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

there's no reason why the apps can't be seperated and then distributed along with the iso is there?
may put them in one file 'standardapps.uci/unc?' on the root dir of the cd?

Quote (humpty @ April 02 2007,03:25)

there's no reason why the apps can't be seperated and then distributed along with the iso is there?
may put them in one file 'standardapps.uci/unc?' on the root dir of the cd?

Humpty is spot on to my point. Make every app possible a uci or unc. The DSL devs can decide what apps they want to package with the live cd. To the new user, it's completely transparent. They boot a live cd and the apps are there and working. To the advancaed user, it's a modular distro where they can add/remove the uci/unc that they want and then do a Make My DSL type livecd remaster.

To me, THAT would be a trick distro. It can truly be as small and large as you want and all you have to do is add/remove unc/uci files to suite your needs.

If the core could be made small enough, you could possibly run the core toram in 64 or 96mb ram and still be able to add additional apps via uci/unc. Imagine reviving old hardware if you could run DSL toram on a P1 with 96mb ram! Wouldn't that impress your friends.

I hope my previous post didn't suggest debian compatibility. I just meant the files in the core. Now you have a hard time making some apps into extensions because of the base libs. If the core can be made so it's compatible to whatever version of debian you wanted to pull your apps from, that would be cool. Again, this part is way over my head.

Chris

Actually I built DSL-N in that very manner. I maintain a tiny core and all the applications are added to the ISO during the mkisofs step. Of course the resulting ISO never revealed this fact.

I very much like this configuration. It also allowed for separation of development efforts. Where I usually concentrate on the tiny core.

The only concern that was expressed to me, was that releasing this configuration would likely result in many competing clones based on my tiny core. Many of us recall that we once had such a shadow.

I have not attempted to break apart DSL is such a manner. But that could be the decision and priority in moving forward.

It is true about the lower memory usage. In fact, I have also proto-typed a PXE version of DSL. This version has KNOPPIX image embedded in the initial ramdisk. This makes booting much easier, as no other boot time drivers need to be loaded to try to find the KNOPPIX image. That means no more "can't find knoppix image - dumping to a minimal shell" message. Therefore, the lower initial ram usage, the better for this particular configuration.

So many choices, so many roads still to travel...
My decision is still not clear.

Keep voting and posting your comments and suggestions. I am following your posts closely.

Robert

Quote

2. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean there isn't room for experimentation on the side. I absolutely *love* the sound of the Rox Desktop dsl. Even if it goes nowhere Robert, please post your efforts somewhere so we can play with it.

Send me an email and I will answer with a link. I wonder how much interest there is for this. This environment is actually much closer to my overall philosphy and can fit well with what I have developed. A DSL Rox Lua Desktop sounds like a fun environment both to use and to develope.

Robert:

Quote

I wonder how much interest there is for this.

Please count me in. I haven't had time to fiddle around with setting up UCI AppDirs this morning -- just going through a few ideas about how to do it while stuck in traffic. Will you tell me what you did to get them to "behave"?

clivesay/humpty: That's what I was alluding to about modularity and (p)remastering.

Next Page...
original here.