Smaller, nearly apps-less DSL?

Forum: User Feedback
Topic: Smaller, nearly apps-less DSL?
started by: roberts

Posted by roberts on Mar. 27 2006,20:07

There have been many topics recently posted about releasing a tiny core DSL. A DSL without many of the existing desktop apps that are currently builtin. I would like to survey the community on this. I would also like to see a discussion on how, if it happens to be so decided, would DSL retain its identiy. Would not this just make DSL a springboard for other remasters and possibly make DSL go the way of knx? Pros. Cons. Thoughts. Would this make it too difficult for a new user who happens to find this nearly useless desktop? Would the effort be worth the results?

I am hoping for a lively dicussion on this. This poll is of my own doing and does not reflect on any possible decision that may be made.

Please Vote by selecting one of the choices listed above and then optionally posting your thoughts below.

Posted by doobit on Mar. 27 2006,20:18

It's nice to be able to boot this thing up and begin operating immediately on most hardware. I'd hate to need to hunt for usable apps without knowing what's good and what's not. DSL is what it is because it's so darn useful.

Posted by safesys on Mar. 27 2006,20:22

Speaking as a new user, I tried dsl with pretty low expectations and was initially just impressed that it was an os that'd boot up on a usb stick. I downloaded it purely on novelty value, but quickly realised that it had pretty much everything I need for my day to day use right off the bat and the myDSL system (combined with the frugal setup) was a bit of a revelation for me in terms of easy access without anything going bang. Had it not included the apps it does I can't say for certain that I'd have been impressed to the same extent or found it as useful.

I really like the balance of size, built in apps, myDSL, fluxbox, torsmo etc - it just works for me.

Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 27 2006,21:02

My personal preference would be a DSL that was basically only Linux + modules, standard GNU apps, and X (including the lua fltk tools of course). Everything else would be mounted into the system when needed. I don't believe this would be a good choice for the main path of DSL, though....at best perhaps an optional download would be nice. DSL was designed to be a speedy and compact general-purpose desktop, and I think it would be a good idea to stay on that course.

If this was to become an available distro, I couldn't say what I'd like to see remain, other than what I mentioned above. This is the main probelm I had in my own attempts at remastering DSL. In a way I think it would be fine even if it were still a 50mb distro without any desktop applications, replacing those apps with more libs and other dependencies that would make myDSL packages easier to create and much smaller. However, this would surely be a problem unless the "new" DSL was the only DSL.

Posted by newOldUser on Mar. 27 2006,21:28

I like having a small Linux distribution that I can tell other non-techie people to download and try. It boots up and offers them some good apps right away. The "hey, that old machine is working pretty good now" surprise.

Like safesys, I too tried DSL as a lark. Then I found what it could do and I was hooked.

Could I name a few apps that I would give up in order to have more drivers or libs? Yes, I could but that's the way it goes. I just need to add those on my own.

Isn't the source in the public domain? Couldn't a smaller, non-gui distribution be built as a side project by users with an interest for that sort of thing. I don't mean to make it sound trivial because I really don't know what's involved but I think it could be done as a sub-group project. No offical support. Use at your own risk type of thing.

Posted by desnotes on Mar. 27 2006,22:07

If you went with a smaller version, I would like to see it as an additional version and not the primary one. My focus with small distros is running them with QEMU and a nearly app-less version would be a nice building block to re-master. DSL is a great way to get non-techy people involved in Linux.

Posted by clacker on Mar. 27 2006,22:11

Why would you strip away the apps? Just to make it smaller for the sake of downloading time? If that's the case then I don't think it's worth it. I do think it would be a good idea, though, if it were possible to use the extra space to add more modules to the base to handle more network cards and such. Then it might have a better chance of running for everyone and then allowing them to download the apps that the want.

Posted by lovdsl on Mar. 28 2006,00:16

I lovdsl...when I installed to the pent166..I thought..now were talkin..an easy linux install that works right away with mydsl adds..I only wish there were more adds to choose from..however I think a lot of people are looking for something that will install on even older equipment and in this case the apps included are of little use..so a linux distro that was like dsl but designed for older machines and still offered gui and adds like opera and iscribe xcalc and jpilot and so on would be much desired, this need not be the focus for dsl..but it is certainly desired if such a distro were to be available. my dsl install on a dx2 is ok but nothing like dsl on the pent 166..I can find nothing better for the dx2 but think something better is possible..perhaps an older version of dsl could be fashioned for this purpose..I am not capable but have a dx2 dying to test it out : )

Posted by fuzzybud on Mar. 28 2006,02:02

New users of dsl need to see a nice operational desktop. Many of them don't know how to mount USB thumb drives. What would they think if they had to download aps before using them? DSL has been growing in popularity because it is seen as useful. Don't change that appeal for new users.

Posted by brianw on Mar. 28 2006,02:39

I think DSL is on a good course especially for people not so familiar with linux. I think it already is the case that other things can be added easily by the community (extra modules, libs, drivers, etc...) as myDSL apps. There have been people stripping down DSL for their own use so maybe a forum specifically for this topic could be set up. That would be a good way for interested people to learn and share but I don't think the general users would benefit from a stripped DSL. As many people have already stated, DSL just works (for most users), and it is fast, that is the beauty of it.

Posted by green on Mar. 28 2006,03:05

Keep the current DSL on the path that it is on.
I think with DSL as it is, is the reason it is finding widespread acceptance.... and growing.

I agree with the notion that if a smaller DSL is desired, so be it.
However, let that be a "gift" from the development team to those of us who would like a "base" DSL, but keep the focus on the 50MB flavor. DSL at 50MB can not be beat. It does not get any better than that.

