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



I am aware of the centralized menu system. However, the older gtk1 versions of most WM do not support this. It wasn't around then. Specifically the fluxbox currently in use. New WM's generally mean Gtk2, or at a minimum more bloat. It is always easy to give in and bloat up. It seems to always come down to writing some custom code or using/assembling larger pre-made subsystems. While it is good that standards have emerged, there is little effort to keep size to a minimum let alone to still support gtk1.

I can tell you the current fluxbox is most favored for its size and functionality.

Most of my challenges were to make disparate incompatible systems work well together via custom code. The combination of xtdesk, fluxbox, and emelfm, have all given me fits over the years. Yet they represent a very small working environment that have served us well.
id have to agree with roberts, and there has to be some sort of identity left in the core.
Then there is the LinuxFromScratch ideology - Build everything yourself.
It seems that most of stuff in DSL is from debian repos, meaning no optimization. If one would compile some programs, maybe tinyx and fluxbox, with
Quote
-march=i486 -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -s
, it would both decrease the size and increase the speed, compared to the non-optimized version for 386. Since 486 is listed as a minimum for DSL, I think no one would complain about that... :)

And also optimize the kernel for 486...
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of:

1.  A 2.4.xx dsl "classic".

Plus

2.  The modular approach but applied to 2.6.xx + gtk2 ie a DIY kit for dsl-n

the latter is not contrained by a 50MB limit and could be a lego kit for rolling-your-own.

RE "shadows":  imitators, clones can be a good thing.  They can do testing and feed improvements and bugs back upstream.  They can test the market.  They can bring users to the "original and best".  This is how the GNU GPL world works, isn't it?  Torvalds: "Linux is evolution not intelligent design".

There's room for a lot of microdistros, there are already a few, and DSL dominates without any effort whatsoever.

Also:  corporates might use such a kit for quick solutions, or at least for fooling around. They have access to a lot of resources, and could be encouraged to support the dsl project both cash and in-kind, and in expertise.

Consider the issue (on a different scale!) with CentOS and RHEL.

CentOS is probably good for RHEL - it provides a bigger base, and RH is always going to sell support to coprorates.

And Knoppix isn;tthe least bit threatened by all its spinoffs in clones, rather, they revel in it.  I think they are probably quite fond of dsl.
I'm not voting, because that's not how I would make a choice.

DSL is intended to run on "older" machines. But there are degrees of age.

Let's divide home PCs into eras. The most useful stratification is "What Microsoft O/S was it delivered with?" So we can talk about
    pre-Win9x machines
    Win9x machines
    WinXP machines
    Vista machines

What processor the PC has doesn't mean much, as long as it's some flavour of Pentium. If you're slower, you'll just have to be more patient. The critical factors in these machines is the RAM supplied. Win9x machines were usually sold with 64MB or better. XP machines had at least 256MB, and then salesperson tried to convince you to upgrade to 512. Cheap buggers like me didn't  :D

Another axis of differentiation is "newer-vs-older hardware" machines. Newer can have SATA, bootable USB2.0, maybe Bluetooth, Firewire, etc. Older will be IDE, maybe USB 1.1, DVD writer, etc.

If your system falls into the newer group, I'm not sure why you want to runDSL. You folks can run any Linux you want. Why not one with glitz and glamour?

Next, I'm going to define something called the Modern Internet. On it, participants expect to be able to access images and sound in eMail and at Web sites, view Flash animations, read documents in PDF format, and upload from their point-and-shoot digital cameras. (I'm not even sure they'd use Linux if it can't run the software that came with their cameras.)  They expect the ease-of-use and universality of IE and Outlook Express, which pretty well means delivering Firefox and Thunderbird. And the participants I'm talking about are not geeks. I'm referring to Joe six-pack-of-Geritol® here, who isn't up to loading ucis or dsls or whatever dang fool thing to get to the point where Windows is out-of-the-box.

So what systems should DSL target, and what should it deliver?

My inclination would be to write off the pre-Win9x machines. Although there's always "because you can" bragging rights, those machines are too outdated for use on the Modern Internet. That leaves DSL's niche as the Win9x older hardware systems.That's where it'll really shine and serve a useful function.

And whatever it takes to deliver the Modern Internet, that's what DSL neds to deliver.

And one more thing. Lose the 50MB restriction. That's just those bragging rights again. I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but in Canada's largest city, I can't expect to walk into any computer store and walk out with credit-card CDs in my hand. I can't even buy the minidisk format, except for DVDs for cameras in places that cater to the photography crowd. And the final insult is that the small media has always been a lot more expensive than full size.

I've finally euthanized my Pentium 133MMX 64MB system, so I doubt if I'll be lurking around these parts much any more. My current low-end system is a 400MHz Pentium with 384MB RAM. That's sufficient to run the Ubuntu family.
Next Page...
original here.