User Feedback :: Moving Forward - What's Your Desire?

Just to gauge the DSL user community, please vote. Results are not binding. This is for my own interest

Given that the DSL community has many members who can help by compiling modules, is it time to do some serious updates?

Given limiited development time and developers, only one direction, only choice can be undertaken.

What direction would you like to see for Damn Small Linux
Be aware the ramifications of your decision:

2.4.34 is still being actively maintained. Many new features are being backported to 2.4 series.

2.6.20 is much larger both in size (no syslinux version) and runtime (many smaller ram machines may be left out)

A tiny MyDSL core may not be useful upon first boot and/or without high banwidth net connection. But with perhaps good introductory documentation it may be the choice.

On the otherhand, more or newer apps will be larger, and merging the two, DSL & DSL-n will also be much larger, thereby leaving out smaller ram machines.

Please give some careful consideration before you vote and feel free to discuss and leave comments below.

Thanks,
Robert

I gave this subject a lot of thought when I was considering doing a HD install of DSL-N plus pkgsrc -- how best to appeal to those who want bleeding edge apps while not leaving people who want stable-oriented systems out in the cold.

I voted for "Remove many apps providing a tiny core based on using MyDSL 2.4," but my preference is for doing that by updating the 2.4 kernel to 2.4.34 and updating the base libraries and a small group of applications. I'd hate to see the legacy support of the 2.4 kernel DSL has retained lost.

The included applications should be just adequate for leaving the CD useful for running live while increasing the focus to extending DSL installations (frugal, USB, and HD) via MyDSL. Updating the base libs (GTK2, for example) will allow users to run more recent applications. For development, I think upgrading applications will be more efficiently done over longer periods of time via extensions than doing it via the CD. For users, it would mean an easier process of making and using extensions of recent versions of popular applications.

In a nutshell: freshen it up a bit and make it even more modular.

I haven't yet voted.

I agree with lucky13 mostly, wanting to see DSL become more modular as far as applications go. This may make it possible to include more hardware support and other kernel modules in the base which may not be so easy to use as extensions (assuming it actually is more complicated to add hardware support via mydsl?). It could be possible to support a greater variety of fake modems, video cards, input devices, and other hardware while maintaining the 50mb limit.
Perhaps it could even support a more flexible X system out of the box, for those users whose monitors look like crap at 60hz.

At this time, I'm undecided between 2.4 and 2.6 kernel. I suppose if newer hardware support (sata, for example) is backported to a useable and stable 2.4 kernel, there probably isn't a great need for 2.6, but as I still have never used a 2.6 kernel in any distro, i couldn't say from experience what other benefits can be had with it. I have so far been satisfied with 2.4 with the hardware I have.

Upon discovering DSL, at first I (as many) wanted "this and that" application included (not so many). To be fair, DSL matched my tastes to a great degree: my Debian box had almost the same applications (should be said "lack" of bulky applications).

Then I learned to love myDSL and just keep my 2-3 extra apps around in the USB flash drive. I think the DSL core applications can solve almost any basic need as a desktop user. Most of them. If someone asks to remove some application, even if I don't use it, I wouldn't know which one.

I heard of a library implementation of xpdf, I also liked the way the Links issue was solved (if you want to browse the web, you should have web access, so why not downloading the .uci?). In fact, I think that applies for Firefox as well. Why not removing Firefox and download the .uci automatically upon clicking the xtdesktop icon?

As for the kernel, if 2.4 is still being maintained, I don't see a real need for 2.6

Would like to see DSL keep it's identity (it is not puppy).
But what to choose? trim down the apps? Yet it should still
keep up with the times? oh i hate these decisions.

I would eventually opt to cut back on the apps and go for kernel 2.6. I've heard good things about 2.6;
http://kniggit.net/wwol26.html

Next Page...
original here.