Tiny Core Base > Release Candidate Testing
tinycore_v2.8rc1
bigpcman:
--- Quote from: bmarkus on January 05, 2010, 05:38:30 AM ---
--- Quote from: roberts on January 04, 2010, 04:19:42 PM ---
* Dropped GNU ftp from base.
--- End quote ---
It is true, that ftp is not really needed in the base, however there are some basic tools what is expected to be in all LINUX distribution, like telnet, ping, ... In TC most of them are provided by busybox and I don't think ftp with its 62k is harming too much.
What is about dropbearmulti? It is double sized compared to ftp and for sure SSH is not used by most of the users.
--- End quote ---
I strongly disagree regarding dropbear. I use it all the time for remote access to my MC based web server. I agree with removing ftp. I use proftp when I need it but now mostly use vpn access to the local net and then use samba for file sharing.
[^thehatsrule^: fixed post]
bmarkus:
I did not say dropbear is useless neither that nobody is using. Just asked what is about to move it out to extension, that's all. It would make also easier to use alternative ssh clients or servers.
bigpcman:
--- Quote from: bmarkus on January 05, 2010, 08:39:00 AM ---I did not say dropbear is useless neither that nobody is using. Just asked what is about to move it out to extension, that's all. It would make also easier to use alternative ssh clients or servers.
--- End quote ---
OK, I see your point.
alu:
i also see the point regarding ftp; it is not essential to have it in the base; i have found that dropbear behave better than the current openssh.tcz extension which seems to have critical issues; openssh lets you login as root (i find this feature very risky), does not seem to handel private/public keys correctly (you can still connect with password), and does not seem to catch the modifications you enter in your sshd_config file; dropbear behave as expected, and you can run sshfs and sftp with some tricks
Machete:
--- Quote from: roberts on January 04, 2010, 04:49:48 PM ---
--- Code: ---Robert, just out of curiosity, what did you discover was wrong with the previous attempt to use the upx'ed kernel ?
--- End code ---
At the time, I did not have much in the way of equipment and virtual machines to test it, so I dropped it.
Since then the entire Team has been testing on various devices, isolinux, cdroms, virtual machines and could not get a failure. So perhaps the issue is directly related to specific hardware or BIOS. Therefore, as a Team decision, we decided to use the smaller kernel while offering the un-upxed version in the distrubtion file area.
--- End quote ---
Have they tried it in a plain VirtualBox "Live" session, just creating a virtual machine with all the defaults, except no hard drive? Every time I've tried it with these UPX'd kernels, just booting off the raw .iso, I get the same message from ACPI: "Unable to load the System Description Tables". Seems like the UPX'd kernels were giving some people running on real systems a headache, too.
If we're going for size and compatibility, I'd say we seem to be better off with a non-UPX'd kernel, rather than a compressed one.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version