DSL Ideas and Suggestions :: wish list for the new version, dsl 5.0



Quote
I am using a lighter shell.
Which shell would that be? ash? zsh? ?
It would be nice to know in case we want to familiarize ourselves early with any differences to bash.

Quote
The effort that the community has spent learning UCI, mountable self contained compressed applications, could still be supported only uncompressed. This being the case to provide an easier means to make and use, no read-only stuff, open to being used in other systems, and still have the advatage of low ram usage.
Would you be talking about using uncompressed ISO9660 (mkiso) then?  If so, that would be really sweet, as the same mountable applications could be used in any distribution that has the required files that exist in DSL. So far I've had nothing but failure installing a full cloop setup to other distros.

Quote
I am surprised that someone hasn't made an xtdesk.dsl for 4.x.
Just as a completely personal opinion, I think both xtdesk and dfm stink.  I hate desktop icons and using drag/drop to accomplish tasks that are just as easy, if not easier, by hotkeys, symlinks, and aliases.  But DSL lends itself easily (surprisingly easy considering its read-only focus) to user customization which allows us to make our desktops behave as we wish. Regardless of what sort of changes you've made to the defaults, DSL has consistently been easier than many other distros to tweak to my taste.

Quote
I cannot, as one person, offer and maintain, so many editions of DSL and then compound that with maintaining multiple "edition specific" repositories.
If you do create and release the awesome thing that I anticipate will be the tiny core, I have a feeling that the user base may pick up the task of handling specialized editions.  If you look at what is being done with Ubuntu, there are many editions that tweak that distro for specific audiences. Its base really isn't any more useable than DSL is, it just has a much bigger and flashier desktop.
Quote
Would you be talking about using uncompressed ISO9660 (mkiso) then?
Isn't iso9660 still readonly?

Puppy might be a good example too, as many of it's editions are completely kept up by volunteers, and they all share and prosper happily along.
Quote
Isn't iso9660 still readonly?
oh yeah...I overlooked where he said no read-only stuff.  That sounds weird to me, though...a mountable *and* writable application.  Why not just use a simple self-contained application directory and skip the whole mounting business then?
I guess the difference between a .map and a .tar.gz is the unpacking - saves time just to mount.
hello

please add more drivers for wireless cards (especially for the eeepc).

regards, alex
Next Page...
original here.