly"

If the point of a stripped down distro is to attact new users then these are the things that I would think "had" to be there.  The other stuff... not so much...
@JetShack

Hi,

i am following our thougts. That's what DSL is made for and i think the devs are glad to have this response from a happy user. DSL should stay on this !

I also think that the way how the base of DSL works with uci and MyDSL openes a new horizont. i love the idea to have a "base" DSL-s and people can add all other applications as they like. In case DSL-S has 30MB every one can add applications and generate a credit card Linux to meet his own requironments. So you can create a DSL-gamers, DSL-rescue, DSL-with-your-wedding-pictures ..... or what else.

DSL-s sould also be runnable on older hardware (so kernel 2.4.x) otherwyse it would not be small anymore ;-)

DSL-s should not replace DSL !

Frank
Next Page...
original here.