General TC > General TC Talk

Could be [tiny]core improved?

<< < (2/10) > >>

GNUser:

--- Quote from: nick65go on November 20, 2024, 02:34:44 PM ---our goals and priorities are changing.

--- End quote ---
Not mine. And hopefully not TCL's ;D

1. Like ARM? Knock yourself out. See current ports here: http://repo.tinycorelinux.net/15.x/

2. curaga has spoken about libc in the recent past (search the forum). TCL considered musl but will stick with glibc for wider cross-distro compatibility.

3. curaga has also spoken about X in the past (ditto). TCL controls TinyX in case Xorg kicks the bucket. Wayland and a lot of nice wayland userland tools are already in the repo.

4. repo already has jwm and flwm. I prefer fluxbox and labwc but this is a matter of taste. If a WM arises that you like better than what's in the repos, just create an extension and submit it.

5. You can already create your ideal linux system using TCL and existing repo extensions.

6. netsurf is already in the repo. I prefer brave-browser, others prefer firefox, etc. TCL can accommodate all of this.

7. Nobody will force a user to use an app written in Rust. But I think if a user submits an app written in rust, Juanito will not reject it. TCL uses busybox init and last I checked with curaga, there are no plans to use systemd because it would add complexity without adding any tangible benefit to TCL.

I think TCL is in great shape for the present and the future. TCL bucks the trend of most other distros, which become increasingly complex over time.

nick65go:
Taken into account that TC focuses on compatibility to older CPU (ex:i486), but just partially (because firefox asks for better CPU),  plus not many users contributing back to TC, then is OK to take for free what someone can, and not be picky (like me?):

- X-org runs (by default) as user=root (it is bad!), allows key-press shared (= spy!) between apps.
- Some apps use different versions of the shared library (lib-poppler?).
- Some library written in rust (not C), like librsvg becoming 3x bigger in time.
- Security of packages checked by md5 (weeker than sha256), in year 2024.
- Only few apps use FLTK, the rest 99% as size/number of tcz from total repo, use GTK* or QT as GUI.

I mean ... I could continue the list, but the intention is not to criticize;
If someone wants to spend time to compile from source (for percevied security) there are other distros (Gento) which provide even the scripts for EACH package to do it (Archlinux, Alpine). There are not demanding distro (DSL, Puppy) for lower resources; for modern hardware are the big boys (Fedora, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian).

If the sources and instructions to compile them are for free everywhere, even the compiled binaries provided for free; standard linux kernels, standard linux file herarchy, file systems etc. The theory is known: busybox + run from RAM, mounting squashfs files.. done!

So what could be improved? maybe re-check/change the compresion algorithms or block size;
But as long as "compatibility" with low resources (unchanged for 10-20 years) is the goal, limitations of CPU/RAM/HDD of that era do not allow for too much improvement. Maybe tune-up here and there, for some better user confort.

Summary: OK GNUser, you are right, TC is good as it is now, for its intended audience.

mocore:

--- Quote from: LichenSymbiont on November 02, 2014, 02:15:31 PM ---So we have yet to establish a core upon which everything else can be built!
If we had it, I think it would explode in adoption and contributions, and we would see more interesting projects than useless new distros.

--- End quote ---

ftr fwiw
 from this comment https://github.com/raygard/wak/issues/7#issuecomment-2118782901 ( this issue gets my vote for issue with most interesting tangents)
i discovered  this
Bootstrappable, self-hosting POSIX shell  @ https://github.com/davidar/bootsh

... perhaps this or some derivative could meet the criteria of the above quote ?...

mocore:

--- Quote from: nick65go on November 20, 2024, 02:34:44 PM ---Necromancy of an old topic. Time is passing by and our goals and priorities are changing.

--- End quote ---

to answer the title , hypothetically of core's it can  ;)

and *arguably* has (since the date of the op )

future plans regarding libc implementation and init software @ https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,23835.msg149692.html#msg149692

Sources and Build Scripts x86/x64 @ https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,27205.0.html

 8)


Q)any other examples spring to mind?..

mocore:

--- Quote from: GNUser on November 20, 2024, 03:03:51 PM ---TCL bucks the trend of most other distros, which become increasingly complex over time.

--- End quote ---

could the core(scripts)  be made "more" modular without increasing complexity ?

eg could (any?) of the existing logic be reduced & moved to script-file or function , while keeping the same functionality of the core ?

and would there be any advantages and/or disadvantages to such an endeavour ?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page