Joined: Feb. 2007
||Posted: May 01 2008,18:12
|OK, call it DSL-N-0.1RC5, if you wish|
No, I don't think you're responsible for putting together release candidates for DSL or DSL-N -- that's for Robert and John to do. So I'll call it something else. Sounds like you've done a sloppy job of whatever you've done if it's using 2.4 unionfs while running a 2.6 kernel. Hint: that really shouldn't happen.
|I won't quibble, but it is using the stock DSL KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX. |
So I call it DSL.
You can call it a duck but if it doesn't have webbed feet and feathers and won't quack or waddle I'd have call it something else. I won't speak for John or Robert, but I won't call that DSL. I'll call it what it is, whatever your intentions were: a really amateur hack. There are several users here who've done 2.6-based remasters. You should ask them for guidance.:)
Edit: Yeah, it probably does have something to do with your kernel. Especially if you're trying to use unionfs (UNC) and if you left out cloops (UCI).
Also, the RAM stats shown in torsmo aren't complete -- they don't count cache. Do "free -mt" and see what you're really using.
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)