Perhaps the release a "Base DSL - 20MB of Penguin Power Special Edition" would help get everyone's feet wet with no promise of support or continuation. 20MB ? 15MB ? 10MB ? What ever it turns out to be, I do not know.

As far as a "base" version goes, I would love to have a DSL that boots to X, has next to no apps, and let's me go get what I want from repository in the same manner what it does now.

Nothing in the Apps menu except the tools.
No games, and one window manager.
Forum space for DSL Base.

How about a tool/script that asks you what App you want removed and then does it? That way you could start with the awesome 50MB and then trim it down as far as you want to take it. I do not even know if that is possilbe, but sounds good.

If I could get my hands on a 8MB DSL with GUI, I would be hard pressed not to drool on it, but I do not know how to make one..... yet. (i'm thinking thin client with a real working DSL....)

I digress.

Posted by dtf on Mar. 28 2006,04:23

"If it is not broken, don't fix it". DSL is attractive to new LINUX user becaue it is simple and works out of the box and runs on older computers and is fast. I don't think you want to lose that focus.

Posted by AwPhuch on Mar. 28 2006,07:16

A server version was attempted, a "core" version would have been nice to start with..but if it takes too much to create then why bother...it would take away from me main cause

However...having a "core" version would allow to custom build DSL completely as a person sees fit...

Brian
AwPhuch

Posted by anaconda on Mar. 28 2006,11:46

Yes. I would like a barebone wersion of DSL!

with fluxbox, DSLpanel , MyDLS and dillo (for help), but without the other X-applications. As long as they would still be easily added with MyDSL

would also keep all the non-X-applications..

How small could it be? could it be fitted to 32MN CF-card??

Posted by clivesay on Mar. 28 2006,13:21

A base DSL with all X apps mounted as uci's is intriguing. I have no idea how small Robert could get that base but running DSL toram in 96 or 64mb ram with many apps mounted as uci's is definitely a interesting thought. Talk about getting the most out of old PC's!

Would be nice to know if this would be an additional offering or replace the current model.

Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 28 2006,14:28

One option would be something similar to what was mentioned a few days ago. If a large portion of the "non-essential" applications were included on the ISO as UCI files in the new mydsl directory, it might benefit both the people who want the full desktop and those who want it minimal (or want to replace existing software). For the first group the behavior of DSL would appear to be the same, and for the second group the removal of applications would be as simple as removing the packages from the mydsl directory. I say UCI because if the packages were not within the base system then .dsl and .tar.gz apps would increase the amount of ram required to run DSL. One drawback to this is that UCI apps are not in $PATH, so things such as piping or running apps from scripts might be a little more complicated...unless they are only applications that people run interactively.

This could also allow for a more dynamic set of apps in use at runtime. For example, a user could add a list of apps in his home or in the kernel line (e.g. xmydsl=firefox,beaver). If that list is empty or missing, all apps are installed. If the list contains "firefox", it would exclude mounting the firefox application at boottime.

Just some think food.

Posted by nucpc on Mar. 28 2006,16:55

I'd like to echo the above and for a little suggestion (something I think user Henk
raised a while ago)...how about a half way house option: put the majority of the
apps into a CI (but not a UCI) and hard symbolic link them, a la mkwriteable but
instead to the cloop mount point of the CI, if required. It'll look the same, take little
RAM and those who want a core system can just detach the apps CI.... Hopefully
it circumvents all PATH and wrapper issues but I think its a one-way until reboot
if you mount it.

Posted by DrWatt on Mar. 28 2006,17:54

A barebones version would be nice for those with minimal hardware, such as many of the old laptops and destops people are resurecting, but I think for newbies its fine just the way it is. You can add and subtract as you please and in the end master your own version if you desire.

That said, a minimal version that would appeal to me would be small enough to fit on a few floppies, run on a machine with 16-32M or less of RAM and a small hard drive, have enough drivers to get me on the net, have a minimal gui, and allow me to do a net install of as much as I wanted from a giant repository.

Posted by roberts on Mar. 28 2006,18:17

Quote (nucpc @ Mar. 28 2006,08:55)

Symlinks are very expensive.
On some machines just doing a mkwriteable nearly depletes the available ram.
Whereas our current UCI does not.
I could fiddle with FAT but not sure that is the way to go.
Also, I don't really want YADSLIT ( Yet Another DSL Install Type) to try to support across all other install types.

My focus for DSL 2.4 version is to try to enhance UCI.
My personal ultimate goal would be to have an "I Love UCI" edition of DSL.
No promises only progress. I have some ideas that I will soon be prototyping for v2.4.

Posted by cbagger01 on Mar. 28 2006,18:47

I think that base DSL should be more than a kernel + XWindows. DSL should continue to strive to be a livecd DESKTOP os.

If people want a better remastering experience, have them use MORPHIX. That is what MORPHIX is designed to do. Use the right tool for the right job.

In my opinion, the only thing that should trump usability (as many desktop apps as reasonably possible) is hardware support.

With the MyDSL system, it is easier for the user to correct any desktop application gaps than it is for the user to get some hardware up and running.

So tracking the KNOPPIX project is great for hardware support purposes, even if it means growing in size (64MB?) or reducing functionality (Ted goes back to the MyDSL repository instead of base ISO?) as a price.

Posted by roberts on Mar. 28 2006,19:15

Quote

So tracking the KNOPPIX project is great for hardware support purposes, even if it means growing in size (64MB?) or reducing functionality (Ted goes back to the MyDSL repository instead of base ISO?) as a price.

