Tiny Core Base > TCB Talk
MicroCore, Anyone?
curaga:
The GUI that netzen described would be pretty easily doable. Rather hard in windows, of course, as that OS is not able to loop-mount images natively, but for them, there could just be a zip with the current contents. And a binary of mkisofs.
Essentially, it would be a GUI to unpack the iso, then a frontend / caller for appbrowser to download all desired extensions to a directory named "tce" in the root of the to-be-iso, and then a caller to mkisofs with a progress bar.
Or, it would only present a graphical form of some rather easy command line tasks.
While I'm not sure I'd like to see all kinds of Windows users then coming to ask what an ISO image is, I'm not completely against such a gui either. In my own opinion it's not important enough for me to do, but if someone does, I'll support them.
tobiaus:
--- Quote from: jpeters on March 30, 2009, 11:56:17 AM ---How long does it take to do a tc remaster?
--- End quote ---
depends on how much one has to learn. tinycore is based on the idea of: build it your own way without remastering (mydsl was too.) the best argument for any core apps is that most people do not want so much customization that they have to organize what goes into the absolute base install. (plus you need something like wget.) it takes more time and knowledge to remove a web browser and remaster than to add it- it's might be worth making remastering as easy as adding applications, where possible.
i don't think someone should ever need to remaster (or go to the trouble of setting up persistence) before having a friendly gui, i would prefer that all the gui stuff be shoved into an extension, and the extension be included in the iso, outside tinycore.gz
then you could have a bootcode that didn't use the extension... remembering that tc doesn't load the entire iso into memory, just tinycore.gz and any extensions that it finds. when someone new is setting up tc for the first time, i want them to have a gui, regardless of whether they're online yet or not. you're almost certainly thinking of what it's like to use tc after you're familiar, after you're online. i'm thinking of what it's like for someone who's never seen linux before. i want tc to continue make a first impression that isn't text-only. but if the gui was an extension, making two isos for download would be trivial.
oldtimer:
--- Quote from: tobiaus on March 30, 2009, 06:08:13 PM ---then you could have a bootcode that didn't use the extension...
--- End quote ---
Yes. How about 'Secure GUI Terminal'. Tiny Core might one day be both the most minuscule and maximal distro.
It would also up the ante for ultimate bragging rights and benefit antique PC owners. Then again, they are already giddy.
The most practical application (my fantasy) will be on my NanoNetBook; a bootable wrist watch, that wirelessly connects to: the internet via satellite, my sun-glasses (the monitor!) and the paper-thin touchpad/keyboard which is unrolled from its pencil-sized container and placed on my beach-side drink table.
Don't laugh. It will happen.
jpeters:
Why is that alcohol never goes out of fashion?
oldtimer:
Ha. Well, that was MY fantasy.
Regarding Robert's reality check comments, what change do you think would give the most bang-for-the-buck to increasing general user popularity?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version