News :: New linux.com review

Quote

I was taken aback not so much by the article, but by the initial post in this thread suggesting that the article raises good points.

Yeah, but that post was by a stupid idiot!

As far as I'm concerned, future DSL development should be ongoing experiments. Personally I don't see why anyone with new hardware should have any influence on DSL development, unless their focus is on getting the best performance possible out of that hardware. If you have a multi-2ghz processor box and you're complaining that DSL doesn't support your SATA, you have issues that can't be addressed here.

I have 'new'ish hardware. I don't have any problem with it.
I run fanless via boards at 1Ghz with 1G ram, powered by 50W
fanless power supplies.
Asides from helping the environment which appears to be the theme
these days, I can take out the CF card and use it at work on usb.
That for me is, state-of-the-art.

Quote (roberts @ Nov. 21 2007,05:01)

I was taken aback not so much by the article, but by the initial post in this thread suggesting that the article raises good points.

Very sorry. I know it probably felt like a personal insult to you, Robert. Regarding what I said, I didn't see the author of this review as being biased. What I was thinking was, it would be worth looking into to see if people can get a comfortable 'out-of-the-box' experience with DSL, even on newer hardware. I thought that was a good sentiment from the author and I knew I identified with that. Even if, going by the facts, it's impossible - i.e. 'no drivers for kernel 2.4, end of story.'
Personally, I hate to see a good distro turn into abandonware. A lot of it is hopeless nostalgia. I mean, DSL was great back in 2004. And another reason is that no distro comes close in this size envelope. DSL at least has an organized extension system, and the core is really streamlined to the max and stable.
Oh, and Robert:
Originally I had you figured as a thirty-ish programmer working full-time on a distro. I was shocked to realize you were so.. vulnerable. I'm not very good with words, but I juts want to say I am very sorry. For the insensitivity.

I think DSL is one of the few remaining active distros using 2.4. I like to finish what I start. I fully acknowledge that much has changed in technology both in Linux OS and support systems, unionfs, aufs, squashfs, etc, as well as in hardware. That alone would make it obvious that a 2.4 kernel is not going to work on the latest hardware. The reviewer even states that, yet still finds it necessary to do a review anyway. That fact alone, make me wonder that it was an attack not a review. It should be as obvious as the nose on your face that DSL's target is providing a stable robust tiny OS for older and the smallest hardware. You can't run gtk2 2.6 on 32MB. If the reviewer had knowledge of DSL, as it was claimed in the article via the history remark, then it would have been clear that folders/document centric drag-n-drop is all new to DSL. That is not a "damn small improvement"! I guess I can dismiss it as the reviewer suffers from the "frog at the bottom of the well" syndrome. But I do think anyone that frequents this forum and follows DSL would have also seen the review for what it is and not have posted it as something to agree with.

As I have already posted, today, it is so much easier to create and support a live CD distro. Everyone now uses unionfs/aufs and squashfs. Nobody is supporting as many operation modes that I have to support. On the otherhand, because these overlays are so stable it makes a custom repository irrelavant. With the changes in hardware, why strip the packages of anything and with overlays, just install as you would with the standard package management system. Backing up; just provide the ability to save the overlay branch or not. Everything is easier than it was before these software technologies were available. The only negative is todays software is twice as large and yet not twice as capable. Most is eye candy but then new machines are more than large enough to handle the new technologies. The problem for me is to keep buying new hardware to try to keep. Perhaps it is indeed time to pass the tourch to some thiry-something person who can.

Quote (stupid_idiot @ Nov. 23 2007,00:37)

I mean, DSL was great back in 2004.

I may be in the minority, but I've bought up machines like Dell latitudes that work well with DSL instead of newer machines because DSL is much more to my liking. I also have a few windows machines around for running new hardware. I can understand how DSL might be a necessity for some, but for me it's a preference, and has brought back the joy of using a computer. As far as respecting the developer, I still want Robert's picture to hang on my wall....nough said...

Next Page...
original here.