General TC > General TC Talk
Could be [tiny]core improved?
yvs:
> The base LIB is musl (not libc) because is smaller (means more secured).
>
A smaller one (speaking of linuxes: uclibc vs musl vs glibc) doesn't mean "more secured" automatically. Mostly it means one needs to implement that extra functionality (provided with bigger libs) in user software. If there's no need in that, a smaller is better, otherwise it's the opposite case.
CentralWare:
--- Quote from: nick65go on November 20, 2024, 07:50:32 PM ---Taken into account that TC focuses on compatibility to older CPU (ex:i486)...
--- End quote ---
@nick65go: Your comment has been stirring with me for a few thus begs to ask... how many TCL users are in fact using i386/486 equipment anymore?
. . o O ( Can I get a show of hands, please?? )
Non-retired admins: consider a sticky post with a survey -- the outcome may in fact alter future TCL builds.
--- Quote from: neonix on December 24, 2024, 11:28:59 PM ---There should be few variants of Tiny Core...
--- End quote ---
I agree... but I also have to disagree.
Most anyone who is going to use TCL is going to boot the downloaded ISO and either burn it to CD-ROM (640MB), DVD or FLASH. That said, there's a minimum of 640MB or so that we have as a foundation of the BOOT IMAGE. IN MY OPINION this image does not have to be as small as possible as we're completely wasting the remainder of that blank CD otherwise. Let's leave "variants" alone for the moment and move on. (See below.)
--- Quote from: neonix on December 15, 2024, 02:21:59 PM ---Does TC have function to install extensions on local NAS server and load theme every time computer is booted?
--- End quote ---
@neonix: Yes. As @partikg pointed out, you can use network shares via NFS, SMB/CIFS, AOE, iSCSI, etc. and simply load extensions remotely. If you're booting a device via PXE this is almost vital as there's usually no local storage. You can also create your own mini-repository on your NAS and simply edit /opt/tcemirror to point at your NAS. (Options exist in numerous flavors!)
--- Quote from: mocore on November 21, 2024, 08:43:48 AM ---could the core(scripts) be made "more" modular without increasing complexity ?
--- End quote ---
@mocore: The TCE foundation (scripts) are being rewritten outside of Tiny Core's crew and may someday become a replacement - with caveats.
* The existing TCE foundation is already a tiny bit complicated due to the stringent repository structure
* Making it more modular... I don't personally see much if any advantage to justify the amount of work entailed
* Functionality... somewhere around v4.x the current TCE/Repo foundation was solidified (and thereafter became stagnated/limited.)In order to simplify and expand upon TCE would require an entire rewrite, which is on the books on my end for first quarter 2025 as we require repository functionality that doesn't exist and that the existing foundation cannot support, but I cannot promise backward compatibility thus why we're doing this initially outside of the existing Tiny Core Linux name so there's no confusion, conflict, etc. If the project is successful AND backward compatible, we'll send an offer up the chain of command and see if the TCL brass wants to convert :) It's far from effortless, thus why we're doing this solo right now.
@everyone: try to be patient! The entire TCL methodology is getting a conceptual refit based on what drove the TinyCore founder @roberts to start this project in the first place and the evolution necessary for it to step into the 21st century allowing more flexibility of what gets packaged under the hood and hopefully a lot less people quoting "if you don't like it the way it is, go somewhere else!" Tiny Core Linux is already, in my opinion, a reasonably unique variant to the Linux world. When we're finished, I assure you, this methodology and the tech we're implementing is going to create a class of its own!
--- Quote from: nick65go on October 24, 2014, 10:10:52 AM ---Could be [tiny]core improved?
--- End quote ---
LOL... virtually anything can be improved upon - that's what society does... they point out flaws! (especially petty ones, it seems!) which leads to change when appropriate.
A decade later, you're still an active member of this forum. You, and everyone similar has spent their membership time offering ideas, bug reports, complaints and/or compliments... so of course it not only CAN be improved upon, but has been and will continue to be for as long as there are Admins willing to carry the torch and Users willing to make it worthwhile for them to do so.
Happy holidays everyone!
GNUser:
--- Quote from: CentralWare on December 30, 2024, 02:12:20 AM ---The entire TCL methodology is getting a conceptual refit
--- End quote ---
Is this true? Can you please clarify what's being refitted?
IMHO these are TCL's main strengths:
1. It's methods/concepts (e.g., frugal install, tcz system, known pristine state after boot)
2. Diminutive size
The above strengths more than make up for TCL's weaknesses:
1. Small repo (cf. Debian)
2. Patchy official documentation (cf. Arch, Gentoo)
3. Few online how-tos (cf. Ubuntu)
I really hope TCL isn't getting a radical conceptual overhaul. At least for me, TCL's concepts (as they currently exist) are what make me want to continue using the distro and contributing to it.
patrikg:
There are a Linux dist called Alpine Linux, that may fit your needs.
You can use miniature libs there, like musl.
GNUser:
Thanks, patrikg. Alpine is definitely my backup option if TCL were to become something very different from what it is now. But nothing fits my needs better than TCL as it exists today.
It would be nice if CentralWare or one of the other administrators could clarify this somewhat alarming statement:
--- Quote from: CentralWare on December 30, 2024, 02:12:20 AM ---The entire TCL methodology is getting a conceptual refit
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version