Tiny Core Base > TCB Talk

Tinycore based on SliTaz

(1/2) > >>


Why can we find so much SliTaz file in TC 1.0 ? Same boot process, inittab, daemon script....

Why no credit to the SliTaz team ? Why even remove SliTaz ref from source code (Roberts you know what I'm talking about or you need some diff) ? Not GPL all this...

Can we have a few explanation please ?


--- Quote ---Why no credit to the SliTaz team ? ... Can we have a few explanation please ?
--- End quote ---

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090323 particularly these lines

--- Quote ---With not much more that I could do with an ageing 2.4 kernel, I once again sought to find a new base. It wasn't until I saw SliTaz that I was reminded of the talks by Rob Landley at OLS 2006 about Populating Initramfs with BusyBox. I studied this, together with the kernel development logs and saw how a simple initial RAM disk and BusyBox could work with my original ideas and concepts of add-on extensions. I booted Finnix, a small and powerful Debian-based distribution, and followed Rob Landley's kernel and BusyBox docs to create the first prototype, then I started to layer on the code that I had created during the last five years, to make the first desktop. The next iteration was a conversion out of (re-factored) murgaLua to C++/FLTK to arrive at a working prototype of Tiny Core.

Tiny Core is not a fork of DSL. It has a completely different base and is neither Debian nor KNOPPIX based. Tiny Core is also not a remaster of SliTaz, but was made based on the new capabilities of the 2.6 kernel together with the features that BusyBox provided. Although it is small (10 MB), Tiny Core is not targeted at any particular era of hardware. It is unfair to say that because of Tiny Core's size it must be for older hardware. It may be said that Tiny Core is for advanced users. But I have tried hard to present an easy-to-use interface to add applications, modules, and libraries.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Why can we find so much SliTaz file in TC 1.0 ? Same boot process, inittab, daemon script
--- End quote ---

you have to be more accurate in saying this, besides considering that boot process, inittab, daemon scripts are common to several distros in the linux world

On SliTaz and TC inittab is not common to other distro, the script use the inittab-busybox syntax and they is many way to write it (see busybox source examples). Here is the diff from the one on SliTaz and the one on TC:

--- Code: newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive] ------ /etc/inittab Thu Apr 16 22:25:50 2009
+++ inittab-save Thu Mar 26 10:49:41 2009
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# /etc/inittab: init configuration for SliTaz GNU/Linux.
+# /etc/inittab: init configuration for busybox init.
 # Boot-time system configuration/initialization script.

--- End code ---

The same for /etc/init.d/{crond,drobear}, "SliTaz" have been simply removed. In /etc a lot of file are exactly the same (SliTaz first then TC):

--- Code: newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive] ---12252ed7073fdab737978054d74f6809  /etc/nsswitch.conf
12252ed7073fdab737978054d74f6809  nsswitch.conf

0e12414c0e58d082c2c6ef519f1e4a18  /etc/udev/udev.conf
0e12414c0e58d082c2c6ef519f1e4a18  udev.conf

--- End code ---

There is also the shutdown script, /usr/bin/history and some code found in other scripts. You can also look
to /usr/share and will see the same minimalistic files provided by SliTaz. Oh and in TC 1.0 you will also fin /etc/network.conf: SliTaz is the only one to use this to configure network.

So for me TC is based on SliTaz and Roberts seems to hide that!

I'm quite certain Robert has never tried to hide anything. TC is not based on Slitaz.

Same boot process? That surprises me, as I see much more influence of DSL and Knoppix than any other distro in there. And since I've personally modified a part of it, if that matches Slitaz, they have copied from us, not the other way.

The inittab can be found almost verbatim in a busybox example.
udev.conf is unmodified from a standard udev install.
nsswitch.conf and network.conf were from Finnix, and Finnix got them from Debian. So in claiming that, why do you not say Slitaz is not crediting Debian?

network.conf has since been removed as unused. For nsswitch.conf, you might want to take a look at LFS also, there's the exact same conf, only the spacing and comment differing.

I acknowledge SliTaz in the interview as being the impetus for creating Tiny Core.
Tiny Core is not a remaster of SliTaz and has much more Knoppix/DSL influence. Where I have toiled for five years. The boot process is not unique to SliTaz but is documented by Rob Landley, as I pointed out, and is part of the capibilities of kernel 2.6. There are now other distros that use the initramfs style boot, including Finnix. The inittab, poweroff, etc are also from busybox. The initial system was built using Finnix.
So, I have mentioned Knoppix/DSL/Finnix and SliTaz, any others I should mention? The initial versions of dslcore, which became Tiny Core were frankensteins and much effort has gone to be source based. None of the above distros have the philosophy of presentation that Tiny Core offers. Tiny Core has much custom code from myself and now the team. If I need to apply credit anywhere I will readily do so.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version