General TC > General TC Talk
Could be [tiny]core improved?
curaga:
--- Quote from: GNUser on December 30, 2024, 02:33:41 PM ---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 ---
--- End quote ---
CentralWare is trying out different changes, which we will evaluate then. Nothing has been decided yet.
gadget42:
with reference to i486 i would relate this prior thread:
https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,25098.0.html
as per a post in that thread, had been using the latest tcl iso as a cut-off of what to keep
(at least before the purge: https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,25098.msg165728.html#msg165728 )
currently the oldest units are an amd athlon x2 7750 dual-core and a couple of core2quads(q6600 & q8200)
---
and with reference to the size of the iso, it is Tiny Core Linux and it is definitely unique and most cherished for that quality.
i understand the size reference regarding the CD optical media and my thoughts go immediately back to the differences in size of Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux
i wonder what the size of Tiny Core Linux would be if we fine forum folks used DSL as a template to come up with a TCL with near identical functionality as DSL right from the iso?
please note that i am NOT saying to change what is being done/offered/produced/etc because the current offerings cover the vast majority of common usage.
perhaps with other forum folks input we might contemplate a potential template? i have a dsl-4.4.10 that i started to pick apart a couple years ago but then life got in the way(sad but true for many)
CentralWare:
--- Quote from: CNK on December 31, 2024, 12:47:38 AM ---But this is a big advantage of Tiny Core! Simplicity to me means it's easy to understand everything, and not changing things all the time like most other distros is a big part of that.
--- End quote ---
@CNK: Your version of "Simplicity" is based on your existing level of expertise. Someone without the knowledge of how shell scripts operate, for example, will be dumbfounded.
"...so why push dropping i486 compatibility..."
Not interested in dropping anything at all...
However, we (CentralWare) and TCL's Admins (TinyCoreLinux) are likely to be in the same boat.
We cannot "support" a hardware platform which we cannot replicate its environment.
I tossed my last 486 many years ago - though I think I still have an old DX chip in the archive just for grins.
In fact, I think there's even a Fire Starter (Blue Lightning Cyrix) in a shadow-box alongside a mini fire extinguisher.
That, along with a framed Gates 'n Crew photo after the IBM-DOS agreement/purchase.
Example 1: A few months ago User wants TCL to compile an extension to be used on old hardware. (486 if I'm not mistaken.) TCL Admin gladly accommodates the User; compilation goes through without a hitch... User comes back claiming extension throws an error (Illegal Op / Seg Fault if I'm not mistaken) - Admin can't replicate user's hardware environment, all support here-after becomes theoretical at best. Hours are wasted trying to guess what the problem might be, advising User "Try This" and "Try That" to no avail. This is where trying to "support" Users on old hardware becomes daunting. If the TOS were to claim "...may work on i486... but not directly supported..." or something of that nature and IF peeps were to actually read it, hopefully fewer bruised emotions would exist if something took place similar to the story above. (QEMU is not a viable testing grounds. Too many false-negatives. Teaching someone to source/compile/package an extension with zero or very little experience goes a bit beyond "supporting" Users.)
Example 2: We had a project handed to us during the COVID outbreak after Raspberry Pi boards became scalper fodder. The Client wanted us to replicate a Linux based operating system "stripped down to the bare basics" similar to the TCL concept but on a board that's NOT a RasPi and thus TCL doesn't work on it "as-is." We have a dozen or so of these boards in the archive as part of the project's overhead as we cannot possibly "support" something we cannot replicate.
@everyone: @curaga is correct; I may not have been clear. Our project is completely separate from Tiny Core Linux Version 15.x and older and may or may not even become Tiny Core Linux related -- this is determined by the existing Admins along with the voice of its Users. We are building this project almost-completely-from-scratch (no sense re-inventing the wheel in some instances!) using notes gathered over the past decade along with a few ounces of common sense based on Tiny Core's Users, posts made in the past couple years and deducting what could have made it possible for many of the support related posts to not have been needed in the first place. Even if our project does not become associated with the Tiny Core repository, Tiny Core will still benefit from it in the long run.
@gadget42: I think our oldest boxes also date around athlon/opteron and Core/Core2 eras, many of which are about to be retired along with a few containers of AGP/PCI/etc. cards some time this upcoming year.
ISO: How about a web page made up like a pizza ordering menu? You pick the kernel/busybox/core features and versions, add your pepperoni, sausage, etc. (extensions) and out pops an email with a download link to the final package? (This entire concept is still on the drawing/white-board as there are debates over complexity for the end user.) The reason for this starting is due to Raspberry Pi user requests over problems of Internet access and the lack of WiFi extensions not already being a part of the downloaded image and other similar problems arising where the boot image only fits, say, 85% of the general population and the other 15% are instant support tickets or told "try Big Brother Distro." (TCL extensions are cloud based; if the boot image cannot gain access to the repo, the experience stalls.)
Puppy (Noble): ISO = 361MB
DSL 2024 ISO = 1.1GB and 685MB
The argument above is Internet/bandwidth challenged Users being unable to obtain boot images of that size
Regardless, we'll see what the future has in store when we get there!
Which isn't that far away! It's New Year's Eve! (Here, at least!)
gadget42:
re @CentralWare pizza parlor idea
see: https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,24241.0.html
(core-user reports it doesn't work anymore)
https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,24241.msg167320.html#msg167320
also your favorite search engine for terms slitaz pizza cooker
it worked...til it didn't...haven't tried it lately...sigh...all things come and go...shrug
also, re DSL...i was specifically referring to the "old dsl" that had a 50MB target...
20241231-0556am-cst-usa-modified: added dsl note
GNUser:
Hi curaga and CentralWare. Thank you for the additional information. I hope any upcoming changes preserve key TCL concepts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version