DSL Ideas and Suggestions :: wish list, 2.6



Quote (jpeters @ Jan. 24 2008,00:27)
Quote (roberts @ Jan. 24 2008,01:36)
Easily downloaded and installed flash9. Ran several youtube videos. Nothing crashed. Worked flawlessly.

I'm not concerned about the youtube videos (which work with flash 7 anyway), but AM interested in being able to access my brokerage accounts, which are switching to flash 9 for loggins.....(e.g, TradeKing, as of Feb 9th)

I  thought unionfs were more efficient in terms  of RAM; also easier to build. (I gave up trying to figure out why my initial attempts creating UCI's loaded from some directories but not others....nobody else was able to solve it either, as I recall).

Anybody intending to run a 2.6 kernel system will have to have capable hardware, i.e., much more ram. The kernel alone in 2.6 is twice the size of 2.4.

As for efficiency, legacy boots faster than unionfs in my 2.6, both use ramdisk as storage, unionfs has much "housekeeping to do" (an additional process). Unionfs if desired can still be used as an extension, see unionfs.dsl in the repository.

The youtube flash9 is a simple "acid test", as flash9 in current DSL crashes. I am not an avdanced web user so if you know any other flash9 tests I can try please let me know.
Quote (roberts @ Jan. 24 2008,01:36)
BTW: I booted my 36MB iso then loaded gtk2 extension, downloaded the lastest Firefox then browsed to youtube. Easily downloaded and installed flash9. Ran several youtube videos. Nothing crashed. Worked flawlessly.

Was this with sound as well? is ALSA in the core? (or if not, using a wrapper?)

I'm looking forward to this release as well - mainly to see how DSL integrates with the newer kernel... and how it will fit with my computing future.  Is this going to be declared as version 5.x?

Although I still use .dsl's for certain things, most of my applications are .uci's - loaded when I need them (I don't use unionfs).

Also, I think there could be some library conflict that had flash 9 crash for many users... on their system requirements, they don't list a 2.6 kernel (that was posted around here) and they even have an officially supported 2.4.x distro.
Quote (roberts @ Jan. 24 2008,11:26)
Unionfs if desired can still be used as an extension, see unionfs.dsl in the repository.

Will they still run as unc's (i.e., cling to their hda locations) or as dsl's? If the latter, we're probably looking at 512M RAM minimums (to be safe).
It also possible that other core libraries will be included in the iso.
What I am currently running is only a prototype. A proof of concept.

However 512MB is not a bad target given today's standard.

I will not be dropping DSL 4.x. I still use it and will remain using it on  my smaller less capable machines.
Quote (roberts @ Jan. 24 2008,13:27)
It also possible that other core libraries will be included in the iso.
What I am currently running is only a prototype. A proof of concept.

However 512MB is not a bad target given today's standard.

I will not be dropping DSL 4.x. I still use it and will remain using it on  my smaller less capable machines.

Ha.
3.x = DSL Classic/Legacy (""Obsolete""/Past "useful" life cycle comps)
4.x = DSL Proper (Near end of Life Cycle ~ Current Life Cycle comps)
5.x = DSL FutureSight (Begining of Life Cycle/New comps)

>_>

From my use of DSL (I stick to 3.x), it is perfect and like 0 bugs for me. So I wouldn't care/need constant updates, as I have no problem changing the systems guts if needed. Maybe just kernel security patches every other month?

And as for DSL Future, how about 200~250 mb? That way, it will take up all of a mini-cd, still keeping it small.

Edit:
Oh wait, 512 = ram. I thought size. :/
Next Page...
original here.