myDSL Extensions (deprecated) :: removing an extension

Quote (undertow @ Sep. 10 2005,22:33)

There seems to be so many live cds, all aimed at being good live cds.

DSL does not just aim to be a good live-cd. We think of all the people who use frugal, frugal-CF, frugal-usb, or whatever other device that people run DSL from. These people are our target audience. Hdinstalls are archaic. EVERY operating system since the beginning of time has been run in basicly the same way. The files are unpacked from the install media (or compiled/built) onto a large storage device, where a pointer or bootloader directs the processor how to continue booting the OS. DSL is changing that. DSL is meant to be run completely from ram. Yeah, it claims to be an ideal OS for older computers with little ram, and that is true. But there is a sort of hidden agenda here. DSL is changing the way an OS should work.

The hard disk is by FAR the biggest bottleneck on your PC. Even with the new 3rd gen sata drives and faster scsi, hard disks come nowhere close to the speed of your computer's ram. So why should your OS and applications be there? Because that's the way it's always been done? Any English teacher can tell you that is the emotional appeal fallacy (appealing to fear, tradition, or pity). Because everyone else does it? Another fallacy (ad populum). From ram is the ideal place for an OS to be run. It's fast, and there is plenty of room for DSL. The only place in your computer that is faster is in the CPU's cache, and right now, there isn't room for a whole modern OS there. As ramspace increases on modern computers, it gets even easier to have everything you could ever want running in ram. Eventally, as magnetic ram and other high-speed, nonvolatile, non-expiring types of storage become available, the hard disk will vanish from our computers, like floppy drives are vanishing now.

Quote

But so few of these are aimed towards being a decent way to get a minimal linux install on an older machine

What you say!?

Most major distros have a way to get a tiny install of linux onto a doorstop computer. Debian's 31mb net installer and Slackware's MinimalCD jump to mind. There are many, many others.

Quote

debian compatible

Less and less so with every release, actually.

I look forward to the day that all extensions are simply mounted when you need them, and unmounted when you don't, and for frugal-users, it will remember which extensions you had mounted, and remount them at the next boot. Compressed-filesystem packages will fall by the wayside, like so many other computer related things of our parents' era. Such as punch cards, tape drives, and Pokes and Peaks.

Quote

many many premade reduced-size packages

Part of the reason that the MyDSL system is so efficient it that it does not keep a database of what it does, nor does it keep an archive of overwritten changes made to the system. MyDSL has virtually no overhead, so it can be used on even the lowliest of boxes. Creating a database of the files unpacked takes up precious CPU cycles, slowing down the user's install time. Keeping an archive ove overwritten files eats away hard disk space that could be put to better use.

Quote

why is it important to _not_ expand in that direction?

Because DSL is not a distro that follows. DSL leads, Everyone else does that. Why should DSL? DSL will continue to pioneer new ways to run an OS, new ways to expand functionality without adding huge amounts of overhead, and new ways to utilize the functionality of new computers while not forgetting the little guys with their 120mhz pentium pros, like some people. *coughmicrosoftcough*

-J.P.

Well now youve got me fired up for some debatin'.
Not to poke holes in the Plan, but how does that encourage development or open source? If everything is a mounted, compressed premade little uci thats immediately erased and reloaded at reboot, how can one hack the files? I understand you can choose which files you want to save (backup), but isnt that what you were just calling archaic? What draws me more to the hard drive install (and definitely away from .uci) is that i can toy with _any_ file, any time, and if it doesnt work, it's up to me to fix it. I get to have a progression. I get to customize. Isn't that the very reason i was excited about switching from windows to begin with? That nearly everything on the system can be ripped open to it's guts at a moment's notice?
I dont have a high-end machine, nor do i have the money for it, so i can't join in on all the reindeer games. I experienced it for a few days whilst housesitting and was quite impressed by the speed of it, but...honestly, it felt quite dead. Every time i turned the machine on, i was presented with somebody else's idea of a desktop, browser, etc etc. That obviously extends beyond just interface, but that's the obvious example. It made perfect sense for a machine that i couldnt utilize the hdd on, but when i could, why not just save the whole mess to the hard drive? then i could customize anything i wanted.
I dont know quite what to make of the 'emotional appeal fallacy' part of this. i am not installing it to the hard drive because everybody else does, im doing it because its what i can afford to do.

Is it my turn yet?

Quote

Not to poke holes in the Plan, but how does that encourage development or open source?

Hmm..
Does taking a different direction than others stiffle development?
Have other distros stopped developing along those old lines of thought already?
Is DSL being openly developed?
Is any portion of DSL's latest developments not fully exposed and open?
Is there any part of the DSL distro that is not considered 'open source'?

If you answered NO to the last 5 questions, you are wise..

Quote

If everything is a mounted, compressed premade little uci thats immediately erased and reloaded at reboot, how can one hack the files?

Once the extension is mounted, it is fully exposed.
Copy the contents to a work directory, and have at it ! Hack away.
Rebuilding your hack back into a .uci or .tar.gz is easy,
or, leave it on your hard drive, fully uncompressed, your choice..

