should tcl's default mode change: how useful is cloud mode?

[Pats]

Personally I wasn't thinking of a basic set of apps, I also like the idea of a completely bare bones starting point. This is THE main reason I came to tcl. I HATE bloat.

Well said, sir !
But for a common user, bare bones also include apps like - file browser ( at least - mc ), and a web-b ( at-least - lynx ) and since all does not have Cable or a dedicated line to connect to Internet - so a tools to setup - USB dongles and Data Cables - so anybody can access net on TCL while on the move , if I am not expecting too much ! 

As far as - getting  persistence  - I think most of them can dafinately provide an HDD partition, since if  they are using other Linux Distros a saparate large partition is used any-way.
But the beuty of TCL is its min requirement - even a small 100MB HDD partition on hdd/usb stick is sufficient. And this can be provided thru boot codes - if possible.

And most imp - what if the user is not getting persistant link to connect to net due to any damn reason - and he want to do major work off-line ? Should he sit idle crossing his hands ?

Hope I am not too loud !

~ Pats

[roberts]

If you are currently using a Linux partition you do not even need to make a partition for Tiny Core.

Tiny Core resides peacefully embedded in an existing Linux partition! In fact, you can place, bzImage, tinycore.gz in the default tce directory thereby the kernel, tinycore, your backup, and all downloaded extensions are in a single directory that you did not even have to create (see below)!. Even using persistent home, will in fact co-exist with an existing Linux home directory same for persistent opt.

I really don't see what is so hard or difficult to use the one time boot code of say, tce=had2 to have your extensions stored to hard drive thus providing persistence. You don't even need to make the directory!

Walk before you run. Cloud mode -> tce=hda2 -> then move on to other forms of persistency and only if needed!

As fas a full CD goes, here is our responce:

1. How could we ever decide what to include. The very nature of Tiny Core is not to make such decisions.

2. Who would support it. This is especially true relating to issues of connectivity. Tiny Core is a rolling distribution. As soon as a CD would be cut, it would be out of date as many components are updated frequently in the repository.

3. It discourages user from exploring the "Core Way" Really. How hard is it to add for example, tce=hda2 to your boot options? And such boot option is only needed one time!

4. Additionally such CD would still not work for systems requiring firmware or other non-redistributables.

5. And finally, there is a paradigm shift starting in the way we use computers. The "Windows User Interface" is starting to grow whiskers. Tiny Core is different. Tiny Core is the renaissance of "small is beautiful" while embracing the paradigm shift to alternate ways to use an operating system..

Tiny Core really requires little effort for much flexibility. It only requires an open mind to new ways to use an operating system. Tiny Core is not "Not Your Father's Operating System".

[jur]

I really don't see what is so hard or difficult to use the one time boot code of say, tce=had2

Indeed it seems ridiculously easy. And once you know about boot codes, it is.

However, I didn't know what boot codes were. I didn't know where to put them. All I saw was a cryptic instruction of 'tinycore tce=....' I didn't know where this would be typed (somewhere during boot?) but having used unetbootin I never got the opprtunity... So to be able to use tc I had to really search hard and even that wasn't enough as most of the stuff I encountered here was still cryptic.

You have to see this from a Windows refugee point of view. I was in search of a quick boot, to untie myself from the HDD, to say goodbye to bloat, to have a responsive OS (Windows is slowed down by virus checker and system deterioration), free sw and so on. My route to TC was ubuntu, xubuntu, puppylinux, TC, with slax and slitaz and others featuring as well. But the first time I found TC didn't make me stay - I was simply not ready for it. It assumed too much background knowledge. Puppylinux really excels here - it is easily the most helpful OS around. Slax is also amazingly well polished at first look but unfortunately it's a one man band and I am not sure about the longevity.

In fact longevity is probably my single biggest problem with linux in general.

[roberts]

I cannot believe that reading http://www.tinycorelinux.com/concepts.html is hard to find or difficult to understand.

Near the beginning of Core Concepts...

The Second Mode of Operation: TCE/Install
The second mode of operation is the use of the boot option tce=hdXY...

Is also not hard to find.

