Site News :: Current Issues &

CB -

I completely understand the issues, especially SATA. As Robert said, 2.4.27 had it's own problems too. It seems 2.4.26 is just the most stable and far as the best support.

Actually, though, the reason 2.4.26 is comfy for the community is because of myDSL. Extensions are broken for other versions.

This is not a dig at the dev, Robert has all he can do. The fact is, though, is it needs to be decided if MyDSL is going to be officially supported or not. If not, then let RS develop the base and alsa and everything else may or may not be there, that's just going to be the way it is.

If MyDSL is officially supported there needs to be someone to manage it. The newer builds of DSL are requiring things like updated nvidia, alsa and gtk2 libs. To do that type of work takes skill and time to do it correctly. DSL has gotten away from that and now some of the 'staple' extensions no longer work and extensions are not being submitted. There are 'unofficial' ones popping up everywhere.

So for the future of DSL are things like sata and wireless the priority? If so, let that be the focus. If sata, wireless and mydsl is to be supported, then some decisions need to be made.

If Robert decides to do a 2.6 version to support newer hardware, that's great for the hardware but adds yet another level of complication and management to MyDSL. Robert mentioned that some users seem to be moving on. I would guess the fact that extensions don't just 'work' anymore maybe part of the reason.

This is my own perceptions. I personally use a 1.5 base because my hardware is well supported, including nvidia and such and if I want to compile an app I can still use Knoppix 3.4 without alot of grief. I need that crutch because that's the extent of my linux knowledge.

I take issue with CL's claims regarding extensions.

The myDSL system is a community process.
As such it is not nor should be the responsibity of the devs of DSL.

I created the myDSL infastructure to allow this third party software packaging to allow users, the community, to participate in the process. That is similiar to third party software that one would obtain for any OS.

We have setup a separate web hosted area (the repository) for them and it clearly states that they (the extensions) are put together by users of the community are separate from the DSL project. We have setup a separate section of the forums so extension makers and users could have a dialog on such.

Whatever, changes I or John, may make in the base, whether it is kernel/module related or not, may indeed require an adjustment in some if any extensions. Is that the responsibilty of the devs of DSL. I think not. Would you go to the OS maker for support of your third party software?

To make such a claim, would be like saying Microsoft cannot go to Vista, because not all third party software would work.

I find it unfornate that the purpose and structure of the extensions would come up and need to be re-explained.

The extensions are not the reason.

Supported hardware spectrum is.

Quote (roberts @ Jan. 17 2006,11:10)

The myDSL system is a community process.

Since when?

I seem to remember that there was one (ke4nt1?), or maybe two people who managed the repository, and spent quite a lot of time rebuilding packages when things in DSL broke them, and managed new submissions.

MyDSL has never been a community led/run/supported/whatever process.

Yes, users submitted extensions, but I figure they were usually of such poor build quality that they had to be completely rebuilt to function properly.

Quote (roberts @ Jan. 17 2006,03:45)

With the current 2.4.31 based system.
we lost scsi boot device support
we lost zip drive support.
we have issuses with pcmcia support
we have issues with wifi support
we have issues with usb boot support
we have gained sata drive support.

Well many may not notice these things, others do.
We have lost some users, or at minimum made it very difficult for them to remain among us.

This also seems to be a temporary solution.
There are other features that I would like to try to take advantage of that only 2.6.x will provide.

Robert,

I was unaware of the DSL/knoppix 3.7 RC testing period, so I can't comment on the issues encountered other than the ALSA one. I did notice that when booting a stock KNOPPIX 3.7 livecd, you need to specify the ALSA driver name in the boot cheatcode ( knoppix alsa=snd_mydriver) because the default boottime autodetection was suspended for some reason.

As for the other DSL 2.x issues,

SCSI boot support is removed for space issues and can be addressed by the user with the modules directory
zip drive boot support can be addressed with a custom boot disk like was done in older versions of DSL
I have a hunch that USB boot support can be improved by tweaking the linuxrc and maybe add a few cheatcode options. For example, maybe a cheatcode "nousb2" to disable the autoloading of ehci-hcd can be added.

But the big problems are in the area of pcmcia and wifi support, for which there is no clear solution in sight. However, I would hope that jumping from 2.4.26 to 2.4.27 would not break these like the jump from 2.4.26 to 2.4.31 did, especially since knoppix went through a few rounds of bugfixes in the 3.7 series, just like the 3.4 series once did.

As for beating up the livecd maintainers, these people need to get a life. Other than the removal of SCSI modules to stay under 50MB, no intentional effort was made to "break" hardware support for anyone. The upgrade was done using a nearly stock linux kernel, so no kernel hacking tricks were done to break support for hardware. In fact, the "compile your own driver" process was made easier by the packaging of the appropriate sources, configs, patches, and compiler tools vs. the old days of "Download the entire KNOPPIX 3.4 5-17-2004 livecd" and go to work. It is inevitable that some things won't work after making a major change, and both the maintainers and the forum/irc members have made reasonable efforts to help when they can.

I also look forward to the DSL with 2.6.x project. I just hope that:

The base system size is in the same general ballpark as current DSL (50-64megs) so that "toram" can be used in most computers.

Some way to do a bootfloppy can be developed. Maybe a 2 floppy disk root/boot LILO or GRUB system instead of a single floppy SYSLINUX system?

I wish you the best of luck with the effort.

Chris, you are taking this thread too far off topic, I deleted your last post. Thank you Cbagger01 and the rest who have given constructive and on topic feedback. I am going to lock down this thread now, the relevant areas have been discussed.

Next Page...
original here.