suggest using tce2 for 2.x

[softwaregurl]

just a suggestion,
i am using bootcodes of tce=sda1/tce2 restore=sda1/tce2 so v1.x and v2.x don't get mixed up.
does it make any sense to default to this in the base.
also, dating back to the days of msdos and limits on the number of files that can be in the root directory of a partition, one usually avoids putting files there.  i havn't seen any conflicts of restore being in the tce directory, so does it make any sense to have restore go there by default.

thanks all
-SG

[mcewanw]

Clearly thinking alike. I also use tce2 for the 2.x series and tce (I suppose tce1 would be better) for the 1.x series when using PPR and restore to avoid ambiguity.

[roberts]

The original design was to support auto scanning. I did not want to autoscan down into directories.
Auto scanning is/was desireable with cdroms. Hands free boot, i.e, don't have to type boot options.

Cdroms and even the .iso are becomming much less important with todays pendrives, flash, and ssd. Auto scanning could be dropped altogether, or just limited to tce specific directory. Will take into consideration.

[softwaregurl]

if the autoscan only looked for backup in the autoscanned and found tce specific directory with the backup put there by default?  i would not drop autoscan.  i chose dsl/dsl-n as my first linux experience and autoscan  was of great benefit.  using dsl and dsl-n dual boot was not so fun until i hacked your code.

Will take into consideration.

as always, thank you roberts and tcl team.
live long and prosper.

[Jason W]

Since there will be some who will like to run either TC 1.x or TC 2.x on the same machine by cdrom, I think something like this would make it easier.  Maybe tce, or tce2 for the default tce directory, and then mydata.tgz or mydata2.tgz on the root of the partition to save from having to scan down into directories.  That would allow booting with no boot codes but keep the backups and tce directories seperate.

[tobiaus]

i would not drop autoscan.

please don't. it's funny hearing someone much older than i am (roberts) talk about "today's pendrives" and how iso's aren't even important anymore. like another user said here, drives are now to ram what tapes were to drives.

but for reliability, iso's are still important. not to mention they're still cheaper! don't dump things to be "cool" or cutting edge. cutting edge is painful if and messy if you brush against it without care.

another thing about "today's pendrives" that i like are they are easier to "remaster" i mean, they make remastering totally unnecessary.

therefore it is always easier to modify the boot (and the bootcodes) of a pendrive to skip an autoscan, than to put it back in the iso. take pity on the old fashioned cd users (i can't believe i'm saying that, i'm still annoyed they stopped making reliable floppies... they're all throwaway now) and keep the autoscan already. it's trivial to remove it from usb with a code- and when i say "trivial" i really mean it.

[jpeters]

I hope you get more feedback than from me regarding illogical statements in signatures involving out of context  qutoes from someone else.  Maybe you'd like me to quote a few of your posts in my own signature?   

[tobiaus]

I hope you get more feedback than from me regarding illogical statements in signatures involving out of context  qutoes from someone else.  Maybe you'd like me to quote a few of your posts in my own signature?   

what you're doing is making a false accusation. i don't care about that. what bothers me is the intense double standards, [...] going on in this forum, and the extreme arrogance it takes to say that people should just compile things because it's not that difficult. it ignores the crapload of trouble i've gone to to try to make simple things work. you want to crap on the effort i've made to learn and tell me it's easy and i should get off my ass and compile? fine. expect a retort, because what you're implying is smug, ignorant of what it's like to be someone other than you, and insulting.

i already realize that was not your intention, or softwaregurl's. i'm not mad at her. i find her thesis INCREDIBLY frustratin and (not her intention either) i find it insulting, but i don't mind her. she's cool. you usually are, too.

but now you're accusing me of quoting OTHER PEOPLE. i see no quote. obviously you're out to make me a bad person. well, i'm no more impressed by your stupid accusation than you are by my sig. and i do not think you're stupid- i'm not really that mad at you- but this accusation is DUMB. all the evidence is right in front of you if you wish to reexamine it. if you don't have the time to judge based on reason, don't judge!

EDIT

you mean THIS?

  How do I install a TCE package from the command line?
in TCB Q&A Forum

Re: How do I install a TCE package from the command line? by roberts
... . Command line tools represent the 'expert' mode. ...

LOOKS PRETTY IN-CONTEXT TO ME!

but seriously, you people are nuts. if it's wrong of me to say that roberts recommends command line tools for installing packages for "experts" and that therefore, compiling should logically represent a greater challenge, then obviously I SHOULD WATCH WHAT I SAY AROUND HERE.

i'll remove my sig [...], if you're going to take offense to NOTHING, extend me the same courtesy! the different is you run the place, eh? well, that will always win an argument sooner or later.

[^thehatsrule^: removed possibly offensive parts; violation of forum agreement]

[^thehatsrule^]

This thread has been locked to discourage any further flaming/trolling/etc.

For users wanting to reply to the topic discussion, please open a new thread.