But....
If you need a Windows like-a-like, operate-a-like, then there are many, many , IMHO, too many Linux distributions that swim in  that sea of sameness.

If you need an OS that runs everything as root, so you don't have to learn *nix then there are those too.

If the goal of this thread is make Core siwm there as well, then sorry. Really not interested in being a me too.

With Android, Chrome OS and several other OS that don't look like or operate like Windows is refreshing to see.

Be bold. Be different.

[jur]

The goal is not to have a swim-there-as-well. On the contrary - I am here because I hate window$.

No, the goal is to ease the use of tc for rank beginners. A short paragraph explaining what boot codes are, and where to actually insert them, would be a step in the right direction.

I cannot believe that reading http://www.tinycorelinux.com/concepts.html is hard to find or difficult to understand.

I am an EE (and therefore hopefully not a complete idiot) and I found it completely cryptic. I had to read over it many times and do a lot of googling and reading before it started to make sense to me.

[roberts]

So now we have gone from "making a full CD distro" of out tiny core to

Indeed it seems ridiculously easy. And once you know about boot codes, it is.

And now complaining about documentation. Well that is what the Wiki is for.
The Wiki is user documentation for users by users, i.e., from a user's perspective.

I stay out of the way. I find it amusing that some say developers are too lazy to write documentation, yet when we do, we get this.

So contribute. The Wiki is waiting.

[jur]

Not sure what you're on about... I never suggested a 'full CD' or anything of the sort, quite the opposite. I really like TC the way it is. I am merely putting forward  suggestions that might make it easier for rank beginners to use, from a beginner's perspective. I can't see why that is so objectionable. That's not complaining at all, it's called constructive criticism.

It wouldn't affect the distro at all, and it would be quite a small addition to the 'core concepts' page. I would write it but only you have access to the 'core concepts' page which is the proper place for it to be since that is where it is mentioned several times. At least a link to a proper explanation in the wiki could be provided.

[roberts]

I guess we are not reading the same thread. You keep comparing Tiny Core to complete turnkey desktops. Several times, It is in this thread. So I don't understand you. I cannot follow.

I can take crisitism. But to imply that the concept is too dificult or needs to be changed to accomodate neophytes or needs to be like  turnkey desktops, well its not.

This thread has not been about documentation.

I cannot make it easier to deploy. You also said this earlier in this very thread:

Indeed it seems ridiculously easy. And once you know about boot codes, it is.

Linux boot codes is not unique to Tiny Core.

But if one were starting with a new distro, one would think that that it might be helpful to peruse the FAQ
http://www.tinycorelinux.com/faq.html#bootcodes

BTW, You don't need access to modify the webiste to make suggestions.

Was the title you chose for this tread, "what is a bootcode?" or perhaps, "bootcodes and where, when, and how to use them". No look at the title you chose.

I am done.

[thane]

Well, several people have posted on this thread. Jur's posts were about making persistence easier to understand and implement for new users (which based on my experience is a legitimate concern). A few ideas besides just documentation changes were kicked around, but none that would alter TCL's main concepts.

Other posters suggested providing an ISO that includes a "basic" set of apps, which is a separate issue.

Nobody suggested making TCL "more like Windows". I think everyone here probably used/uses Windows, and if we thought it was all that great we wouldn't have explored other distros at all. Particularly TCL, which is almost a polar opposite .

I agree that persistence is easy once you know how to get it. I did read the core concepts when I started and it still took a few attempts.

[jur]

Unfortunately it seems that robert misunderstands my intent quite a bit...  but I'm not going to further degenerate this thread because of misunderstandings... its intent was to suggest ways to make it easier for neophytes to handle because there is a certain amount of assumed background knowledge in the various FAQs... so unfortunately to the neophyte, these aren't actually very helpful. If you explained concepts in tech terms which themselves require explanation, then that explanation is wasted. The very fact that despite all the info, there are still regular questions on how to achieve persistence, should be an indicator. If it was abundantly clear, then obviously those questions would be fewer.

Anyway Robert, I am not ungrateful... so I made a contribution to the wiki on boot codes and want to express my thanks for tc. Hopefully you will appreciate that while you have lots of linux fu, you do lack some teacher fu.