Tiny Core Linux

Tiny Core Base => TCB Talk => Topic started by: deniska on March 31, 2009, 02:15:55 AM

Title: Why not aufs?
Post by: deniska on March 31, 2009, 02:15:55 AM

PPR is getting really fat in RAM.

Some extensions are incompatible with PPI.

I'll be happy to see the "union" boot option, to merge ramdisk and existing partition (or directory on it). All changes will be stored on hard drive, while the base system can be loaded entirely in the RAM.

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: roberts on March 31, 2009, 07:23:01 AM

"PPR is getting really fat in RAM."

"Some extensions are incompatible with PPI."

That is why you should use tcz.

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: tobiaus on March 31, 2009, 07:43:21 AM

i wanted to see what other people (like the author) would say first, but i thought part of what made tinycore "tiny" was getting rid of things like aufs, and using simpler methods like tcz and symlinks. i think of ppi as a "compromise" mode, and ppr/tcz as an "ideal" mode. only robert truly knows his reasons, but they usually seem like (very) good ones.

when i don't know the reason i usually ask, like you did.

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: deniska on March 31, 2009, 08:02:46 AM

Ok. I'll try to experiment with initrd image.

I think the aufs isn't really «fat» thing to include it in core.

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: curaga on March 31, 2009, 08:31:29 AM

No aufs for the same reason no unionfs.

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: deniska on April 01, 2009, 12:55:28 PM

Just hundred kbytes of kernel module, some editing of init scripts, just 2 more seconds while booting and voila, my ideal distro in completed. And I as think, not only mine. It will be much more usable than "local" boot option. I were searching easy and tiny distro for while, and I found this. But I don't like booting live cd files using grub.

I'll try to edit some initialization scripts, but they are too complicated for me >_<

It is looking strange not to make some good thing (and as I think, it's not so hard to implement) for some strange (imho) reasons.

P.S: Sorry for my «English» language :)

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: bmarkus on July 29, 2009, 01:45:50 AM

Subject of the thread is Why not aufs? but reading the posts there are no detailed answer.

Just curious, why not aufs was choosen to handle tcz extensions?

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: roberts on July 29, 2009, 06:03:54 AM

Because whatever we can do without, we do. That has been the challenge. That is why we are so small. Small is beautiful. Less complex more so. We could easily swim in the sea of sameness. But that would be boring. For some doing more with less is much more interesting. For us using the basics of a few programs and scripts show what can be achieved.

Title: Re: Why not aufs?
Post by: bmarkus on July 29, 2009, 07:05:31 AM

Robert,

thanks for the explanation. I'm fine with the current solution even if this symlinking seems to be a bit weird at first glance  :)

Béla