I whole heartily agree with this. And that is the focus of our additional offering based on kernel 2.6. This will keep up with more new(er) device support. It is true that trying to backport newer hardware devices into 2.4.26 is a real challenge and sometimes the vendor support is not there, or only for kernel 2.6. On the otherhand, as has been previously discussed, DSL has a vast audience of older machines needing our flagship 50MB DSL.

To share an update on this additional (kernel 2.6) offering, I have built a core system with mydsl. I have been using it on a daily basis. It is currently under review for the appropriate desktop apps. And yes there is no 50MB limit. Smallness will still be paramount. Most all of my DSL development time is core and not on the collection of applications. Not being one who uses many apps, I am not a good reference point for such decisions.

Posted by ke4nt1 on Mar. 28 2006,19:24

cbagger's comments mirrors my own...

Looking thru the IRC channels, forums, linuxquestions, etc..,
there are dozens of 'remasters' ..

Lots of folks remaster DSL to be whatever they like..

What I LIKE about DSL is being able to POP IN MY CD/USBKEY
and get the JOB DONE !
..whether it be FTPing into a site, looking up homework online,
getting into an editor to fix a webpage, copying files using
one of the quick-n-easy servers to another box on a network..

I don't want to fiddle with setting up plugins, apps, etc..
I want to bootup, and get BUSY.

So, I do support the improvements to hardware support.

But, especially for first-timers, the click+go+do ability of
DSL is most impressive..

For those of us who enjoy remastering, DSL already serves
that purpose nicely.

My vote goes to further improvements, and not MORE builds/masters/isos for DSL to maintain every month..

73
ke4nt

Posted by AwPhuch on Mar. 28 2006,20:13

glad to see ya back Kent!!!

Brian
AwPhuch

Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 28 2006,20:16

Quote (roberts @ Mar. 28 2006,13:17)

My personal ultimate goal would be to have an "I Love UCI" edition of DSL.

< http://mikshaw.cesparks.com/digipaint/iloveuci1.png > ?
:laugh:

Posted by ke4nt1 on Mar. 28 2006,20:24

...sweet!...

73
ke4nt

Posted by Mr. Ksoft on Mar. 28 2006,21:09

I like this idea as I may be able to get a modern Linux running on an old 486. BUT, I would like for it to be a separate download so we can still get the 50MB version with all the programs.

Posted by humpty on Mar. 28 2006,23:14

how about a smaller DSL with a 'standard' uci that includes all the apps that were taken out?

Posted by AwPhuch on Mar. 29 2006,00:14

Quote (humpty @ Mar. 28 2006,18:14)

how about a smaller DSL with a 'standard' uci that includes all the apps that were taken out?

That would be an idea!

Brian
AwPhuch

Posted by nucpc on Mar. 29 2006,14:06

Just to back up the above and to clarify one point: I hope no-one would be
upset by an `as much to uci as possible' system and perhaps this is the only
way ahead if the ever increasing kernel size is to be coped with.....that's a
matter I think that's much more important than any remastering issues (which
people can do anyway if they want to).

Just on the earlier sym link point I was talking about *hard* links i.e. existing links
on the base iso, not produced while live, which look to a target (say on /opt) whether
its there or not. So up to you if you mount a (U)CI at that point ...

Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 29 2006,15:50

I don't think links are necessary, if you just need them to easily run apps in a big UCI. As far as I can see, the only thing necessary would be an addition to .bash_profile, and shared /opt/something/bin,lib dirs inside the UCI. .bash_profile could check to see if those directories exist, and modify PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH if they are found.

Or those two directories could already be put in PATH and ld.so.conf

Posted by nucpc on Mar. 29 2006,16:48

Hi Mikshaw. Fully agree. A permanent /opt/bin and /opt/lib possibility is something I've
talked about before (and something I have as an extension). I really feel it would ease
things on the UCI front....

The links thing was just a minimal work approach....perhaps "lazy" might be a better
word though.... Cheers.

Posted by nucpc on Mar. 29 2006,17:09

...while I remember the `extension' to make a /opt/bin and /opt/lib and edit
/etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/profile (to include them) is of course a .tar.gz....not a
.dsl....and its 976 bytes... for people worried about RAM...

Posted by dcrowder32 on Mar. 29 2006,18:28

This would be very useful. I am looking at DSL for some embedded applications. I am re-mastering to slim DSL way down. Would be nice to have a bare bones version. Other distros have such a "base install" but are still very large (Debian approx 200 Mb, Fedora Core 4 approx 600 Mb).

BUT, do not change the "normal" DSL. It rocks and is so useful for so many people and uses. The slim version could be another version available. I would be willing to help develop/maintain it if needed.

Posted by humpty on Mar. 30 2006,14:22

maybe it's better to have a poll for those apps that may have to go, i can certainly name a few which sorta 'get on my nerves'.

Posted by ubl on Mar. 31 2006,13:25

Saturn looks great!
Keep up this great work.
Stay on the same path.
Thankyou.

Posted by tuxedo on Mar. 31 2006,16:00

i agree with a base system mostly unchanged and a big UCI with external applications in /opt, as a way of keeping the best of both worlds.

Posted by humpty on Mar. 31 2006,22:51

another question is if a 'big' UCI was to be seperated from the base system, would the UCI be part of the iso (later deleted by those didn't want it) or must new users need go the site to download it ??

Posted by mikshaw on April 01 2006,00:45

If I understand it correctly, the suggestion is to have the UCI within the ISO, but not within the KNOPPIX file. I assume it would be placed in the mydsl directory so it would automatically be mounted.

Posted by ubl on April 01 2006,01:32

What does UCI stand for?

Posted by roberts on April 04 2006,16:11

Quote (ubl @ Mar. 31 2006,17:32)

What does UCI stand for?

