Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
Pages: (20) </ ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

new topic new poll
Topic: wish list for the new version, dsl 5.0, could u add this tool?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
humpty Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 655
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: May 24 2008,17:33 QUOTE

I think ideas like uclibc is good for discussion cos I feel there seems to be a sort of consensus that v5 might well be different enough to break away from v4- in many areas. However, veering away from the 'norm' is not neccessarily beneficial.

My dream would be for are generic extension type in the form of
tar.gz s. Media space is so cheap these days, I feel there isn't much need to mount stuff to save space. And the extensions could also be used on other linux-i386 systems and be easier to develop.
All extensions would be standalone, including icons, menus..etc.. in their own directories. They would not have to be loaded, just 'scanned'. So this would be a sort of hard disk type installation (except that there is no installation :p).

Ofcourse there will be apps that can't meet that criteria, so .dsl loading needs to be kept. The thing I like about .dsl s is that they are really tarballs and can easily be shared with the rest of the linux community.

Also, the .info files for the extensions will be important because of the requirements they need from other extensions.
Back to top
Profile PM 
curaga Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 2163
Joined: Feb. 2007
Posted: May 24 2008,18:00 QUOTE

When I looked into uclibc and spent time daydreaming, I thought about a new format which would combine .info, menu, icon if any, and also be a freedesktop standard.
The .desktop files, which all freedesktop-compliant wm's use to create icons and menus.
The standard says any key that begins with X- is whatever you like, spec-compilant, and read only by the ones that want it.
Here's an example file:
[Desktop Entry]
Comment=A strong chess game

X-description= A nice app I think
X-description= will benefit the
X-description= DSL community

And it could be parsed for wether an icon or even a menu entry is wanted, etc.
Just another wacky idea :p

There's no such thing as life. Those mean little jocks invented it ;)
Windows is not a virus. A virus does something!
Back to top
Profile PM 
^thehatsrule^ Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 3275
Joined: July 2006
Posted: May 24 2008,18:14 QUOTE

I recall that there were several discussions on uclibc.  I would prefer (to keep) glibc mainly because it is the standard.

I gave this idea out sometime ago: the use of a lighter shell (i.e. in the place of bash in /bin/sh) could yield some results.  This thread reminded me of it.
Back to top
Profile PM 
lucky13 Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007
Posted: May 24 2008,19:14 QUOTE


4. Size comparisons

Shell In-memory size (kB) Binary size (kB)
ash 472 97
bash 1400 533
ksh 1212 834
tcsh 1448 292
zsh 1472 424

All binaries were stripped. The in-memory size is obtained from the RSS column from 'top'. Sizes may vary slightly from system to system and also depending on exact shell version. I am actually not certain how relevant these figures are, but decided to include them for comparison. Another thing to keep in mind is that zsh uses a lot of modules that also takes up space, so the total disk space needed are higher than the above figure. The total zsh installation uses over 3 MB.

"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
roberts Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003
Posted: May 24 2008,19:31 QUOTE

I am mainly using tar.gz as the supported extension type. I am using a lighter shell. I am mainly using kernel+busybox+lua+fltk+jwm and not much more.

I am trying to be backward compatible with exsiting DSL, i.e., I have a gtk1.tar.gz which when mydsl-load'ed works. Then mydsl-load emelfm (gtk1) and dillo all works. So one could run a smallish gtk1 system.

The effort that the community has spent learning UCI, mountable self contained compressed applications, could still be supported only uncompressed. This being the case to provide an easier means to make and use, no read-only stuff, open to being used in other systems, and still have the advatage of low ram usage. I would even be interested in supporting other systems self contained application/receipies except as mountables But I think we have enough of our own community made to begin with.

To change or combine the info/icon/menu to a new standard would be an impact to the community. I of course could accomodate in tiny core - but think about the impact to exsiting users who wish to remain with 3.x/4.x. Of course, we could just abandon them, like the other distros have, and only look forward. Maybe that will happen anyway, not sure. Look at those who cling to v3.x. I am surprised that someone hasn't made an xtdesk.dsl for 4.x.

I cannot, as one person, offer and maintain, so many editions of DSL and then compound that with maintaining multiple "edition specific" repositories.

Tiny core is progressing nicely, I have renamed backup.tar.gz to mydata.tar.gz so that tiny core and play nice alongside DSL.
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
95 replies since May 03 2008,07:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (20) </ ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >/
new topic new poll
Quick Reply: wish list for the new version, dsl 5.0

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code