Where Are We ?
Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: Where Are We ?
started by: humpty
Posted by humpty on Dec. 21 2008,21:23I don't get it. After reading John's Site News, what does 100 MB mean?
Is this 'core' business is off the books then?
You could probably stick with 50M if you carry on the
concept of 'core'.
I suggest moving toward an hd-install system but keeping the apps seperate from the base (50M) system.
Does anyone else have any views ?
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Jan. 02 2009,07:54DSL means Damn Small Linux. But what is Small? Related to what?
In my opinion Small means less than usual, for a Linux distribution. I have tried lots of live Linux distributions. My main concern is that the collection of their software did not fit my needs, no matter their size, because every one follows different idea of what is the essential software. For this reason the concept of DSL attracts to me: The size of DSL is really Small, but I can use lots of extensions to enhance its functionality.
What I prefer in a distribution is the minimum amount of software plus the capacity to complete it easily according to my real needs, that are different to the needs of somebody else. Therefore, the only thing I identify as necessary is a kernel, libraries to run the system in graphical way, a browser and synaptic to incorporate the programs I need.
About the size: Every distribution try to be adapted to a support size; DSL to a bussines card disk (50 Mb), the majority of distros to a CD size (700 Mb) and some other to a DVD size (4500 Mb). Magically the very small size of DSL has contributed to its perfection. But, having in mind that smaller is more beautiful, in my opinion we have to try to adapt ourselves not to a fixed size but instead to a fixed concept.
DSL is very good to give new live to old computers (which were running W95). This is the past. Nowadays one natural target for DSL could be to be used in new netbooks, a little more capable than old computers but limited, compared to the present 'big' computers. I wrote a post in another thread ( < http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin....2;st=10 > ) in favor of this move. May be then we need 100 Mb or perhaps up to 210 Mb for this new DSL. I do not know. But we still may have the present versions (3.x.xx, 4.x.xx), conveniently maintained, keeping for them the use they presently have...
Posted by emusan on Jan. 03 2009,01:42Don't you think that your pushing a netbook version of DSL a bit much? I don't think that's what the goal of DSL is, a tiny, adaptable Linux. DSL is not supposed to be locked into one type of computer like netbooks, but rather tries to run on every computer. Not to mention the fact that it still does run on net books. I don't understand what more you want, I doubt that even if they did create a netbook version that it would really be all that different, in fact to make it different would ruin its point. Adding in more software that is suited only for netbooks is locking everyone who wants to use the new DSL into a limited suite of software, which you could already add with some time.
I guess I'm babbling a bit, all I mean to say is that creating a whole new distro for netbooks is not the best route for DSL to go.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Jan. 03 2009,09:26
And now, a new argument in favor of my proposal: Take a look to any computers shop or department store, today that they are on sale. What it begun with a single option (Asus eee Pc), today is one increasing part of the shelf. Some mainstream distros have issued or have plans for issuing an specific variant of their distros suited for netbooks. There are weekly news about this phenomenon. This is the future. It is a pity that a distribution which is specially flexible and small lose the oportunity to be one of the best for this growing segment.
The present versions are right. Nothing to complain. I think they have to be maintained. But I think that we may have another way, in parallel, to enjoy this opportunity.
Posted by emusan on Jan. 03 2009,17:16
I still don't believe that netbooks are the route for dsl to go. With a small amount of finesse it can be made to fully work with any netbook hardware(there are guides out there, just google or search eeeuser.com). They are thinking of updating to the new kernel if they decide to go with the 100M version, I just don't see why it needs to be specially for netbooks. And lastly re-mastering a version of Ubuntu is VASTLY different from creating a whole new distro, the fact that you re-mastered a Ubuntu for netbooks is not the same as what John and others are proposing as a route for dsl to go. If you really want it I don't see anything stopping you from remastering dsl to support madwifi drivers and the webcam, its not too hard. And lastly DSL was not created for the "future"(though it is able to run on future machines), it was created to bring new life to older machines, which is the route I believe it should continue to go, just with more space for more drivers.
Posted by Nigadoo on Jan. 06 2009,17:36Hello all,
I much prefer DSL remain a very portable (nomadic) distro, without locking itself to a specific platform.
If somebody wants to add some kind of MYDSL extension to make things happier on netbooks, that's fine.
I run DSL off live CD, embedded with QEMU, on Virtual PC, and frugal install on 4 laptops. Please keep on trucking with the small is beautiful, run anywhere philosophy!!!
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Jan. 06 2009,18:54Hi all.
I feel myself totally misunderstood!
I can also suscribe Nigadoo's sentence
But today, in practice, DSL is locked to old computers. What I propose by mentioning netbooks is not to change the DSL philosophy, but instead, to base DSL in a kernel which allows it not only to run in more modern computers, like netbooks as today does, but being able to take profit of all their functions. Mainly being able to manage a wifi connexion.
The problem is not to be solved by any mydsl extension, but by a more modern kernel
Posted by emusan on Jan. 07 2009,01:44Actually the new kernal doesn't even support most netbook wifi cards, you need to use madwifi(at least for eee). And don't say DSL is locked into old computers, it most definitely is not, and to say that netbooks are new computers is a little off(the hardware is quite old and underpowered). I'm happy to say that I'm running dsl on a 1 year old pc, and it runs perfectly fine. If all you want is for the new kernal then why not just say it, don't say that you want it to include things for netbooks and than say that all thats needed is a more modern kernel, when it isn't.
Posted by florian on Jan. 07 2009,09:14
The core concept exists but has been "forked" by Robert as a new project separate from DSL (Tiny Core Linux). I'm not going to give the url here as John had removed earlier announcement of it. Google it if you're interested.
As for the future DSL, I also wonder what will happen. I see there could be a core concept too or we keep the apps in the base (either below the 50Mb limit or over it). Perhaps it could be possible to make DSL more lightweight by replacing some of the GTK apps with FLTK equivalent, so 50Mb limit could be retained.
Posted by humpty on Jan. 08 2009,22:04Perhaps it's this linux kernel philosphy that's the problem.
I'd like to see loadable drivers (without recompiling the kernel), is that possible?
Posted by chalbersma on Jan. 09 2009,20:27I don't know. But I do know FreeBSD does that flawlessly.
Posted by Tobiaus on Jan. 09 2009,22:35message removed
Posted by humpty on Jan. 10 2009,01:23well then why do they keep having to update the kernel ?
Posted by Tobiaus on Jan. 10 2009,05:42message removed
Posted by whiteweasel on Mar. 20 2009,08:12Jumping into the discussion a bit late...
There are a number of netbook specific distros already (EasyPeasy, Foresight Linux Mobile, Moblin, etc...). Moblin is written specifically by Intel for Atom powered netbooks only. I agree with those who say that would be the wrong direction for DSL to go in.
I use DSL for my really old legacy hardware because it runs well where other distros don't. I think a newer kernel, which means a wider range of supported hardware, is a good idea. I think moving off the 50MB maximum isn't a bad idea at all so long as all efforts are made to keep DSL as small as possible.
The main thing I want to see, now that John and Robert S. have gone their separate ways, is for DSL to continue and to be developed actively. I'm beginning to worry about that...
I don't post often but I've been around since the early 2.x days. I appreciate what DSL is and how well it works.