In the history of DSL, the first compressed image extension type that I created I called .ci. This was openoffice.ci but it also had a user component which could not be read only. The user configurations need to be writeable. Therefore I also made an oouser.tar.gz. This became confusing to have to load two extensions to get openoffice. So, later I embedded the user part inside the compressed image. I named this user.tar.gz so that the concept could be extended to all other such extensions. Hence .uci.

Posted by ubl on April 05 2006,03:21

Thanks, this explains a lot to me. Many thanks for DSL and all the help in the forums!

Posted by dmizzel on April 08 2006,05:34

I would find a stripped-down version very useful for my 'all-consuming, time-grabbing, late-night DSL-tweaking' projects. I'm all about digital-picture frames right now, and would love to have DSL stripped-down to almost nothing so that I could make a tiny footprint on a compact-flash. I owe most all of my linux knowledge to problems and triumpths tweaking DSL! A damn smaller DamnSmallLinux would surely send me off on other quests! I will anxiously clear off my calendar to make time for more projects.

With all that being said, I do believe that a damn smaller DamnSmallLinux should be seperate from the main DSL offering (a seperate option for thoes of us so inclined to dive deep into customizing). There was a previous post(s) about the future, and the growing size of the kernel, and DSL going in this direction anyway.... well I say hold off on the switch to a completely modular system (stripped-down with all apps as .uci or .dsl add-ons) as long as possible. Give the newbies a chance to get hooked.

Take Roberts previous post about the history/creation of .uci (to cut down on possible confusion with a 2 step process of adding openoffice). I believe that there are certain essential components to 'rewarding' a new users first experiment with DSL (e.g. firefox and xmms). Certain things should not be a 2 step process for the first-time user(1 download DSL, 2 download firefox).

A wise man once said, "It's not how things are, but how they are perceived" (something to that effect). If DSL is only offered as a stripped-down version, the perception of the new user (who might be unaware of the extensions) will not be favorable. I can recall it taking a while for me to understand how to add a .dsl (where to download, create an 'optional' folder instead of using the 'opt' folder, put it in there and then look for the 'mydsl' in the pull down menu after rebooting or restarting X). Not very intuitive.

I've gone on enough... I'm comfortable with any outcome because I understand most of the genius of DSL design; it's modular approach, versatility, and forward thinking. Features that will take years for mainstream understanding and acceptance.

Posted by dmizzel on April 08 2006,05:39

Sorry.... one more thing.

The decision comes down to answering one simple question: Who is the target audience?

The 'power-user' already familiar with the complex yet revolutionary concepts, or

The 'new-user' who ventures out to try the 'linux-thing' that he/she has heard about?

or both?

Posted by humpty on April 08 2006,15:46

if the seperated apps are included in the package (uci or dsl's) then the newbie wouldn't notice the difference if they are autoloaded.

the 'geek' on the otherhand would know how to seperate the base system.

Posted by stan_dard on April 08 2006,23:58

The 50mb DSL is ace as a recovery distro. Good on anything except CDless pre USB laptops.
For recovery, some of the redundancy in the apps could be taken out one browser, editor etc.
Looking at it as an OS for old PCs, unless your using them as unattended drones there seems to be little point without the apps and even if the apps aren't required can say a 30mb linux work on that many more boxes than a 50mb one? I'd say you'd have to get down to about 8mb before it has a much bigger audience.
Keep the Apps please

Posted by ldsl on April 09 2006,15:23

for me, increased hardware compatibility is #1
#2 is the easy ability to remove and install apps.

Posted by jpeters on April 17 2006,07:49

What's an OS without apps? A lot of the fun of trying out DSL has been trying out the loaded programs. Most Windows users haven't heard of open source programs other than Mozilla, Open Office, and Thunderbird, and are afraid that switching to Linux means they won't be able to do a lot of things they could do easily before.

For example, I know I have to give up my Microsoft Jazz Radio station, so one of the first things I did was try clicking on an MP3 stream at Jazz24.org. XMM loaded right up in about 2 seconds with a near CD quality broadcast of great jazz.

Next I loaded a few essential Excel spreadsheet into Siag. I was already sold on Mozilla. RSS extentions installed just like they did in XP (I wasn't sure with an OS loaded in RAM). Next I quickly loaded my essential rec.windsurfing group up in Sylpheed. Okay, how about spellcheckers...I loaded up Ted. A non-bloated wordprocesser, nice. I'm not a great fan of Word.

A terminal..great (I still miss DOS). I love the feel of Emelfm, moving files between two directories (like my FTP manager). Three days of playing with programs, and no freezeups with a message asking me whether I would like to send a review of the problem to Microsoft (and finding out that there's no way to shut down the app without rebooting (a ten minute + ordeal).

I would vote to keep selecting the best and most non-bloated essential software. The first few days of DSL for me involved getting my wireless card working, figuring out file management, learning the basics of the operating system, and infomation gathering from other users. I'm happy that I don't have to deal with finding and loading new apps that may or may not work with DSL before I can evaluate whether or not it's worth the effort.

Posted by RigasW on April 17 2006,12:26

I am looking for a tiny distribution that can do the following

can be started from a stick
is a dhcp client
boots into X
starts the NX client software.

With this stick I could connect to my central linux machine from everywhere ....

Regards

Rigas

Posted by mikshaw on April 17 2006,12:40

Quote

What's an OS without apps?

Windows!

RigasW: DSL can do that. You would need to get NX client into DSL....i don't have any idea what it is, but adding software to DSL is often a fairly simple task.

Posted by RigasW on April 17 2006,15:04

mikshaw: As soon as I install DSL on a stick ... do I have write permission and can I install apps on the stick?

Regards

Rigas

Posted by cmanb on April 18 2006,15:46

I would like to see a DSL-stripped (DSL-naked?).

