WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: tinycore_v2.8rc3  (Read 15149 times)

Offline curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10270
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2010, 06:09:36 AM »
So to make this perfectly clear unlike in the past the tce directory must now be in a *nix ext2/3 partition. I assume the "boot" directory can still be in a fat or ext2/3 partition. Do I have this right?
Yes.
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline meo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2010, 06:42:03 AM »
Hello Y'all in The Tiny Core Team!

You have done a wonderful job with this new version of tiny core. I'm constantly surprised of the many good functions that have been adapted to tiny core. Many times I have thought that now there aren't many big improvements that can be done, it's as good as perfect. But you have proven me wrong but I don't mind. Many thanks!

Have fun and keep on surprising me,
meo
"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us cultivate our garden." - Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2010, 07:00:08 AM »
Quote
Is usbinstall an appropriate name for this script, even? The ext option installs fine and boots fine from a normal hard drive, after all.

While true, I have used it that way, even on SSDs. However, WARNING DANGER it wipes out the entire drive. Hence my caution to label it for use on a pendrive.

Perhaps I will make a link to an have an additional name for those who wish to use it on hard drives / SSDs, etc..
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline tclfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2010, 07:02:09 AM »
I have since posted that "I am cutting the FAT" from the usbinstall script.
Thus the usbinstall script will only support ext file systems.
With no intent to influence the decisions made on usb install I just want to mention the following considerations:
1. Eliminating Zip emulation means most older machines will no longer able to boot from usb. Zip emulation has been the best bet since in old times PC BIOS supported booting from Zip. For some other PCs HDD emulation worked and no others. By eliminating these choces and using only Ext, means many such PCs will no longer able to boot. USB install in TC is excellent in design as it gives these choces to enhance chance of bootability.
2.  Zip emulation in TC usb install beautifully partitions the usb drive in 16M partition, where it puts tc core and separates extensions in the second partition. EXT options creates a single partition where all is mixed together. If going forward only EXT option will be used, I suggest that usb install partitions the usb drive in similar way as Zip option was doing, separating TC core in a small partition from the rest. This enhances integrity of the system.
If the new usbinstall does not partition the usb to separate TC core and all is mixed in one partition, then I suggest to do it manually using Gpartes and create additional partitions on the usb stick, such as FAT32. For this usb stick needs to be in HD mode.
3. In a way TC usbinstall is superior to Unetbootin in that it supports usb flash drives configured as HD drives. Unetbootin does not understand this important configuration.  Since the tremendous advantage of using usb flash sticks configured as usb HD drives is hard to beat, I hope after change planned for usbinstall this capability is continued, that means usbinstall will continue to recognize and accept usb flash configured as HD drives. If this capability is lost, then it will be harder to use for TC usb sticks larger than 1 or 2 GB.

Offline florian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • Home Page
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2010, 10:53:26 AM »
Hi. Really great job with 2.8!!!
Would it be possible to post the ftp cli client that was previously part of the core as a tc extension?

Offline curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10270
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2010, 11:16:21 AM »
All of the inetutils clients will come in the future; unlike with dropbear, there have been updates since.
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2010, 12:01:13 PM »
Just a friendly reminder, release candidates are for public preview and testing only.
Anything can change based on public input before final release or next release candidate.
As such, one should not use release candidates as their primary system.
Thank you for your participation in testing and feedback.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2010, 07:07:56 PM »
After reflecting on feedback from both microcore and tinycore topic areas, regarding both the .core.gz/initramfs change and the vfat/symlinks change.

Here is what I done:

1. Drop symlinks and use a simple text file, onboot.lst, for determining which to load on boot. I have modified tce-load, tce-setup, and appsaudit.

2. Add a new boot code lst=mylist.lst.  This will skip the onboot.lst and load up only that which is in mylist.lst I have modified tce-setup.

This should satisfy microcore users that need to 'preload' special extensions, keyboard, etc...,
then after boot can run tce-setup to get full X with onboot specified extensions.

3. Update tc-config to ensure persistent home and/or  persistent opt  is on a supported Linux file system. If not such boot code(s) will be ignored.  I have modified tc-config.

4. Leave usbinstall script as is. Fat support not cut. onboot.lst being a simple text file should present no issues hosted on fat file system.

I feel this will solve most issues and concerns expressed from the combined microcore and tinycore communities' feedback, while also providing even greater flexibility moving forward.

I have coded these changes and am in early testing phase. As such, I will issue a release candidate 4.

Robert

 
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline jur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
    • cycling photo essays
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2010, 07:49:26 PM »
Interesting, that now for the 2nd time, tcl direction is changing to align almost exactly with how I have been using it.  I changed my setup to on-demand quite a few releases ago, tcl 2.8 has gone there. Now with rc3, I have been using my own onboot file instead of symlinks, tcl is going there also.  ;D

In my mind there is no doubt, tcl is unbeatable. Thanks very much Robert and the team.

Offline tclfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2010, 05:41:37 AM »
Jur - this is where contribution and experience of others helps roberts to decide the best strategy.

Offline bigpcman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2010, 05:54:01 AM »
After reflecting on feedback from both microcore and tinycore topic areas, regarding both the .core.gz/initramfs change and the vfat/symlinks change.

Here is what I done:

1. Drop symlinks and use a simple text file, onboot.lst, for determining which to load on boot. I have modified tce-load, tce-setup, and appsaudit.

2. Add a new boot code lst=mylist.lst.  This will skip the onboot.lst and load up only that which is in mylist.lst I have modified tce-setup.

This should satisfy microcore users that need to 'preload' special extensions, keyboard, etc...,
then after boot can run tce-setup to get full X with onboot specified extensions.

3. Update tc-config to ensure persistent home and/or  persistent opt  is on a supported Linux file system. If not such boot code(s) will be ignored.  I have modified tc-config.

4. Leave usbinstall script as is. Fat support not cut. onboot.lst being a simple text file should present no issues hosted on fat file system.

I feel this will solve most issues and concerns expressed from the combined microcore and tinycore communities' feedback, while also providing even greater flexibility moving forward.

I have coded these changes and am in early testing phase. As such, I will issue a release candidate 4.

Robert

 

Thank you Robert for the advanced information. The proposed changes will make for a better and simpler system.

Should we assume that the copy to file system flag and list operation will be unchanged? Will they be located in the boot list or /tce directory.

Perhaps it's too soon for yet another change but it seems that after implementing your proposed changes there really is no such thing as optional extensions. What we end up with is simply a local extension repository that is used for on demand or boot extension installations. The system is becoming even more simple that the original tc. Fantastic!
big pc man

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2010, 06:24:51 AM »
Copy to file system works the same. I would rather keep it a separate function from selecting a few on boot, or on demand extensions.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.