TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit
Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: Oct. 2005 |
 |
Posted: 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 
--------------
"What you do, do quickly." (John 13:27). Visit my page: http://www.telefonica.net/web2/ttk
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