There are many applications packaged with DSL that I rarely use on a day-to-day basis, if at all!

For example, I don't use Beaver and rarely use Ted. I rarely use Emefm and have never used Midnight Commander. I rarely use Firefox; Dillo usually suits my needs. I don't use jvwm. I don't play the games.

The "nevers", obviously, I wouldn't miss. The "rarely"s, obviously, I would prefer to load as an extension should I need them.

I envision this theoretical DSL-naked as a graphic, extensible tomsrtbt: barebones, but very functional.

I'm not sure what actual use it would be to me to have a 32mb DSL, but it sure would be fun to play with.

It would not replace DSL for me, but could lay the grounds for highly specialized systems. For example, DSL-naked would be well suited for setting an internet kiosk.

Meh. Them's me thoughts.

Posted by kerry on April 30 2006,20:34

I'm reading alot of people are worried about the current DSL being changed to a striped, i'm sure it would be optional. I've been wondering if it were possiable to just add a script that just does not load the apps when activated via cheat code.

Posted by mikshaw on April 30 2006,20:42

Quote (kerry @ April 30 2006,16:34)

I've been wondering if it were possiable to just add a script that just does not load the apps when activated via cheat code.

That would be possible only if the applications were provided as a separate package within the ISO (e.g. the uci package that was mentioned). DSL ISO is currently built of three parts, the kernel, the bootloader, and a KNOPPIX file. Since everything in the filesystem is compressed inside KNOPPIX, there is no way to disable the installation of apps.

Posted by kerry on April 30 2006,20:58

Soory, had to cut my first post short. I was thinking how about leaving all the apps and loading a bare system via cheat code script at boot.

For example: Have a script called "bare" and when selected at boot, would just run down a list of apps to load which(would be >dsl browser,contol panel,and emelfm) would be loaded instead of a full desktop, kinda like selecting the noicons cheat code at boot, thus it would just load the bare apps and everything else would stay on the disk instead of loading into ram. This would be far better than creating a whole new DSL version simply giving the advanced users more chose.

Posted by mikshaw on April 30 2006,21:05

I agree that having this sort of behavior would be closer to ideal, but just to burst another bubble...
Applications don't initially load into ram unless you use the "toram" boot option. In a liveCD/frugal/embedded system the KNOPPIX file is mounted, and ram usage increases only when you start an application. The apps themselves are still located on the CD or harddrive. This minimal DSL we're talking about would have very little effect on RAM unless you run toram (or, I'm guessing, if you have so little ram that your available inodes are eaten up quickly. I don't really understand inodes, so i'm just supposing.) . As I see it, it would be mostly for saving disk space, and for a more efficient toram system.

Posted by kerry on April 30 2006,21:19

I only run from ram with the toram option, so call me selfish, but i'd be happy. :laugh:

But if your running the live cd the extra apps being there can be hidden(maybe deleted) so that when the selection for install is selected there not copied over to the installed system. Now i know that you can leave stuff out when copying so this should not be that much of a problem.

Posted by ZoOp on April 30 2006,23:22

in my opinion, a minimal DSL version with current kernel starting in x with the control panel and mydsl browser would be sufficient. I would consider other apps as optional, i.e. as to be used following your own purposes. Just keep it smaller!
yours
z

Posted by lovdsl on May 01 2006,01:29

I fail to see how making dsl smaller will help anyone.
perhaps when dsl boots to x
it should have tursmo/fluxter/icons off
leave the tray at the bottom and slit top center
have wmdrawer auto load in the slit with two icons.
emelfm and mydsl
when mydsl is clicked it will list first programs already installed and when clicked will add an icon to the drawer.
all my dsl extensions will be listed aswell and when clicked will be downloaded and installed and an icon placed in the drawer.
if a connection is required you will be prompted to connect.
if the program you want is not in the list it is simply not available..make your request. or create it and offer it to the community.
sometimes what you can not see does not hurt you.
just two cents

Posted by kerry on May 01 2006,01:52

It's about the size and how you want to use the space gained from not having the apps that are there, that a person may or may not use. I would most deffintly prefer different apps to the one that comes stock. I'm currently using DSL on 2 computers one is a regular desk top and one is a laptop, both do not have hard drives, i run totally in ram in ram. That is were i can see the difference in having a choose. I love the base system but prefer other apps that are available in the myDSL browser, if given a choice would you not pick the app you prefer, instead of having 2 apps that one you use and that one you don't that will just sit there taking up space.

Posted by lovdsl on May 01 2006,02:19

I see your point..
I installed dsl to a dx2 66 with 400meg hd and 48meg ram. I could not use firefox, etc but had lots of room to run all available .dsl that would work on the machine. size was not a great issue. thus the post
I can see running in low ram createing an issue.
personally I would seek more ram or install to hd..
guess it never hurts to ask for a differant os.
there are few as wonderfull as dsl to choose from.

Posted by kerry on May 01 2006,02:36

I would love to always add more ram but my old systems are at there max. I have 1 gig in my desktop(my workhorse) and 256 in my laptop the max supported(i used a old unreliable 512 usb key formatted as swap to get the extra space i needed to run more stuff with out locking up).

Posted by lovdsl on May 01 2006,02:56

anyway..like I said...hey...no harm in askin

Posted by ZoOp on May 01 2006,12:33

Quote (kerry @ April 30 2006,21:52)

It's about the size and how you want to use the space gained from not having the apps that are there, that a person may or may not use. (...) I love the base system but prefer other apps that are available in the myDSL browser, if given a choice would you not pick the app you prefer, instead of having 2 apps that one you use and that one you don't that will just sit there taking up space.

kerry: I totally agree with your argument, I would mention the same reasons to support a DSL-M(inimal) version, and I notice by the way that the 'yes' option totalizes near of 58% favorable opinions.

