Tiny Core Base > TCB Tips & Tricks
Overlay initrd files using cat
gutmensch:
that's a question of design... you don't need a gui to use tce-load, microcore alone is enough, but tinycore should be usable by people without shell skills too. so an initial small desktop environment for tinycore is definitely better than leaving the (unexperienced) user with a prompt.
tinypoodle:
--- Quote from: hiro on January 19, 2011, 11:23:47 AM ---But beware, most people will want ahci, fat, ethernet card support in core...
--- End quote ---
Oh really?
Not recalling what 'ahci' would be, I had to look the term up.
I have never seen that module being loaded in TC, so I wonder, could there be any benefits of attempting to manually load it?
(By the way, current ethernet support in base is limited to NICs which don't require firmware.)
hiro:
--- Quote from: tinypoodle on January 20, 2011, 06:01:43 AM ---
--- Quote from: hiro on January 19, 2011, 11:23:47 AM ---But beware, most people will want ahci, fat, ethernet card support in core...
--- End quote ---
Oh really?
Not recalling what 'ahci' would be, I had to look the term up.
I have never seen that module being loaded in TC, so I wonder, could there be any benefits of attempting to manually load it?
(By the way, current ethernet support in base is limited to NICs which don't require firmware.)
--- End quote ---
You're right, it was a very bad guess :D
tinypoodle:
--- Quote from: jur on January 19, 2011, 05:38:09 PM ---I like what I read.
Extending this concept, perhaps all of the supported wms could become .gzs as well, not only flwm. Then you place your wm of choice in along with the other bits. So onboot could be obsoleted this way - anything onboot could be converted to gz.
Would such a process be faster than loading extensions onboot?
A base system script for converting onboot .tczs to .gz could do the job. This would eliminate the necessity of having two sets of extensions in the repo.
--- End quote ---
I couldn't see the benefits, and had actually in mind that the exact opposite, i.e. having as much as possible mounted in squashed .tcz's rather than to extract them from cpio.gz archives, such could save quite a bit of memory.
Also basically there already exists a method of 'copy to fs' to use .tcz extensions but leading to same result as when using cpio archives.
My expectation would be that for the same data to be gunzip'ed from cpio archives at boot time it might take significantly longer than for just mounting squashfs.
Influence on boot time might highly depend on hardware (CPU and storage medium).
hiro:
Why not just try it? I'll see if I have the time later today.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version