Quote

What draws me more to the hard drive install (and definitely away from .uci) is that i can toy with _any_ file, any time, and if it doesnt work, it's up to me to fix it. I get to have a progression. I get to customize. Isn't that the very reason i was excited about switching from windows to begin with? That nearly everything on the system can be ripped open to it's guts at a moment's notice?

Nothing has changed. All the same files are there.
Only the delivery system has changed.

I appreciate the fact that you like to hack. Same goes for me.

But MOST users just want it to work, every time, and get some work done.
They don't want to tweak it, bend it, or break it, or even fsck with it.
Just use it. Emails, browsing, documents, games, music, etc..

Some folks LIKE to work on their cars.
Others just want to get where they wanna go. Without issue.
No reason not to have both, and both are there for you. Your choice.

Quote

It made perfect sense for a machine that i couldnt utilize the hdd on, but when i could, why not just save the whole mess to the hard drive? then i could customize anything i wanted.

You can. You can also save it to most any other device you have.
And you can take it with you. It's migratory. It doesn't require an install.
You can have it today, and keep it, or ditch it tomorrow. or store it for later.
It will run on most anything. anywhere. You can use it to clone itself.
Share with others. Make it look|feel|drive|act however you want..

I don't think I'm understanding the role that the .uci, or the HDInstall,
has in the aggravation I feel in this thread.
Hasn't DSL just added grub to the HDinstall script?
And made both LiveCD and pendrives both capable of making a HDInstalls?
It's not like it's being dumped, or discarded. And .uci's work well in BOTH,
unlike many of the other extension types did, and they UNINSTALL ! \o/
Where's the luv' man?

I don't see where the grief is coming from..
Are the .uci filetypes intimidating? They are the exact same contents
as the .tar.gz versions they were built from! Everybody, including
HDInstallers, LOVED the .tar.gz's, because they were so HD friendly,
only writing to certain areas of the filesystem, never overwriting anything.
For frugal/liveCD/toram users, they were especially happy, because they were
such a ram savings over the .dsl filetypes, that called mkwritable into play.

If you want to mess with a .uci on any type of install, simply copy the
contents ( /opt/xchat ) to another dir ( /opt/xchat.bak),
unmount the .uci, and rename the (/opt/xchat.bak) back to (/opt/xchat)
All the icons and menus are in the user.tar.gz in the same directory!
Now you've got a permanent version of the exact same app, on your HD.
Forever..... Unless you change your mind in 6 months.. Uh-oh? Nope.
Remount and unmount the .uci again, and the app disappears..
Or, hack away at it, then make a new .tar.gz or .uci of your work,
and it's business as usual.

Quote

i am not installing it to the hard drive because everybody else does, im doing it because its what i can afford to do.

I'm not shot in the a$$ with dimes either.
But why waste a perfectly good hard drive on an OS install?
Wouldn't it be better if that space was filled with compressed apps,
rather than a slew of uninstallable, uncompressed files?
Isn't that what makes you sick about the 1.5GB XP install?
Isn't your install now a prisoner inside that one box?

Quote

I understand you can choose which files you want to save (backup), but isnt that what you were just calling archaic?

No. Keeping them uncompressed in a bunch of dirs on a HD, is...
They are compact, They are one file, easily copied or transfered.
Wouldn't it offer more space savings if your personal files and data
were stored in a compressed format, a click away, as well as your apps?

That's about $.10 worth, isn't it?

73
ke4nt

Im not discrediting the usefulness of .uci, ive got plenty of love for the whole idea ke4nt.
Im asking because i want your opinions, not merely out of grief/frustration. There's no reason not to discuss these things

And im learning in the meantime, as im sure any other newbies that find this thread will too.
Some simple instructions made the process of fiddling with .uci contents a lot easier to grasp, as i didnt understand it to the extent you do. yet...
i still see a full install to make more sense for 'tweakers'. It requires less of someone who simply wants to tinker with the contents of everything and learn the classic structure and function of a linux filesystem. Even if DSL is pioneering a new way, everyone else isn't, which then suddenly makes the bottleneck the learning curve, and the degree to which that information applies to everything else. Standardization is being under-represented here....i don't think that everything that is 'old' need be a fallacy of some sort or another. Its old because it works. Every time i install something via apt, its almost a guarantee that i can cd to /usr/share/doc and find some information. And every time i want to save some space on my hd, i can rm /usr/share/doc. There's no reason .uci can't do this, and i guess that would be the middle ground: which leads me back to what started all of this: uninstalling packages.
Is there any reason that uci can't expand into the existing standardized hierarchy and unexpand itself later?

Quote

Is any portion of DSL's latest developments not fully exposed and open?

by TeamDSL, yes. but xfce4.dsl is a good example of what's _not_ exposed and open. i am not allowed to make reference to unofficial packages in the wiki. and again that shows the bottleneck: The word 'official'. which is also what i meant about subculture, although i dont know that its the correct term.
Is there a possibility of making a venue for 'unofficial'? If i had bandwidth i'd have done it myself. I understand security, but how many people here _havent_ downloaded some software from somewhere slimy like kazaa and used it with no problems?
maybe a new room in the forums for unofficial packages. i dont know.

Next Page...
original here.