Tiny Core Base > TCB Tips & Tricks

HD install for special purpose.

<< < (3/8) > >>

roberts:
Let me be clear that the development efforts for TC is not solely for older hardware.
TC has been mischaracterized on Distrowatch and now several posts by various members here.

Older hardware of said class( 200Mhz)  is not very capable in running much of any of the newer software.
There are existing distributions Deli and DSL that support older hardware very well.

While I am not discouraging TC's use on any target hardware, I am certainly not targeting such for TC development.

Many of the same "issues" that I faced while at DSL. Stretching the distribution to accommodate an ever wider spectrum of older and the newest hardware.

tobiaus:

--- Quote from: roberts on December 28, 2008, 11:44:26 AM ---There are existing distributions Deli and DSL that support older hardware very well.
--- End quote ---

although deli is not available as a livecd, which means i am unable to use it, and unless john andrews changes his mind, (perhaps?) i believe dsl will not be the option for old hardware it used to be. though that remains to be seen. if i misunderstood the reasons for tc being so small, then i will try not to further the misunderstanding in the future- thanks for clarifying.

roberts:
I think TC covers the hardware spectrum very well.
Booting TC and selecting only gtk1 apps is a viable option of older computers.

But the focus of TC is not to only support old hardware.

This discussion started by the posting of a traditional hard drive installation method not about boot from live cd.
.
TC does not offer full package management to support a traditional hard drive installation. hundreds of distribution offer that.

I suppose because of lack of documentation and the traditional conservative mindset, confusion abounds. But then we have just begun.

I don't want to see my efforts be made the focus of only supporting old hardware. If that were the case I would not have begun. I find the arguments interesting. Old hardware is old. That is it is not changing and typically unable to run newer software, hence, our offering of gtk1 apps. But back to my point if you have old hardware and wish to run the programs of its era, then why wouldn't a polished older 2.4 distribution be your solution? Trying to run the newest program on old hardware does not make sense to me. You can only put some many potatoes in a 10 lb sack.

TC is about a new concept, not about targeting a particular era of hardware.

Now I feel like I am repeating myself, oh well, might as well

--- Quote ---While I am not discouraging TC's use on any target hardware, I am certainly not targeting such for TC development.
--- End quote ---

tobiaus:
i get what you're saying. i've said it before and i'll say it again, and without any disrespect to other parties intended, i think the best thing that ever happened to dsl is that you joined the project. and, i think the other best thing that ever happened to dsl is that you left and created tc.

i believe tc is much closer to what i wanted of dsl than even dsl was, but, dsl was my favorite distro at the time you were working on it. naturally, there is part of my thinking that thinks "dsl" whenever i try to guess what you're doing, and i'm not the only person that's going to repeatedly make that mistake.

tc is not dsl, but it is reminiscent enough that someday it might be worth explaining the differences. but since as you said, it's only just begun, we might all figure out more as we see more of tc. because of its size, upgrading by blanking the cdrw and writing the new iso is incredibly quick and easy.

as for older hardware, there is one very obvious and deliberate way that (much) "older hardware" will never be as supported as it was. the 2.6 kernel will never support as much "old hardware" as 2.6 will. in the past i've been against 2.6, but mostly because of an issue that has not presented a problem in tc, or in the larger more "conventional" distros. other than that issue, i like 2.6, a lot.

JohnJS:
Tried the codes below exactly as written but get error 15 no such file ....
(am trying to dual boot with dsl4.4.10)
What am I doing incorrectly?. The two files are in my hda3 partition.


--- Quote from: roberts on December 28, 2008, 09:14:34 AM ---The pristine boot that I have championed for five years during my involvement with DSL, is what I am still an ardent proponent. You don't need to be booting from cdrom to achieve it. Instead my recommended method to "install to hard drive" is frugal. That is copying two files bzImage and tinycore.gz to any partition of your hard drive and point your bootloader to it. I recommend using grub for easy editing of additional boot time options.

On my developement machine I have grub set to boot TC in all the various operating modes:


--- Code: ---title Tiny Core on hda3 (tce=hda3/tcZ restore=hda3/tc_backup nolocal)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet restore=hda3/tc_backup tz=US/Pacific settime nolocal tce=hda3/tcZ
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tce=hda3/tcE restore=hda3/tc_backup nolocal)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet restore=hda3/tc_backup tz=US/Pacific settime nolocal tce=hda3/tcE
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tclocal=hda1 restore=hda1)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet  tclocal=hda1 restore=hda1 tz=US/Pacific settime
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (base norestore nolocal xsetup)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet tz=US/Pacific base norestore nolocal xsetup
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

--- End code ---

--- End quote ---

[^thehatsrule^: fixed post]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page