*cough*zomg ripoff*cough*Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Besides, KNOPPIX (a GREAT project in it's own right) eventually moved away from the "klik" system and into the writable filesystem approach, which by the way was also a concept first implemented by DSL. Now if they could only get UNIONFS to work as well as the simple symlink DSL approach, it would be a win-win
The thing that annoys me the most about the buggy (and additional resource using) UNIONFS hooks inside KNOPPIX is that I can't find a way to TURN THE DARN THING OFF. A "nounionfs" cheatcode would be nice
But I digress...Agreed.
Unionfs is what drove me away from using Knoppix at all. It makes the system so much slower and buggier that I can't stand it.
-J.P.And it appears that they have repeated their error with KNOPPIX 4.0
Unionfs is still there, and it is still broken. (kernel oops)
Hopefully they came up with a "nounionfs" cheatcode by now
I like to use newer knoppix on some of the newer computers with SATA hard drives for image backups like the Dell GX280s.
By the way, Dell is getting REALLY cheap with their motherboards. The 280 motherboard comes with a primary and secondary SATA controller, but since chassis expansion space is limited they chose not to support the secondary controller. All they did was eliminate the $0.02 plastic socket from the side of the motherboard. The solder points are still there, but no socket. VERY annoying when you are trying to clone SATA hard drives.
Older knoppix and DSL do not recogize the controller. Even the 2.4.27 kernel in knoppix 3.7?
Knoppix could use an alternative 2.4.x kernel, it could use a "nounionfs" and it should also bring back captive-ntfs
I really liked the knoppix 3.4 version that was used as the base for DSL 0.8+
Oh well.Please hear me out guys.
Knoppix's implimentation of unionfs does seem to be buggy and a resource hog. However, Slax's use of Unionfs is very good. I think it might have something to do with the 2.6 kernel in Slax.
I've been playing around with Unionfs on Gentoo and I'm quite impressed with it's abilities.
I would really like to see this in DSL. Maybe after we move to the 2.6 kernel.
With the great hardware detection... the already small size and speed of DSL add unionfs (for easy changes in the future)
DSL would still run on my old machine and be simple to modify when we need to.
Straight Awesome! Guys! I say "Lets make it work"
This is really going to save dev time in the long run. Plus the user will not have to backup and restore all the time.
Don't rule out unionfs because of one very bad implimentation. I think this would actually be in DSL's best interest.
