@xor: Is it going the wrong "way" -- not really.
Is that way antiquated?
Maybe a little.
Bare in mind, Tiny Core Linux / DSL was spawned back in the day when the general public DID NOT have computers in their pockets, when a USED 80486 computer was still astronomically priced compared to today's machines, back when RAM was still a commodity due to natural disasters overseas (and "under" seas) but most importantly, the general PEOPLE were still clueless for the most part and WinXX was their tool of choice to break in the new age. DSL/TCL was visualized because people wanted to take USED machines and give them NEW life.
Now, in the past couple of decades things have progressed, become cheaper (price AND quality), more portable, etc. Tiny Core Linux is still leaning toward the 486/586 days mentally, though.
Is a CLEAN, LEAN, RIPPED operating system a good thing? Of course it is.
Does it have to be byte-counted? Probably not as much as it is currently, but to do anything different would open debates that can't be resolved as someone out there is going to ask "how much is too much?"
Hard drive storage, Flash storage and RAM are a fraction of the cost they were when DSL (2005) and TCL (2009) were launched so there's room to wiggle unless you're trying to resurrect a 486dx and turn it into a kiosk or something... a feat to have fun doing, no doubt, but for day to day use... not the wisest path to take if you have other means.
Does it have to have CURRENT kernel releases? Most definitely.
You have to understand, the KERNEL isn't just basic functionality and foundation... it's HARDWARE SUPPORT.
The newer the hardware, the newer the kernel. Period.
If you have older hardware, you can get away with an older kernel.
Should Tiny Core offer multiple kernels?
Technically, it already does. Pick a TCL version from 5.x to the recent 15.x release - you have plenty to choose from!
Now, if we were to keep EXTENSIONS in each of those versions up to date... THAT would be a feat!
A very unlikely one, though, as some extensions depend on kernel content so the extension cannot be any "newer" than the kernel without it potentially breaking.
It's a blissful thought, though!
You have a valid question, but it's not really an opinion based topic in need of a vote.
Tiny Core doesn't have to be "as tiny" as it is - but I do like the methodology behind it.
Tiny Core doesn't HAVE to be as "new" (kernel) as it is... but if it weren't, it wouldn't support things like USB3.x, the latest graphics cards, the latest CPUs, etc. so it would become an operating system that ONLY supports OLD hardware...
Poll
Welcome
FAQ
Downloads
Wiki
