Joined: Oct. 2003
||Posted: Jan. 09 2008,15:56
Just a comment. I designed DSL features long before there was unionsfs/aufs. I designed DSL to be nomadic. Therefore no hardware specifics in the backup. I designed and created dot dsl, uci, and tar.gz extensions before dot pup, et. al. I did this several reasons, factor out large static files from the backup, reduce write cycles, read many, write once, provide easy self contained "packages" with easy reboot and they are removed.
I am still supporting what I wrote, now years ago. I too, could have dropped, syslinux, legacy (non-unionfs) and chose to not be nomadic.
Most, if not all kernel 2.6 based distros now offer a unionfs/aufs with liveCD. Instead, I have tried to offer more within my original design goals. Both Austrumi and Puppy have gone on to larger systems and use higher compression to achieve small physical (download) size, but system requirements and runtime size is much higher than DSL. I cannot run those systems on much of my hardware.
Even the new eeePC uses "a frugal" installation. Where the system is frozen and all user changes are done in union space.
I applaud this approach. That concept was what I was doing with DSL frugal install and ramdisk. One can always boot to a known pristine state. One does not suffer from "system rot" or other "oops" corruption.
While the 2.4 kernel is still being maintained, I don't have the luxury of newer unionfs/aufs and other subsystems being supported in 2.4 kernel. There is much debate on 2.6 kernel being more for servers than desktop. But the pressure of lack of support by major subsystems, aufs, ndiswrapper, etc limits the capability moving forward.