Joined: Oct. 2003
||Posted: Sep. 11 2005,13:22
Is it my turn yet?
Not to poke holes in the Plan, but how does that encourage development or open source?
Does taking a different direction than others stiffle development?
Have other distros stopped developing along those old lines of thought already?
Is DSL being openly developed?
Is any portion of DSL's latest developments not fully exposed and open?
Is there any part of the DSL distro that is not considered 'open source'?
If you answered NO to the last 5 questions, you are wise..
If everything is a mounted, compressed premade little uci thats immediately erased and reloaded at reboot, how can one hack the files?
Once the extension is mounted, it is fully exposed.
Copy the contents to a work directory, and have at it ! Hack away.
Rebuilding your hack back into a .uci or .tar.gz is easy,
or, leave it on your hard drive, fully uncompressed, your choice..
What draws me more to the hard drive install (and definitely away from .uci) is that i can toy with _any_ file, any time, and if it doesnt work, it's up to me to fix it. I get to have a progression. I get to customize. Isn't that the very reason i was excited about switching from windows to begin with? That nearly everything on the system can be ripped open to it's guts at a moment's notice?
Nothing has changed. All the same files are there.
Only the delivery system has changed.
I appreciate the fact that you like to hack. Same goes for me.
But MOST users just want it to work, every time, and get some work done.
They don't want to tweak it, bend it, or break it, or even fsck with it.
Just use it. Emails, browsing, documents, games, music, etc..
Some folks LIKE to work on their cars.
Others just want to get where they wanna go. Without issue.
No reason not to have both, and both are there for you. Your choice.
It made perfect sense for a machine that i couldnt utilize the hdd on, but when i could, why not just save the whole mess to the hard drive? then i could customize anything i wanted.
You can. You can also save it to most any other device you have.
And you can take it with you. It's migratory. It doesn't require an install.
You can have it today, and keep it, or ditch it tomorrow. or store it for later.
It will run on most anything. anywhere. You can use it to clone itself.
Share with others. Make it look|feel|drive|act however you want..
I don't think I'm understanding the role that the .uci, or the HDInstall,
has in the aggravation I feel in this thread.
Hasn't DSL just added grub to the HDinstall script?
And made both LiveCD and pendrives both capable of making a HDInstalls?
It's not like it's being dumped, or discarded. And .uci's work well in BOTH,
unlike many of the other extension types did, and they UNINSTALL ! \o/
Where's the luv' man?
I don't see where the grief is coming from..
Are the .uci filetypes intimidating? They are the exact same contents
as the .tar.gz versions they were built from! Everybody, including
HDInstallers, LOVED the .tar.gz's, because they were so HD friendly,
only writing to certain areas of the filesystem, never overwriting anything.
For frugal/liveCD/toram users, they were especially happy, because they were
such a ram savings over the .dsl filetypes, that called mkwritable into play.
If you want to mess with a .uci on any type of install, simply copy the
contents ( /opt/xchat ) to another dir ( /opt/xchat.bak),
unmount the .uci, and rename the (/opt/xchat.bak) back to (/opt/xchat)
All the icons and menus are in the user.tar.gz in the same directory!
Now you've got a permanent version of the exact same app, on your HD.
Forever..... Unless you change your mind in 6 months.. Uh-oh? Nope.
Remount and unmount the .uci again, and the app disappears..
Or, hack away at it, then make a new .tar.gz or .uci of your work,
and it's business as usual.
i am not installing it to the hard drive because everybody else does, im doing it because its what i can afford to do.
I'm not shot in the a$$ with dimes either.
But why waste a perfectly good hard drive on an OS install?
Wouldn't it be better if that space was filled with compressed apps,
rather than a slew of uninstallable, uncompressed files?
Isn't that what makes you sick about the 1.5GB XP install?
Isn't your install now a prisoner inside that one box?
I understand you can choose which files you want to save (backup), but isnt that what you were just calling archaic?
No. Keeping them uncompressed in a bunch of dirs on a HD, is...
They are compact, They are one file, easily copied or transfered.
Wouldn't it offer more space savings if your personal files and data
were stored in a compressed format, a click away, as well as your apps?
That's about $.10 worth, isn't it?