iB::Topic::Two new applications

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » MyDSL Extensions » Apps » Two new applications

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (10) </ ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Two new applications, Data aand graphic visualization programs

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Mar. 04 2008,18:40

I have to admit that I really wonder about a tiny core when I cannot get consensus on making current DSL smaller. Many currently included programs could easily become or are already offered as extensions. Removing then would drastically reduce the memory needed to run DSL. With all this talk about supporting older hardware you would think that the two would go hand-in-hand. In v4x I am talking about fluxbox and emelfm to start with. Drop the larger duplicates in favor of the smaller.

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: Mar. 04 2008,19:12

curaga:

Quote

having a 2.6 kernel might decrease the hate mail to Robert.

You underestimate how others can and will react to whatever decisions he makes!

"Don't remove emelfm!" -- So we get two file managers in 4.x and those of us who prefer mc use it by extension.
"Don't remove fluxbox!" -- A newer version is available in MyDSL and it will work just as well as or better than what's in the base!
"Upgrade this!" -- Okay, but it can break something else or it may necessitate removing other things to make room.
"Include that." -- Even if it's in MyDSL already?!

A lot of these requests are duplication, redundancy, bloat, etc. Not "damn small."

How can it be win-win for him? That's why I think he should just follow his own vision for DSL and let the chips fall. I think users will eventually come around.

-----
roberts:

Quote

I don't get it, either. I would understand it more if this were a static environment without extensions or if you were behind the eight-ball on having extensions to make up for what's moved out of the base. Instead, a lot of this is duplicated effort with stuff already in MyDSL and you still have people trying to get other stuff (e.g., virtual keyboard) from MyDSL moved into the base!

--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)

Nigadoo

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Mar. 05 2008,18:23

Thanks for bringing up the virtual keyboard ... I resemble that remark.

It is pretty cool to have a distro like DSL with pretty well everything thrown in but the kitchen sink fitting 50MB.

Personally, I would prefer DSL as a LEGO-like kit, with minimal base to easily let users build the kind of 50MB, or whatever MB, distro they would like/need.

Yank out all apps, and leave only the bare minimum to allow the complete newbie to create their own MYDSL distro. Take out the following, and make them available via MYDSL:
* fluxbox
* all editors (except one, maybe Beaver for newbs?)
* all graphics apps
* all office apps
* all sound apps
* firefox, netrik
* non-crucial net apps, like remotedesktop etc.
* all games

Would that make much difference in ISO size?

The nomadic DSL user would have the super-slim base DSL CD (I wish two kernels would fit on that!) and a CD or USB key with all the apps they need. Personally, I'd like a 2.4 kernel version of DSL and a 2.6 kernel on each their own mini-CD.

OR, if a user really just wants to have the one CD, then make MYDSL with the can't-do-without apps needed.

Sounds extreme, but that should make just about everybody happy ... anybody who can burn the DSL ISO should be able just fine to build their perfect MYDSL ISO.

mikshaw

Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004

Posted: Mar. 05 2008,20:02

Quote

1. What if '.uci' extensions were writable?

Then they wouldn't be uci (compressed images). The "image" part is an ISO9660 filesystem (essentially a cdrom image), which by design is read-only.

Quote

I think he should just follow his own vision for DSL and let the chips fall. I think users will eventually come around.

Totally agree.

I would suggest, though, that the current path seems to be working in a sense. That path, with some exceptions, seems to include gradually pulling out unnecessary applications and sometimes replacing them with smaller alternatives. The removal of mc was entirely unnoticed by most users. If firefox is left in its current version in DSL, eventually most users will opt for myDSL versions, and it can then be pulled from DSL base without people getting snippy.

--------------
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html

jaygeedsl

Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: Jan. 2008

Posted: Mar. 05 2008,23:07

Quote (Nigadoo @ Mar. 05 2008,18:23)

I'd like to comment on your "LEGO-like kit" suggestion from a newbie's perspective.

IMO it's a difficult enough task for a newbie to get DSL up and running using only the apps he needs with a standard "everything bar the kitchen sink" DSL version.

To be faced with the prospect of adding apps piecemeal from a barebones distribution would require a regularly updated single-stop documentation source allied to an all-GUI approach else it would be inviting a flood of additional help queries on this board.

Having achieved a working familiarity with DSL, the ability to produce a custom distro - again preferably GUI-based - would be a definite asset.

stupid_idiot's proposed "Howto for building a DSL environment using the LFS method" might be interesting in this context.

48 replies since Feb. 04 2008,19:14

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (10) </ ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » MyDSL Extensions » Apps » Two new applications