But I have a question: What is the difference between a DSL-M(inimal) version and a remastering of DSL without apps which are not usefull for your purposes?

Please, do not understand my question as a provocative one. Actually, I am not able to remaster DSL, and this is one more reason for me to support a slim version of DSL and join your opinion. However, a lot of DSL users could probably remaster DSL in order to get a slim version of it. Taking in account that such a thing is possible, why don't we (learn to) remaster DSL and get a DSL-M by ourselves?
yours
z

Posted by kerry on May 01 2006,21:31

To remaster requiers hd's. ! run in ram with a machine that has only 1 super quiet fan on the cpu. My fstab->

/proc /proc proc defaults 0 0
/sys /sys sysfs noauto 0 0
/dev/pts /dev/pts devpts mode=0622 0 0
/dev/fd0 /mnt/auto/floppy auto user,noauto,exec,umask=000 0 0
/dev/cdrom /mnt/auto/cdrom auto user,noauto,exec,ro 0 0
# Added by KNOPPIX
/dev/sda /mnt/sda vfat noauto,users,exec,umask=000,uid=1001,gid=50 0 0

Posted by tedmoore99 on May 02 2006,00:32

After reading all of the posts on this subject, I add my 2 cents:
I discovered dsl when I was looking for a small disro that I could play with at work(school where I teach). I wanted to have a small system that my students could learn basic UNIX (Linux). I wanted to be able to have them learn how to use awk, sed, shell programming, etc. The more I have examined the dsl project the more convinced I am that you guys are onto something. Removing the apps that are already outdated (Firefox) and offering others that are just too large (OpenOffice) as extensions seems like a fair balance.

I loaded KNOPPIX 5.0 at school today and was completely overwhelmed by all of the programs that I will never bother with. After all, how many editors does one person need?

But I am impressed when I start the system and it finds everything including my network card and I am running in about three minutes from a cold start!

So, removed the "dead wood," offer a rich set of extensions, stay within 50MB or so, and let the good times roll!

Posted by lovdsl on May 02 2006,04:27

This will most likely be misunderstood
dsl is constantly updated. not unlike windows.
although it supports the addition of extensions, it does not create or support them.
they are offered by the community
already in the repository are extensions that no longer work on the new versions.
this is understandable but non the less becomes a fact.
should dsl be appless it may be that constant updates would interfer with a good selection of current applications to run on it.
included applications are more likely to offer solid functionality and support per version
as a stable one shot wonder with a folder of good applications I am sure it would be popular
it is something worth consideration
I am all for the idea of appless

I think it would need to include emelfm xcalc beaver and mydsl downloader even dillo to �be an operating system. otherwise it is just a tool kit
these may be required for basic downloads and copy of notes from the forum. full browsers, word processors and mail programs are a matter of choice, and often large, so would be extensions.

as I said in an earlier post a plain desktop with min apps perhaps in the drawer is realistic in the sence that it offers good variety, some help to low ram frugal users and reduces pressure on hd installers via appless forum leaveing dsl to better feedback in the frugal uci direction.
.dsl extensions could be moved to the appless folder as they are much duplicated now with uci.

in any case the question regards continued creation of extensions for all methods of install with the appless version

Posted by lovdsl on May 02 2006,23:28

Dsl-s..aka dsl naked

< http://my.opera.com/dsl-o/homes/albums/64749/dslnaked.png >

with the slit auto hide top center by default, open and showing the default drawer with six apps installed via the mydsl icon at the top.

< http://my.opera.com/dsl-o/homes/albums/64749/Opera.png >

< http://my.opera.com/dsl-o/homes/albums/64749/ABIword.png >

< http://my.opera.com/dsl-o/homes/albums/64749/sylpheedgqview.png >

< http://my.opera.com/dsl-o/homes/albums/64749/jpilot.jpg >

synaptic is not offered in dsl-s, apt-get is still possible

The right click menu shows no mydsl, no apps and no games. The apps /tools menu replaces apps on the main menu. and includes xcalc , beaver, dillo.
The right click menu being a utilities menu and the drawer the mydsl menu of installed applications.

all applications in the mydsl download menu will install and function with no concern for dependancies.

all upgrades are the responsibility of the user and are in no way related to or supported by dsl-s

standard hd installs do not offer extension uninstall..choose your extensions wisely.

frugal installs �may �use the standard uci menu

Posted by kerry on May 03 2006,00:14

Wow, that's a very interesting set up. Here's my current look->

< http://img422.imageshack.us/img422/3789/mylook9gw.png >

Posted by cheapskate on May 12 2006,01:13

I'm new to this board. Has someone created a DSL image without the applications aka dsl-s, dsl-m, or dsl-naked?

Is it possible to remove unwanted apps from DSL and remaster the image to create such an image?

Thanks!

Posted by lovdsl on May 12 2006,20:32

DSL-s in the post above was just a fun customization of a dsl hd install. It is easy to alter menus and delete some programs manually.

Yes...there are posts in the forum regarding how to for remasters.

Posted by kerry on May 13 2006,12:15

I say just be patient. I'm sure robert and jhon are still considering DSL-M as a option. It may or may not be available in the future.

Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on May 13 2006,17:07

Small Size is not only 'size', It is a 'concept' of software. I started using small Linux distros like mu-Linux for the pleasure to have a minimal OS. Presently DSL is for me the main Linux in my multibooting CD. All the complementary apps I need come in the extensions. Some of the built desktop app in the basic DSL distro are not useful for me, but I find in the extensions all the other I need.

