ZoOp
Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: Sep. 2005 |
 |
Posted: 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
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
