DSL-N :: Should DSL-N start moving forward?

Rather than have this post turn into a debate about merits of different distros, let's refocus on the issue at hand and get some input on how this should go forward if it should at all. Assume that it will have 2.6 and more support for newer hardware, assume that it will receive the kind of development DSL itself has. What do YOU want out of it? If the choices above don't suit your concerns, please provide feedback.

Lets try to stay on topic and positive here. While I may agree, I don't want to start any distro wars.

To the subject at hand:

I am not sure how to respond to this. Am I to take this as an affront to the result and conculsion of the very recent poll which resulted in a consenus of how DSL was to move forward? And now, when work has only just begun on a new interface and improved user experience?

I have many times posted why dsl-n development has stalled. The main of which was lack of community interest. Where DSL forums had an average of 100 users, DSL-N had 5. Five. Where do you think I should have spent my time? Follow that up, with the recent poll and there was not an overwhelming demand for a larger 2.6k DSL. DSL has built its reputation on supporting very low end hardware, the Libettro, and 32MB-64MB machines.

I realize that over time things change, but I am talking very recent. dsl4 is only at alpha1.

I also realize that some in the community want new hardware soultions ASAP.

Given all the above, and if I am not being excluded from this discussion. This is what I would propose...

1. Evolutionary not revolutionary, i.e, do not try to maintain two separate distributions.
2. Leverage what I am currently developing.
3. Leverage existing gtk1 extensions.
4. Leverage existing gtk2 and gtk2 extensions.

Bottom line:

I am swamped with work on dsl4, but if one or several in the community, wish to compile a minimal 2.6 kernel, modules, and the core third party modules needed by DSL( ltmodem, unionfs, cloop, ndiswrapper, fuse, prism2, and madwifi). I will incorporate them into another "edition" of DSL.

Most likely this kernel and boot time modules, ide, cloop, usb, and sata will not fit on a single floppy disk. Therefore likely no syslinux edition. Most likely only an isolinux edition.

I would work to automate the process of simultaneously releasing both a 2.4k and 2.6k editions of isolinux DSL.

By adopting this approach, we would leverage current developemnt, use existing gtk1 extensions, easily add gtk2 and gtk2 extensions.

We would offer greater new hardware support while minimizing operational support questions and issues.

This would at least be a start on which we could later begin to update and/or replace core applications and libraries.

Any volunteer kernel builders?

Well, I have a dangerous habit of getting involved in projects that are time-consuming and beyond my knowledge....

But hey, if someone is willing to help me out, I wouldn't mind trying to help DSL-n get back on its feet.

If this is going to be another edition of DSL, would that make a 2.6k version something like "DSL-n 4.01RC1"? After all, it will be the same design as DSL4, just, y'know... different.

@Roberts: You have my full appreciation, so don't think that the re-interest in DSL-n is a violent populist upswell. With the Little OS That Could, my Satellite is now enjoying a robust second life. The reason that I personally liked DSL-n is the addition of gAIM (now Pidgin), as well as the fact that I didn't have to change my BIOS settings to have DSL not hang when it searched for my PCMCIA card on boot.

Quote

Am I to take this as an affront to the result and conculsion of the very recent poll which resulted in a consenus of how DSL was to move forward?

Not at all. I'm doing this because:

1. I know you're very busy with DSL4.
2. The issue was raised about new hardware not being supported much further in 2.4 and I thought the dialog needed to be moved away to a more appropriate thread.
3. I want to see if there's a consensus among those who do want DSL-N developed about what they direction they want it to go.
4. I want to see how motivated they are to get it rolling.

Quote

Given all the above, and if I am not being excluded from this discussion...

You're definitely not excluded.

Per your four points, I included in the poll specific choices dealing with parallel 2.4 and 2.6 development. I laid aside my own presumptions that those wanting 2.6 would also prefer GTK2 when the issue was raised.

Quote

Most likely only an isolinux edition.... I would work to automate the process of simultaneously releasing both a 2.4k and 2.6k editions of isolinux DSL.

I think isolinux-only is sensible for 2.6 since machines requiring syslinux will likely find their hardware better supported in 2.4. Am I off on assuming that?

Quote

I think isolinux-only is sensible for 2.6 since machines requiring syslinux will likely find their hardware better supported in 2.4. Am I off on assuming that?

Correct. However, during the DSL-N forum days, there were many who squawked about this fact. My feeling is that most newer hardware does not even have a floppy drive. And if both "editions" , 2.4k and 2.6k offer the same operational features then not offering a syslinux/boot-floppy for 2.6k should not be a problem.

Next Page...
original here.