WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: Why not aufs?  (Read 2952 times)

Offline deniska

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Why not aufs?
« 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.

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #1 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.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline tobiaus

  • Suspended
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #2 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.

Offline deniska

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #3 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.

Offline curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10036
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2009, 08:31:29 AM »
No aufs for the same reason no unionfs.
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline deniska

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #5 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 :)

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7003
    • My Community Forum
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #6 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?

Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

"Amateur Radio: The First Technology-Based Social Network."

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #7 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.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7003
    • My Community Forum
Re: Why not aufs?
« Reply #8 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
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

"Amateur Radio: The First Technology-Based Social Network."