WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: Could be [tiny]core improved?  (Read 6104 times)

Offline CNK

  • Wiki Author
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 306
Re: Could be [tiny]core improved?
« Reply #30 on: December 31, 2024, 08:48:06 PM »
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.
@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.

But once they've leant shell scripts, or picked TCL in the first place because they do already understand its shell scripts, they don't have the burden of things changing completely. Like PiCore introducing Python scripts as well.

"...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

Since I became aware of that I have been aiming to test a beta version on my 486 before the stable release (not that I can guarantee to always have the time to do so before the stable release is done).

Other distros say unsupported to mean changing the compiler target architecture to a later minimum version, so it absolutely can't run on earlier CPUs. If it's just an issue with documentation, then I don't have a problem.

Online CentralWare

  • Retired Admins
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
Re: Could be [tiny]core improved?
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2025, 04:21:16 AM »
@CNK: In my opinion, there's no sense for anyone to do away with an entire platform just to...  what...  save a few bytes in the kernel?  For as long as Kernel Foundation maintains value in 486-land, we're good...  just not trying to be overwhelmingly supportive of those antiques if we have no means to replicate user issues.

piCore introducing Python...  I'm going to make an educated guess that if the core is being written partially in Python it's likely due to whom ever wrote them most likely feels more familiar with Python than Ash, Bash, etc. to accomplish a given task.  ME, personally, I try to avoid building something that requires installing additional software (none of our Pi or Pi-Like boards have Python installed by default - or any other translator for that matter) and in some cases we'll rewrite a PY script as a shell script if it's reasonably easy to follow just to avoid installing third party apps.

@gadget42:
Quote
also, re DSL...i was specifically referring to the "old dsl" that had a 50MB target...
I know. :)

Slitaz Pizza Cooker: Cute!  Still doesn't work, though.



Offline mocore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • ~.~
Re: Could be [tiny]core improved?
« Reply #32 on: January 01, 2025, 04:27:17 AM »
piCore introducing Python...

afair ... it's micro python
BTW: piCore comes with microPython installed. It is used during the boot process to load extensions I believe!

Offline mocore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • ~.~
"a wafer-thin mint?"
« Reply #33 on: January 01, 2025, 11:49:04 AM »
yes!
care to try ... "executable autocompleteable "tcz.info" extension files " https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,27469.0.html
?

...  It's only wafer thin.!

Offline Rich

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11725
Re: Could be [tiny]core improved?
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2025, 01:18:27 PM »
Hi neonix
There should be few variants of Tiny Core.

* Micro Core with minimum 2 or more files.
* Tiny Core with only 2 files + mc + Dillo web browser 8MB (easy to boot through iPXE, PXE, pendrive)
- Xvesa variant with menu in boot loader 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768
- Xfbdev variant with menu in boot loader 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768
- Xorg variant (vesa)
- Xorg variant (autoconfig with dedicated driver)
* Core Plus iso with modern web browser + audio support + codecs
* TC recovery with only 2 files + Xvesa 32bit + Xfbdev 64bit + mc + gparted + testdisk + ddrescue + ntfs
* TC server with only 2 files (LiveCD with all files in RAM) configuration only by bootcodes or cloud configuration file
Sure, we could could try to be all things to all people.

Or we could stick with the original philosophy:
Tiny Core is not a turnkey distribution. It is very different than most Linux distributions.

It is a minimal GUI environment that allows users to easily pick and choose their desired applications. ...

Online CentralWare

  • Retired Admins
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
Re: Could be [tiny]core improved?
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2025, 03:41:59 PM »
>Sure, we could could try to be all things to all people.
>Or we could stick with the original philosophy.
How about a compromise?

How about we create hard-coded releases that simply ensure the majority of the masses can
1) Boot tinyCore, piCore and/or dCore
2) Gain access to the network/internet
3a) have a bare minimum desktop (save for (micro)Core)
3b) have SSH embedded for headless scenarios

@neonix: If the above were true, which it already is for most x86/x64 users, you can build your custom flavor somewhat easily using the extension manager.  Tiny Core Linux was originally developed to act like LEGOs.  We GIVE you that big flat piece (kernel/core/basic necessities) and you as the end-user build onto that foundation one brick (extension) at a time.  This way, you're always assured that ONLY the things you've chosen are installed - no fluff, no bloat.

@admins: A few basic "Meta" extensions could also come in handy in creating a FEW starting environments.  (ie: Update TC.tcz, if necessary, to give the user a "basic" desktop in each of the platforms, create another for a generic Xorg based desktop, etc.)  For ISO files, I'd recommend the list above -- just make sure we can BOOT, get ONLINE*, have INSTALL capabilities and preferably, which would be a huge time-saver for slightly more advanced users, allow a selection between ext/syslinux versus grub2.  For users such as @neonix possibly a single Go To Meta Extension that contains GUI files, a mid-sized browser, typical alsa items, network and hard drive utilities, etc. WITH a notice that it's intended as a starting point, but not guaranteed to work in every possible environment.

For x86 and x86_64 ISO images - it would be very worthwhile to have an image suited with ALL firmware/driver modules that are HARDWARE related which would apply to or otherwise affect the above list.  (For example, we have an Intel motherboard which has ETHERNET which requires titan, mdadm and ipv6 drivers and STORAGE which oddly requires i2c - an install is impossible using the basic ISO files as we cannot get online to download drivers.  I've created a special set of boot flash drives which contain the entire firmware/driver module set, but that's only after being faced with a lot of oddities that forced their creation.  For general users...  they'd be lost trying to figure out what's missing and for admins...  that's hours and hours of support posts that potentially would no longer exist.  (Yes, we also have USB dongles for scenarios for unforeseen install situations - but having an ISO that supports as much hardware as possible would be a God-send.)

* Isn't there a text based database of hardware IDs somewhere (at kernel.org I'm guessing) which I'm guessing we could use lspci/lsusb/etc. to get a list of detected hardware and cross reference it with kernel.org and determine which hardware modules are needed for said items?  This way were're only loading module TCZ files we actually may need.

Offline CNK

  • Wiki Author
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 306
Re: Could be [tiny]core improved?
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2025, 05:07:25 PM »
* Isn't there a text based database of hardware IDs somewhere (at kernel.org I'm guessing) which I'm guessing we could use lspci/lsusb/etc. to get a list of detected hardware and cross reference it with kernel.org and determine which hardware modules are needed for said items?  This way were're only loading module TCZ files we actually may need.

The PCI ID DB is here. This is the USB version. Matching device models to drivers might be trickier because I think that info is generally built into each driver.

Online CentralWare

  • Retired Admins
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
Re: Could be [tiny]core improved?
« Reply #37 on: Today at 12:53:03 AM »
Matching device models to drivers might be trickier because I think that info is generally built into each driver.

Eh...  t'was wishfull thinking! :)

EDIT: My above post regarding Intel:Titan motherboard...  "mdadm" wasn't for Ether - was for storage, of course.  Read the notes wrong!  (...and didn't allow the brain to process what I was typing)