iB::Topic::Move from DSL-N rc4 to DSL-N 1.0

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » DSL Not » DSL-N » Move from DSL-N rc4 to DSL-N 1.0

		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: (5) </ 1 [2] 3 4 5 >/

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

Topic: Move from DSL-N rc4 to DSL-N 1.0, Might make it more popular?

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: Mar. 13 2007,02:50

Quote (dougz @ Mar. 12 2007,19:52)

To lucky13: I don't think it would be profitable to do a point-by-point rebuttal, particularly where your comments deal with preferences or slight misunderstandings of my points.

Remember: I'm talking about DSL-N, not DSL.

I read "DSL" as "DSL" since you'd previously distinguished between it and DSL-N:

Quote

I have great respect for the tremendous technology that goes into DSL, but it may become a victim of its own success....Moore's Law mandates that the natural install base for a 50 MB distro is gradually shrinking, while the base for a smallish distro like DSL-n, Puppy, Arch, eLive, Zenwalk, Mint, and Vector is growing....DSL is technically brilliant, but the other small distros are far easier for *nix newbies.... the DSL app repository seriously lags the other distros... it makes DSL somewhat less competitive... etc.

I don't think DSL-N should try to take on other smaller distros but should continue with the same underlying ethic as DSL. It should function similarly, imo, to DSL: it should cover more recent hardware, use the same installation options, have a solid base of stable and usable applications on the live CD, and it should be easily extended with applications that can be loaded as needed (UNC, UCI).

Quote

A distro optimized for 50 MB will increasingly be a "niche" distro.

It already is one. Has been. It's never been aimed at the folks on the bleeding edge, at least with respect to application releases. Yet it continues to be one of the most downloaded -- AND USED -- distros. I think that speaks volumes to demand for what it does and how people use it.

Finally, I don't think DSL and DSL-N are out of anyone's grasp to understand. It's pretty easy for those who bother to read the documentation. The same goes for any other distro -- trigger-happy newbies will make mistakes regardless of how "automagic" processes and configurations are made. Yes, adding apt-get will likely expand the base who want a traditional hard drive install; it probably won't fix the problem you raised regarding bleeding edge, or even Debian unstable or testing, applications and the clamor for them. I don't think they'll be any happier with DSL-N than they are with DSL if that's what's really important to them, especially if DSL-N remains reasonably close to DSL in its "stable" approach. If Fluxbuntu, Puppy, Vector, et al, are all already doing that, why try to keep up with the Joneses?

--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)

Juanito

Group: Members
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: Mar. 13 2007,03:17

Quote (roberts @ Mar. 12 2007,23:09)

I believe you will see movement after I complete and release DSL v3.3.

Excellent - I already started tidying up my previous extensions in anticipation

andrewphoto Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 189
Joined: June 2005

Posted: Mar. 13 2007,11:52

I am primarily using DSL-N for some time now.

All I really needed Windows for is Photoshop, but I do brightness contrast levels crop in Gimpshop now.
I can boot Windows on a compactflash if I need to use a particularly specialist photographic software.

My HDD was worn & torturously noisy, poor-man install compactflash now, fast, no going back.

Backup is easy, you just click DSLpanel Backup/restore etc. Search the forum & read docs, I put my cell-phone modem #!/bin/sh in /usr/local/bin .filetool.lst, and of course the FANTASTIC DSL forum is EXTREMELY helpful.

I hope for DSL-N with apt-get, so I can install gtypist & this & that.
I choose not to apply my brain to the work-around.

The only problem I have with DSL-N is when I press the F11 key twice, but lose the min max close in the top right hand corner.

People are using DSL-N to do their daily routine things, you know, check emails, write notes, access the net.

In England french fries are called chips, and there is a saying 'cheap as chips.' In England silicon chips are called silicon chips.

I got a good as new slow 30X speed compactflash card off Ebay for peanuts, or rather, chips, speed of DSL-N poor-man is quite impressive, give it a try brothers & sisters.

dougz

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Mar. 13 2007,13:35

lucky13, you are eloquent in your arguments. It is refreshing to be able to discuss technical & preference issues without getting personal.

Quote

I think that we will probably have to agree to disagree on the usability vs. efficiency tradeoff. DSL has been justifiably successful as a highly efficient distro, while requiring a bit more effort on the part of the user, as compared to Puppy, etc. Fair enough. Lots of happy users. No argument from me.

So, it comes down to a question of mission. What is the mission of DSL-N? Should it be a larger DSL, with a 2.6 kernel and a few, larger packages? Alternatively, should it be a bit more user/newbie friendly, at the cost of increased size?

You seem to be firmly in first camp and I am in the second.

FWIW, I think that we geeks really enjoy stuffing DSL into tiny boxes and maximizing the efficiency of aging hardware. However, if you read the DWW comments (particularly Mint vs. Ubuntu), you see strong emphasis on ease-of-use. Same with esr's paper.

I think you see the same thing in the relative success of the other small distros. Fluxbuntu doesn't appear to have critical mass yet. For the others, ease of use & expandability apears to be highly correlated to their success.

