iB::Topic::Should DSL-N start moving forward?

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

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » DSL Not » DSL-N » Should DSL-N start moving forward?

		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

Question: Should DSL-N start moving forward? :: Total Votes:20
Poll choices	Votes	Statistics
Yes, in a direction just like it was before development stalled.	1	[5.00%]
Yes, in a direction similar to DSL 4 (integrated drag and drop desktop, etc.) but with GTK2, more modern apps, etc.	5	[25.00%]
Yes, it should be a 2.6 version of DSL 4 with GTK1 by default and GTK2 by extension.	3	[15.00%]
Yes, but I want apt-get.	6	[30.00%]
Yes, but make it more modular even if it means starting over from the ground-up.	0	[0.00%]
Yes to at least one of the above or to something else, and it should be community-developed if the developers don't want to move it forward themselves.	3	[15.00%]
Nope, long live RC4!	0	[0.00%]
Something else (please explain below).	2	[10.00%]
Guests cannot vote

Pages: (8) </ 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 >/

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

Topic: Should DSL-N start moving forward?, is it time?

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

Key

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: July 30 2007,18:53

Quote (roberts @ July 30 2007,14:01)

Quote

I think isolinux-only is sensible for 2.6 since machines requiring syslinux will likely find their hardware better supported in 2.4. Am I off on assuming that?

Correct. However, during the DSL-N forum days, there were many who squawked about this fact. My feeling is that most newer hardware does not even have a floppy drive. And if both "editions" , 2.4k and 2.6k offer the same operational features then not offering a syslinux/boot-floppy for 2.6k should not be a problem.

I think the same, Robert.

If there wouldn't be a problem with the hardware support on newer computers, I would be happy with the 2.4.x kernel. But as the hardware support is limited, I'm probably forced to use a 2.6.x kernel. I hope everything is working then again with kernel 2.6.x on the new computer.

In order to reduce the time and work, I would also be happy with an ordinary DSL having the 2.6.x kernel.

People with older and newer computers are able then to test DSL4. Also I assume it would be the first distro supporting both kernels for the same version.

An ordinary ISO image would be fine.
Boot floppy and special ISO images are not really necessary for kernel 2.6.x users.

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: July 31 2007,00:24

globalsize:

Quote

The reason that I personally liked DSL-n is the addition of gAIM (now Pidgin)

That's available via apt-get as well as a GTK2 version in MyDSL. You don't need DSL-N for gaim.

roberts

Quote

...not offering a syslinux/boot-floppy for 2.6k should not be a problem.

I agree. It shouldn't be the same kind of issue if there are two kernel versions of the otherwise identical distro since DSL-N was totally different with GTK2, different apps, etc. It's just pick the CD that best supports the kind of hardware you have. And give a really big hint that if you can't boot from CD, you don't need 2.6.

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

humpty

Group: Members
Posts: 655
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,04:07

I would like to see the only diffference between DSL and DSl-N is
they have different kernels. And nothing more.

Even better would would be if DSL-N could be replaced by LKMs (loadable kernel modules). Though, you must realise I'm just talking
about stuff I know little about now, but I think linux made a design
hiccup not making the majority of drivers modular.

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,05:41

Linux already uses LKMs. There are three choices for handling drivers when compiling a kernel: drivers can be compiled directly into the kernel, compiled as modules (which are then turned on or off as needed), or not compiled at all.

The first option is ideal if you're building a kernel for use on one particular machine. You can configure it so it's machine-specific and doesn't have any modules at all (or only a few in the event you have hardware that you may add or remove on occasion and if you want those drivers to be loaded/unloaded as needed). That would also pertain to the last option -- you would leave out drivers you don't need for that machine. The result is a very streamlined kernel.

Modules are a middle ground, and that's how DSL handles drivers. Since DSL is to be used by many different users on many different machines, it includes drivers as modules that are turned off and on by users or configuration scripts. You probably don't even scratch the surface of what modules are available because DSL's kernel is compiled with more modules than most other distros. You boot up, the modules you need should load (or you can insmod); the modules you don't need don't load (or you can rmmod if they do). This also results in a rather streamlined kernel insofar as your measure is what's loaded -- it should be what's germane to your computer. The flip side of it is that you have a lot of modules available that you won't use -- dead weight to some people, but that's the price of using something that's designed for wider appeal than one particular computer (it's a live CD!).

The only other choice DSL has would be to compile more directly into the kernel and have fewer modules. That would result in one massively bloated kernel with excessive "dead weight" for everyone because we all have unique needs.

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