DSL Ideas and Suggestions :: wish list, 2.6



When moving to a newer kernel, to take full advantage of it, a new C library would need to be compiled. Current apps would work with it, but supporting them would increase the size of the libc. And this goes back to the point, that to get as fast and small system as possible, complete overhaul would be needed.

Of course, only a new C library would be enough if there's no time..
Quote (curaga @ Feb. 04 2008,12:48)
When moving to a newer kernel, to take full advantage of it, a new C library would need to be compiled. Current apps would work with it, but supporting them would increase the size of the libc. And this goes back to the point, that to get as fast and small system as possible, complete overhaul would be needed.

Of course, only a new C library would be enough if there's no time..

DSL already has a great system for older computers with very limited ram. At this point, however, you can get an older computer with a gig of ram fairly cheaply. I recently picked up a Dell Latitude D600 with a gig of ram, rebuilt, for $300.  As an experiment, I loaded Mepis completely toram from disc, and then proceeded to pig out on apps from Synaptic (tcltk, bluefish, etc), in addition to using oo, Thunderbird, and everything else I could think of.  After two days uptime, I still have about 20% free ram; and that's with no swap. No shortcuts on drivers, either; all printers, cards, etc., have plug & played. Also, everything networks by default (just scp to another linux machine, or samba to a windows PC).
Quote
gtk2

The issue with needing gtk2, unfortunately, is this:  nobody is writing apps using gtk1 anymore.  Most times you go to update a gtk1 app, you find the maintainers have moved to gtk2.
Quote
The issue with needing gtk2, unfortunately, is this:  nobody is writing apps using gtk1 anymore.

But they did write GTK1 apps and continued supporting them before switching to GTK2-only development. There are many GTK1 apps available that are still more than adequate for the purposes of DSL. Just because GTK1 support ceases doesn't mean the old app versions stop working.

I understand your point very well, and I appreciate it. I was very much pro-modularization and came down on the side of sticking with kernel 2.4 and upgrading the libraries when Robert polled us about going forward last year. At the time, I thought it made more sense for the same reasons you think it does now.

If 2.4 development were keeping reasonable pace with 2.6, that would still be my desire. But just as GTK1 development is ebbing, 2.4 development is ebbing even more. Experiencing first hand the frustrations of getting things like ndiswrapper, wireless extension, and wireless tools updated in a 2.4 base, I'm firmly in the 2.6 camp.

Development of 2.4 is nearly at a dead end in terms of new hardware support and many projects are no longer supporting that kernel line. So the bigger issue now isn't in user space with "old" applications, it's supporting hardware. The apps will run on any hardware if DSL can run on that hardware.

I don't think both kernel 2.6 and GTK2 are possible in as small a base as I would like to see, not without removing many modules. Then if you include GTK2 in the base, do you make the base like DSL-N and not support GTK1 at all unless by extension?

Unless it can be done in a tiny core -- hopefully in the same 50 MB frame work we have now -- I prefer to stick with GTK1 in the base and get everyone on the same page with a comprehensive GTK2 development environment so we don't end up with patchwork apps and library packages. That way those who want GTK2 can have it as seamlessly and "damn small" as possible and those who don't want the weight of GTK2 on their smaller system resources aren't burdened by it.
Quote (chaostic @ Jan. 25 2008,02:08)
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. :/

All of that 250 MB does not have to be the iso image --- I'd put in two isos and use the rest for copies of applications.

One iso would be the current 2.4.x one for older systems.

The other would be a minimalist 2.6.x iso that would load and then load any .dsl, .tar.gz, .uci, .unc extension(s) desired from an "/extentions" directory on the same media where the iso loaded from.

A script could be written that allows the user to _select_ from the /extensions directory.  (Thus getting around the objection, 'your idea of an application suite is not my idea of an application suite.')  Once all selections have been made, a loop in the script would load them one after the other.

A credit card sized boot CD along with a credit card sized applications CD would fit in a wallet.

A round mini-CD still fits in a shirt pocket, two or three of them could still fit in a shirt or coat pocket.  They would still be useful, practical and all that good stuff.  The user base would still be there - no loss to anyone.

AND, the 50-55 MB iso size could still be preserved.
Next Page...
original here.