TC 8 already :)

[nitram]

Greetings, heard Juanito is already working on TC8, just got TC7 running nice

Will there be an input thread for suggestions or wishlist items before release or should i post some items here? Something i expressed to Jason earlier also holds true for TC base, if the volunteer developers are burning out maybe a longer period between major releases would be beneficial. I would rather see TC around in 10 years than the main players burn out and leave. Some users are cutting edge, personally a new release every 3 years or so would be good enough.

[Misalf]

Well, I'm looking forward to an updated graphics stack, or whatever might fix the broken i945 drivers /dri issues. So a new release would be preferable for me rather than going back to 6.x. Other than that, if things just work, I don't care about the version number.
I personally don't use cutting edge hardware so I don't require the newest kernel, but there might be users that do. Core advertises itself to use a recent kernel, so the period new versions are shipped wouldn't be expected to take too long by many, I suppose.

[aw]

I rely on TC for business reasons, and will be more than happy to help alleviate some of the workload.

We have access to some pretty beefy servers which can be used for building/compiling stuff.

I think the biggest concern regarding slower releases is the lack of security updates. With each TC release, we're relieved that at least some old local security vulnerabilities are patched, but new ones always surface eventually. I would be fine with a slower major release cycle if minor updates were more frequent (ex: monthly or quarterly).

[curaga]

If you need timely security updates, it would be best to use a distro that offers paid support, such as RHEL.

[hiro]

Well, I'm looking forward to an updated graphics stack, or whatever might fix the broken i945 drivers /dri issues.

Then compile your own kernel, that's no good reason to upgrade *everything*

As this is already in the "talk" section i can tell some nice upgrade story:

In order to upgrade my tinycorelinux router (just routes stuff through some secure tunnel to a server with fixed IPv4 address which will NAT everything and put it into the real internet) from tc4 to tc7 I recently copied the mydata.tgz and the onboot.lst to a vm on an other machine running the latest iso. There i tried to install the same packages (had to drop some or rename some package names that had changed in the meantime). When these steps were successful I created a second tunnel to the actual NAT router and did a manual live failover by unplugging the cable to the old router, deleting it's return route from the NAT router and adding the router ip to the new machine. When I saw that everything is still working and all TCP connections have indeed recovered I copied the tce dir back to the original machine, rebooted the machine and plugged out the new, plugged in the old router.

All in all it was way too easy, I had expected some bigger complication to arise from the upgrade, like normally is the case on all those ubuntus. Considering this I actually wasted a lot of time, just to prepare for the worst, but which didn't happen. I blame tinycore.

[Juanito]

I'd be interested to know in what kernel version this bug is definitively fixed since there seems to be some confusion over the issue.

[pq5190362]

Question:

Why do you even  continue developing Tiny Core Linux?

Wouldn't it make more sense to shift all the manpower over to dCore instead?

AFAICT, dCore would also alleviate those update issues, since dCore can make use of the huge Debian/Ubuntu repositories, so one wouldn't have to rely on Juanito etc. only to compile new software (no offense, just saying).

[bmarkus]

Question:

Why do you even  continue developing Tiny Core Linux?

Wouldn't it make more sense to shift all the manpower over to dCore instead?

AFAICT, dCore would also alleviate those update issues, since dCore can make use of the huge Debian/Ubuntu repositories, so one wouldn't have to rely on Juanito etc. only to compile new software (no offense, just saying).

And next step to kill dCore and close site, forum saying why to waste time for dCore when there are so many other systems and even TC is not developed anymore.

[pq5190362]

Let me quote @roberts:

Not sure of your position... But I see it as another advantage.
It is quite simple to import versus asking and waiting for a community member to recompile for relocation on current native Core, unless, perhaps, you are the type that perfers to compile everything.

Also on native Core to implement a security upgrade not only depends on a community member being available, it may also lead to breakage. 

This versus the vast community of Debian developers who maintain Debian.

 

[nitram]

Hi pq5190362. TC and dCore are uniquely different, to say one is better than the other would not be accurate. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Better question, why are there 8 replies and nobody responded to my original question
...just joking, will add my 2-bits later.

[pq5190362]

Better question, why are there 8 replies and nobody responded to my original question

You had expressed your concerns about main developers possibly burning out and leaving.

They're probably less likely to burn out if they wouldn't have to compile every single package themselves and instead would focus on dCore and re-use the packages from Debian/Ubuntu instead of compiling them themselves, right?

[aw]

If you need timely security updates, it would be best to use a distro that offers paid support, such as RHEL.

Curaga,

I offered to help and support TinyCore, why would you push me to another distro? Perhaps you read my comment as a complaint, but it was meant as a suggestion for improvement with which I can definitely help.

[hiro]

I've been running old versions of tinycorelinux for long times without any security problems.
Yes, tinycorelinux itself doesn't promise you anything regarding security, but you can create your own levels of security if you know what you're doing.

aw: there is no security, all you will get is liabilities. if that's what you need get rhel.

[ulfr]

  just want to thank everyone for making and maintaining both tinycore and dcore
  both have their advantages
  and both are masterpieces
  i use them both and merge them
  make tcz/sce that work on both
  turn sce into tcz so that you can download it from debian and use it in tinycore
  use the same home and tce folders for both tinycore and dcore
  working on adding boot codes and merging tc-config to let you choose your script path 
  so that i can merge the cores
  anyway great fun

  thanks again
  and please don't burn out
  i hope you know what a great gem you guys have here

  ulfr
 
 

[Misalf]

Well, I'm looking forward to an updated graphics stack, or whatever might fix the broken i945 drivers /dri issues.

Then compile your own kernel, that's no good reason to upgrade *everything*

I think it is, as I want to be able to submit extensions. If it would only be the kernel then I could still do so. But if possible fixes would be X related, that would be a potential incompatibility concern for me which I cba of due to lack of expertise.