My ideal DSL distro would be a OS with libraries, utilities, X windows and 'good' browser (Firefox) altogether as small as possible, and all the desktop apps in 5 different basic UCI packages:
-Edit
-Image
-PIM
-Play
-System.

*JT.

Posted by frankseu on May 15 2006,08:29

Hello,

i would love to see a DSL-s(small) which is expansible via uci.
In my point of view it should NOT replace DSL.

It should be the small brother/sister.
Handling of uci/myDSL sould be equal in all DSL'S (DSL-s, DSL, DSL-N) to minimize development.

regards
Frank

Posted by JetShack on May 15 2006,18:31

I'm not sure if my opinion is worth much, but I'm willing to bet that I'm one of the "target audience".

You can see my first impression < here >.

Until this previous weekend I had never used Linux before... As I write this I have very little idea of what all is being talked about as relates to all the acronyms and stuff being used in the previous replies to this thread. So if I end up stating something which has already been said then I apologize...

I had an old Presario which I was trying to get up and running. Initially I ran though the system restore disks which came with the machine, but after running through the windows updates the system became so bloated as to be unusable.

I was going to toss the machine but thought "I'd give this linux thing" a try. I'm not a complete idiot and am fairly good at following directions. At the same time I have some preconceived notions which might or might not be correct, but none the less are what I believe. For instance in my mind O/S's should install to the hard drive. (I'm kind of scared now that I've read thought the thread about the reasons why I might not should have thought this)

My "trying this Linux thing" out attempt turned out to be a REAL chore. I didn't think that my prerequistes were too much to ask for but finding a distro that fit my requirements turned out to be quite a challenge.

My prereqs were
1. Straightforward GUI
2. 1024x768 Resolution
3. Automatic Network Connection (to my router so as to get to the internet)
4. Browser
5. Email
6. Fast enough to be usable

I seriouslly went through no less than 15 different distros before I cam across DSL. I wish I'd started with it. It met everyone of my criteria out of the box.

For me... and I imagine for other non-linux users who want to try this linux thing out we're probably going to be attempting this on a second home computer which is older and too slow to run XP or a fully updated 98. So having legacy support is crucial. I'm thinking my 10 year old Presario is about as old a computer as someone in my situation would be making this attempt, but just to be safe Win 95 coincided with the lauch of the p-60's so possibly that would be a good cutoff.

The only "purpose" i have for the old presario is being able to surf and check email while my wife is on the XP machine. Having IM up would be nice... (I'm going to try and get Miranda working on it tonight).

So my suggestion would be to do whatever is necessary to make sure that when someone who knows nothing about linux downloads and runs DSL on an older computer it does just that... runs... and runs with a GUI that is as close to the way windows works as possible (the current one is fine). It should also have a browser and email client. Honestly though, when it comes to the rest of it as of right now I plan on using my xp machine because its' what i'm familiar with... As i learn more I'm sure this will change... but... this is what "I" was looking for.

As to other aps... Maybe this is isn't "Correct" but its what I bet alot of users are going to think... Pretty is important... If an app is included it should be pretty. Just as a for instance I ran through the IM clients that were installed in the current distro and none of them were "pretty" enough for me to want to use. If the app is different program from what we've come acustomed to using in Windows then at the bare minimum it should at least resemble what we're used to and have similar functionality... otherwise it will scare us... I know this is stupid and that usability should be the primary focus... But "pretty" is paramount.

So for me... and in summary... If it were me I would make sure that DSL's base package loads on as many p-60 or newer machines as are possible. Once it's loaded it should have found any network connections and already setup connectivity. I would also consider having the browser preloaded to the google homepage so that the user knows "hey this is the interweb thingie". The apps that are included should be functional and pretty vs having multiple apps that do the same thing but are all "ugly"

If the point of a stripped down distro is to attact new users then these are the things that I would think "had" to be there. The other stuff... not so much...

Posted by frankseu on May 16 2006,07:45

@JetShack

Hi,

i am following our thougts. That's what DSL is made for and i think the devs are glad to have this response from a happy user. DSL should stay on this !

I also think that the way how the base of DSL works with uci and MyDSL openes a new horizont. i love the idea to have a "base" DSL-s and people can add all other applications as they like. In case DSL-S has 30MB every one can add applications and generate a credit card Linux to meet his own requironments. So you can create a DSL-gamers, DSL-rescue, DSL-with-your-wedding-pictures ..... or what else.

DSL-s sould also be runnable on older hardware (so kernel 2.4.x) otherwyse it would not be small anymore ;-)

DSL-s should not replace DSL !

Frank

Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on May 21 2006,11:03

There are many developemente that depend on DSL. Remember what happened to Feather (my favourite distro until they decided to change its orientation): They decide to increase the size of the distro to include some soft more.

The result was to lose its identity; now they have fallen in the Distrowatch hit parade.

DSL have to remain as 50 Mb power penguin. We do give ideas how to deal with different developements. But the main though is to keep SDL as usual.

My (humble) contribution is to suggest how to name different sizes of DSL, but I'd like to keep finding DSL as a 50 Mb distro sized.

*JT.

Posted by ZoOp on May 21 2006,12:25

TTK,

I basically agree with you, but since DSL-team's major aim is to keep linux 'damn small', a lite version of DSL at ~34 MB won't damage the identity of the project. In my opinion, it even just underlines the identity of the project more.

DSL works basically with a kernel, some useful apps, and a set of other apps (.dsl and .uci apps) that you don't have to install in order to work with (a kind of 'klick' before the age). That's the big difference compared with Feather and other near-to-DSL linux distros.

