DSL Ideas and Suggestions :: Any plans for...?



I dont really have any problem with 2.4, although I am admittedly fairly new and do not understand all of the differences between 2.4 & 2.6, it works for me. I love that new apps, hardware, features etc. come out. I mean where would we be if everyone was simply satisfied and didnt strive for more? I am really impressed with how dsl has been developing. It is continuously improving, but continues to run great on this old machine (233mhz). Just because it doesnt use the most current kernel, I dont think it is behind other distros. Actually I believe it is ahead in many aspects. Its just my simple opinion, but I applaud dsl as being one of a dieing few that cater to those of us with older hardware and trust that they will continue to balance updates with performance.
To get a personal experience on the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 performance on older hardware, please do the following:

1) Get QEMU. Either from the website or from DSL-embedded.
2) Boot up DSL 1.4 via QEMU, either the dsl.iso file or from DSL-embedded.  Or you can use an older version of INSERT that comes with a 2.4 kernel.
3) Boot up the latest version of the INSERT iso file

The difference in performance is quite noticable on a fast computer (P4 2.8GHz).

Try it for yourself.

In my opinion, the only true reason to use a 2.6 kernel for DSL would be for new PC hardware support, especially SATA controllers.

But supposedly most SATA controllers are supported in the newer versions of the 2.4 kernel tree, although my SATA controller (Dell Optiplex GX280) was not autodetected by the 2.4.27 INSERT or by the KNOPPIX 3.7 2.4.27 kernel.

It was autodetected by the KNOPPIX 3.9 2.6.x kernel.

Hopefully, this was just a problem with autodetection and not with lack of driver support.
What I'm trying to say is, I'll bet most of the DSL userbase doesn't care one way whether it fills 50MB or 150MB AS LONG AS IT RUNS IN 64MB OR LESS. That's a lot more significant than the iso size, and is truly what sets DSL apart from all the other general purpose distros.

If a 2.6-based DSL can't run in 64MB, don't go there. If one can, there are people who need what 2.6 offers and can't run other distros because those won't do ANYTHING in 64MB.
The DSL userbase that owns a Pentium 2 or lower computer system WILL care whether or not it uses a 2.6 kernel because it WILL run slower on these computers.

As for the 50MB limit, DSL is a business card CD-R based distro and according to the maintainer it always will be so I think that we are arguing over a moot point.

If you or someone else wishes to make a slightly larger version of DSL, you are free to do so as long as you don't call it "DSL".  Take "Feather Linux" for example.  At one time it CLOSELY followed DSL with respect to functionality and even shared some DSL code in addition to the KNOPPIX core.

Nowadays it is a larger distro that fits your ideals and I would expect that it still works on computers with less than 64MB of RAM in non-toram mode.

Unfortunately, because the "toram" function will load the ENTIRE OS into RAM, it appears to be impossible to fit Feather/toram in some computers where DSL/toram will run just fine.

As for 2.6 hardware compatibility needs, most computers that have newer hardware that is only supported in the 2.6 kernel are also new enough that they come equipped with 512MB or RAM or more.

While it is quite possible to modify DSL to work with a 2.6 kernel, it might be easier for you to start with some modular stripped down knoppix core like can be provided by Morphix for example.

Good Luck
Quote (stoneguy @ Sep. 05 2005,21:03)
What I'm trying to say is, I'll bet most of the DSL userbase doesn't care one way whether it fills 50MB or 150MB AS LONG AS IT RUNS IN 64MB OR LESS. That's a lot more significant than the iso size, and is truly what sets DSL apart from all the other general purpose distros.

If a 2.6-based DSL can't run in 64MB, don't go there. If one can, there are people who need what 2.6 offers and can't run other distros because those won't do ANYTHING in 64MB.

We do not aim for computers with 64mb+ of ram. I think that is what you are misunderstanding.

We aim to have DSL be able to run on anything with 16mb of ram or more. Sure, to get full functionality, you need 24mb, but 16 will work. Have more? That's great! You can use some cool features, like toram and large mydsl extensions. But with 16, you can still operate.

-J.P.
Next Page...
original here.