73 ke4nt*chuckles* I guess I am requesting a putty extension
My username is actually a mistake, I put my email address in! (Though I would have used somerville32 as my username if I had typed it correctly.) To answer your question: My last name is somerville.
And thank you for the feedback on my feedback
~MeYou might want to re-register as a new user, using your preferred name of choice .. The account/name you are using now will simply sit dormant ..
I have property in Somervile, Texas.. My grandkids all live near Somerville, Texas..
Thar's why I asked the question..
73 ke4nt>> A) Use Icons or atleast less cryptic names. >>B) Add function to edit desktop and menu >> C) Add function to display hardware >> D) Add function to show network information >> E) Etc. Etc. A major part is just to add the "links" in the control >>pannel to access the application. Ie. Xsetup >>Maybe I could draw something out?
A) This is a matter of opinion. I don't think the names are cryptic and icons would be a waste of space. B) Vi, nano (insert favorite editor here) and bsetbg should have you covered C) lspci -vv D) ifconfig It sounds as if you're looking for a duplicate of the Windows Control Panel and that just isn't gonna happen anytime soon (or quite possibly ever).
>>2) I think package managment is important, maybe add it in the future?
Search through the forums for apt, synaptic, dpkg-restore. There's already package management (and the DSL packaging scheme). The only area I could see room for improvement is if the default compiled applications used checkinstall so that somebody could go and remove aplications they didn't want that came with a vanilla install, but even that isn't a big deal.
>>3) Agreed... the printer setup program is very interactive but >>doesn't work the best (ref. my post in the printer forum)
If you're installing to hard drive, you'll only need to set up your printer once (unless a hardware catastrope occurs) just download and compile CUPS. It's a little easier to use and there's TONS of existing documentation for it.
>>5) It was just an "idea". I see you guys have your hearts set on less >>then 50mb, and expansion is very easy once your on the net
That's why it's called Damn Small Linux. There's plenty of distro's out there that cram a ton of bloatware onto a CD, how many can say that they provide the same amount of functionality provided from DSL at a scant 50MB?
>>7) If I just use the Internet Connection Sharing in WinXP Pro, will it >>work? If you don't have an answer, I'll try it out as soon as I buy a >>new network card and report my findings back here
>>9) I feel putty is an excellent client that included telnet, ssh, raw, >>and rlogin and it is very very small. I will try my hand at making a >>MyDSL file for putty and report my findings back You also make a >>very very very valid point, ke4nt1.
Putty sucks. The only reason putty exists is because of Windows lack of a real terminal program (which Redmond's supposedly fixed in Longhorn). Telnet and rlogin are security hazards and are, therefore, worthless. And I've yet to find a use for raw. Learn to use the terminal for Secure Shell. It's better, in any number of ways, than putty.
>>10) Thank You
No problem.
Quote
2) I think package managment is important, maybe add it in the future?
If you feel that package management is important, perhaps you should consider using Apt or installing from DEB packages instead of using extensions. The extension system is meant to be an easy way to load programs into a LiveCD, and is not ideal for a harddrive install (the only reason I can think that you'd want package management is if you've got a HD install...with a liveCD a simple reboot is all that is necessary). Not only do you miss out on documentation in extensions, but sometimes there are features disabled just to get it working on a standard liveCD. Using Apt allows you to find your dependencies as well, so these packages are not subject to the same limitations as DSL extensions.Next Page...
original here.