Thus, it seems to me that conceiving a lite version of DSL (and why not in both kernel version 2.4.x and 2.6.x? but ok, let's begin with kernel 2.4.x, it would be already a great challenge) is just pushing the DSL-philosophy and culture more in the future of computing, and, I guess, it would just consolidate the DSL identity and its unix roots ('small is beautiful').

You basically need a kernel with necessary libs and limited apps in order to start in x; other apps have to be downloaded and used regarding your needs, without the constraint to be installed on one of your devices. With backup/restore, you can save your preferences and settings. And you are just good to go.

From this point of view, I find the concept of Robert and John a (if not THE) visionary one. In my opinion, a DSL lite/near apps-less version of DSL would just be the next step in the development of DSL. I also agree with other members of the forum that a DSL lite don't have to replace DSL or DSL-N. It would be just the necessary third brother/sister.

You'll have then (according to my speculations):

1. DSL-S near app-less; you have a recognition of old hardware and a minimal profile at the software level, you can personalized it just as you want in order to fit your needs regarding your use of DSL in several contexts (= I don't need all apps when I use DSL as FTP server only, or when I just want to check my emails, etc.); DSL-S is then a very adaptable linux, which you can personalized depending on where you are, when your want to use it, and what you want to do with it;

2. DSL with the standard apps = you have a recognition of old hardware and an already defined profile at the software level, which you can enrich with other apps to fit your needs (remastering included); as more apps has been already given in the .iso, you won't have the same flexibility as in DSL-S, eventhough DSL remains one of the most flexible distros on the market compared to other linux at nearly this size, because of the conept of DSL; for me, it is the ideal step in order to begin with DSL and more generally with Linux;

3. DSL-N for new machines = you have a better recognition of new hardware and an already defined profile at the software level, with quiete the same issues as in the second point; with DSL-N, you could even have more soft as in DSL (the support of .deb should be better than in DSL-S and DSL); it is just the fun to have a little distros with a new concept of computing, that you can enrich and install on brand new machines (more 'bling bling', as Robert and John said).

DSL-N as an up-to-date version of DSL for new hardware remains quiete similar to DSL. It is not the same with DSL-S in my opinion, which would deepen the concept of computing of Robert and John.

yours
z

Posted by mikshaw on May 21 2006,14:01

One bit of concern...

Quote

You basically need a kernel with necessary libs and limited apps in order to start in x; other apps have to be downloaded and used regarding your needs

That may sound like a straightforward task, but I think this is one of the biggest issues with stripping DSL any further than it is. The more apps and libs removed from DSL, the less compatibile with existing myDSL extensions it becomes, and myDSL is one thing that makes DSL a revolutionary system.

Posted by ZoOp on May 21 2006,15:08

Thank you mikshaw for your reaction.

My formulation was brief in order to express the general idea more than the methode. On that last point, it's just not my part, I don't have the knowledge for.

Anyway, what you say proof to me that a DSL-lite would be really a great challenge, just because you have to keep it smaller and compatible with extensions. Again, I don't know if it is technically possible. But if it is, it would be just great to try.

This would be also a possibility to give the use of DSL more flexibility according to the specific context of this use, without to restrict it if more extensions are needed.

This last point, the 'specific context of the use' of DSL, as I call it, is a little bit different concept compared to DSL and DSL-N, which in my opinion are closer related to hardware specifications and, this given, software needs to enable tasks in several areas of the use of computers' OS.

As you observe, DSL-lite is surely a more problematic one to construct. But it also well supports the identity of the DSL-project, and that was the major point I would like to underline in my previous post.

yours
z

Posted by mikshaw on May 21 2006,15:25

In my attempts to see just how minimal it will get while retaining compatibility with existing extensions, and also allowing the use of all of the DSL system tools (cpanel, mydsl gui, etc), so far I've gotten the KNOPPIX file down to just above 30mb. This still isn't ideal for a super small DSL, but i'm only working on it a little bit a couple times a week. So....yeah, it's definitely a challenge.

Posted by ZoOp on May 21 2006,15:33

mikshaw,

Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!

That's in-cre-di-ble, I could not even imagine that DSL could be brought under ~37 MB. Wow!

I hope that you are not alone on this challenge, because I can imagine that's a very big one. Just keep me/us informed about your progression, I find it very interesting and very stimulating!

yours
z

Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on May 21 2006,19:50

ZoOp, Milkshaw:

Very good news if you can make a 'DSL-Small' less than 40 Mb.

My conclussion is: If I had to decide, as DSL user, I would preffer a 'DSL-Small' better than a 'DSL-N' (=DSL-Large).

The revolution of DSL is being small wilst capable to be enlarged by copying UCIs and other extensions to the optional folder. Therefore the 'esence' of DSL is DSL-S.

The comments of ZoOp are agreable from my point of view. I would encourage DSL-S to have the maximum of compatibility with hardware and existing extensions, and the bigger 'sisters' (DSL-Regular and DSL-N or -L) differing just in some additions, but not in the DSL-'core' (kernel and libraries). Something like DSL-S plus some 'packages'. In addition I suggested to gather these packages in different blocks: 'edit', 'image', 'pim', 'play' and 'system' (remember the old Red Hat 6 installer offering different packages, desktop, developement, etc?). If we had statistics on extensions prefferences it would be not difficult to put in each package the maximum amount of preffered extensions that have the minimum size.

In this way new users could download one of the preconfigured distros or 'remake' distros having all the 'basic' OS in common (=DSL-S), but oriented to different needs, without loosing the advantages of the newest hardware detection. I do not know if it is possible...or practical...

Regards.

*JT �

Posted by John on May 22 2006,05:48

Thanks for all the feedback guys, there is so much to consider! I'm locking this thread down for now, to give us a little breather so that we can ponder what to do next.