If I had a vote in the mission of DSL-N, I'd prefer a very small base/core Fluxbox/2.6 kernel distro with easy expandability via the Ubuntu repositories. (Ubuntu, because they appear to be the best maintained & documented.)

I'd also like to see DSL-N expansion scripts. ala Automatix, but more focused so that those who want to add features (bloat ;-) to their DSL-Ns could easily do so. Those who want small & efficient get it. Those who want features/bloat/eye candy could selectively add it without having to become geeks. (Automatix is a scattergun, but focused scripts could add multiple packages selectively. Debian package management because of dependencies.)

Guess I'm just a lazier geek than you... ;-)

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: Mar. 13 2007,15:25

Quote (dougz @ Mar. 13 2007,08:35)

lucky13, you are eloquent in your arguments. It is refreshing to be able to discuss technical & preference issues without getting personal.

Thanks. I didn't start posting here to fight, make enemies, or stake out turf. I just want to help others. I also have a few opinions. In stating opinions where I disagree with others, I try very hard not to be disagreeable. One of the great things about Linux is there's enough diversity where we can all find happy ground.

Quote

YMMV. Like I wrote previously, I've had less trouble getting DSL up and running on more hardware than I've had with Puppy and Vector. The latter two have been a pain in the @$$ on this particular computer; DSL, Mepis, and OpenBSD have all been a breeze on it.

Quote

So, it comes down to a question of mission. What is the mission of DSL-N? Should it be a larger DSL, with a 2.6 kernel and a few, larger packages? Alternatively, should it be a bit more user/newbie friendly, at the cost of increased size?

You seem to be firmly in first camp and I am in the second.

I'm only in one camp because I think it's a niche that deserves to be filled, and not at the expense of trying to keep up with the other distros you've named. I don't oppose the other camp, I just don't think DSL needs to break ranks and go in the same direction everyone else is. Look at the rankings of downloads and page views on various sites, including distrowatch. DSL is ahead of Slackware, Knoppix, Gentoo, Zenwalk, Mint, and Puppy in page hits over the last six months on distrowatch. And way ahead of the last two -- nearly twice the hits per day.

Quote

FWIW, I think that we geeks really enjoy stuffing DSL into tiny boxes and maximizing the efficiency of aging hardware. However, if you read the DWW comments (particularly Mint vs. Ubuntu), you see strong emphasis on ease-of-use. Same with esr's paper.

I disagree with your presumption that DSL isn't easy to use. One of the things I like most about DSL is I can run it on any x86-compatible computer via live CD, USB, or installed to hard drive. Sure, I can do the same with Puppy but it loads to RAM by default. That's a big problem on computers with limited RAM. And while I'm the first to admit I haven't played with it very much (because of some hardware issues, not to mention some disdain for some of its peculiarities), Puppy's just not as versatile as DSL.

Quote

If I had a vote in the mission of DSL-N, I'd prefer a very small base/core Fluxbox/2.6 kernel distro with easy expandability via the Ubuntu repositories. (Ubuntu, because they appear to be the best maintained & documented.)

So you'd target the traditional hard drive install over frugal and get away from one of the areas that makes DSL stand out. Do you mean "bleeding edge" by "best maintained"?

If you really do mean "best maintained," why not use pkgsrc instead of Ubuntu repositories? That would accomplish a few things that not too many other distros are doing. First, you'd have a minimal live CD that can be used or installed in a variety of ways like DSL. Second, it would make a great base Debian hard drive system that's easily or even auto-configured for most common hardware. Third, it would be extended via a system that's a lot more predictable (in terms of directory tree) than Debian; that automatically handles dependencies (and better than Debian, imo, based on my experience with it using OpenBSD); and that allows users to use binaries (Debian binary kit) or source.

I don't know of another Debian-based distro using pkgsrc, only a couple Slack-based ones (e.g., Voltalinux). I really don't know how practical it would be with a stripped-down system -- in the DSL tradition -- since BSDs are unit-based systems (the core system of kernel and utilities is built together rather than ad hoc/piecemeal like Linux).

Quote

I'd also like to see DSL-N expansion scripts. ala Automatix, but more focused so that those who want to add features (bloat ;-) to their DSL-Ns could easily do so. Those who want small & efficient get it. Those who want features/bloat/eye candy could selectively add it without having to become geeks. (Automatix is a scattergun, but focused scripts could add multiple packages selectively. Debian package management because of dependencies.)

Guess I'm just a lazier geek than you... ;-)

I'm not opposed to bloat -- using MepisLite/KDE now. I won't fight with you over sloth -- using MepisLite/KDE now because I'm too lazy to reboot to DSL. And I only needed to use KOffice for about two hours a couple weeks ago...

$ uptime
10:23:01 up 17 days, 11:20

--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)

23 replies since Mar. 06 2007,07:49

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

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

Pages: (5) </ 1 [2] 3 4 5 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » DSL Not » DSL-N » Move from DSL-N rc4 to DSL-N 1.0