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



Quote
Hey lucky13, I like your blog post on DSL's future. You make some good points.

Thanks. A couple things I didn't elaborate too much on were points you've raised:
Quote
2 - Remove applications as needed to make space for more hardware support.

I didn't write much on the issue of hardware support aside from commenting on what's been backported. There will be more hardware supported in 2.4.34, so depending how the kernel is compiled (and with respect to how many modules are compiled), DSL will still work with older hardware and it should be much less of a hassle to get newer hardware working. And this should mitigate what mikshaw alluded to about modules as MyDSL extensions. Fortunately, I haven't had to use any module extensions on my computers. (Old school rocks.)
Quote
3 - Don't worry about having to fit on a mini-cd... Don't let the size get too large but I don't think many people will leave DSL if it becomes a 60 or 70 meg download.... Don't kill yourself putting out release updates.

This goes to my focus on increased (total!) modularity. If the ISO is mostly confined to the very basic stuff -- kernel and utilities, with just enough applications to make it useful as a recovery/live CD -- there can be more hardware support in the same space or not too much more. Limiting the scope of the ISO (from currently having a little bit of everything to eventually being oriented more for installation while retaining sufficient tools to be used for recovery or other "emergencies") also would reduce the need for frequent release schedules. The (a) kernel and utilities have a longer "shelf life" than (b) applications, so keep the two (a and b) as separate as possible.

I'm not as concerned about the size of the ISO as it relates to CDs or USB sticks as I am about how most people seem to use DSL. Increasing modularity will allow every user to select only the apps he or she wants. Someone installing to a 256 MB stick, for example, won't have a couple of those MB taken up (in the ISO) with apps he or she is going to replace via MyDSL anyway. That issue is much less a concern with installation (frugal or traditional) on a hard drive, but I think the whole separation of a smaller "base" from the apps is already consistent with the direction DSL has been going and will improve things.

I don't think anyone would go as far as I would with respect to stripping out apps (I'd leave one wm, mc, elinks and dillo, elmo or sylpheed, naim/nirc, cdw, etc., no multimedia apps, nothing fancy but still adequate for someone to restore a system quickly or to have minimal tools to get online and find help). I'll concede, though, that such austerity would reduce DSL's appeal as a live CD. I don't know how many people will get huffy if the games and Firefox 1.0.6 are removed. Those who want more on a live CD could still go through a (p)remastering process to add in whatever apps they want from MyDSL. Depending on perspective, modularity would benefit them as much as everyone else because they'd get a CD with exactly what they want.
Let me state that I have no interest in making DSL a rescue tool. There are already many such distributions out there. Some, in fact, were originally based on DSL.

Nor will DSL become a Debian hard drive installer. Debian already supplies that.

DSL will not compromise its Linux/Unix roots and run everything as user root just to try to accomodate those less familiar or unwilling to learn the *nix way of running an OS, or because it is easier.

At minimum DSL will retain its niche in the sea of distributions. That being not only a physically small nomadic, yet easily extendable, distribution, but one that runs well and supports very small hardware. That is the direction that I have provided to DSL with my development efforts.

Debian compatibility and traditional hard drive installations have been secondary. Again, there are many other distributions that have that as their focus.

As the developer, "I eat my own dog food". In other words, I use DSL as my primary OS. Over the years that I have maintained this OS, I have tried to keep DSL true to John's 50MB Desktop OS concept. I am also keenly aware of supporting old(er) hardware, and of being true to a nomadic well behaved guest OS, either booting natively or via emulation. I am very much drawn to the "Small is Beautiful" concept.

DSL will not become so stripped to be not useful to me upon first boot. Yet there are some applications that over time have become less useful and I too, often mydsl overlay them. Example firefox 1.0.6 and xpdf. These two could be possibly removed in favor of their mydsl counterparts, or perhaps the more capable, but larger versions, be added but then exceeding the 50MB limit. Most of the other applications present in DSL do not have such issues and I find that they serve their function very well. If you wish to comment or suggest others feel free to do so.

Recently, During this v3.3 RC cycle, I tried to remove the non-boot scsi modules and offer them as download extensions. Really, how many of us still have or use old sccsi drives. In fact, I do. Daily, I use an old scsi tape drive to backup my development system. Yet, I was still thinking to remove them. Doing so is a savings of almost 2MB. Yet this seemed to be rejected.

I also tried to remove the netfilter modules and package them with the iptables.unc. Again, we are carrying modules that cannot be used without the appropriate program, iptables, a mydsl extension. Yet there were complaints.

There is an old saying, it is easy to give, but so hard to take away; even when you still make it available.

As for my recent push to publish many many enhancements for DSL over the last several months, well that will become very apparent later this month when a major annoucement will be made.

I appreciate the comments and voting. After v3.3 is final, looks like I will be looking to implement 2.4.34. Likely our usebase is here because of  DSL's support on smaller and/or older hardware, thin clients, or embedded devices. I will continue to strive to keep up.

I look forward to continued interaction with those who share my interests and enthusiasm for the little OS that could ( and does!)

Robert
Quote (roberts @ April 01 2007,17:14)
After v3.3 is final, looks like I will be looking to implement 2.4.34.

If that's the decision I'll be fine with it - 'would be kind of good to implement DSL-N 1.0 first though...
Quote
Let me state that I have no interest in making DSL a rescue tool.

I don't know if this was meant generally to all or specifically to something I wrote. I didn't mean to suggest that DSL should be a recovery tool, but that it should have at least enough utility as a live CD to do common and simple tasks like browsing, e-mailing, getting someone's nuts out of the fire with respect to backing up files, etc., so that it wouldn't be stripped so austerely that it would effectively only be an installer. I didn't mean it should be packed with a full alphabet's worth of filesystem tools beyond what DSL already has for ext2/3. You're right, I can do that already with my remaster or other distros that do it by design.
Quote
After v3.3 is final, looks like I will be looking to implement 2.4.34. Likely our usebase is here because of  DSL's support on smaller and/or older hardware, thin clients, or embedded devices.

Updating the kernel should expand DSL's usefulness on more newer hardware without disenfranchising those of us with older hardware. I know you have a lot of things to balance in deciding what stays or goes in keeping things consistent with DSL's basic concept. I think you're doing a great job at consistently improving it given the 50 MB ceiling.
I agree that balance and being on the conservative side has kept me focused to keep improving what we have. I think the community and John keep me in check. I can be just as radical as the next guy. I do tend towards what interests me. Compiling kernels and modules are a boring task.

For example, my recent posts in water cooler on self contained applications led me to proto-type a ROX desktop running in DSL

I stripped away xtdesk, emelfm, fluxbox, and jwm. Slightly modified UCI to become well behaved ROX Application Directories, then with an old Oroborus WM and Rox panel I had a menu-less ROX drag-N-drop desktop with MyDSL UCI's in the Apps folder running in DSL.

Now that's radical. Yet it is interesting. What is old RISCOS, is new again. But running in a small Linux environment. Much smaller than the ROX Desktop/Python currently being developed. It is newbie friendly and no, none, nada, package management needed! But could you adapt to a data driven desktop and away from menus galore and application (icon) driven desktop that is the norm for Linux and Windows systems?
Next Page...
original here.