LJ tested the installer

[curaga]

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/tiny-core-linux-36-adds-gui-installer

[roberts]

And now I have been convinced to remove the installer from 3.7. 

[gerald_clark]

I really don't see why you need two ISO files.
Why don't you put both tinycore and microcore along with the prepacks on one CD.
Add isolinux.cfg entries for tinycore and microcore with and without the installer prepack.
Adding a boot menu would also be nice.


It is not the size of the CD that matters as much as the size of the installed system.

[roberts]

You make a very compelling case. Especially now that I am deploying starter packs.

[curaga]

If the distribution_files stay available for those who want small size, sounds good to me.

[roberts]

Yes. Distribution files would remain available as well as the starter pack download area.
The current download starter pack + "Load Starter Pack" would still be needed for those without access to CD drive. Those with a CD drive would benefit from a multi function single TinyCore/MicroCore/StarterPacks menu CD as Gerald has suggested.

[maro]

I hope it is not planned to stop publishing the TC (and MC) ISO images but rather add another "sibling".

It would really hurt my argument of "look how much you could already get out of a 11 MBytes distro" if the "combo" ISO would become "the only game in town". I reckon the effort of running a script to create and publish three ISOs (instead of two) should not make it to hard.

[jur]

I completely fail to appreciate why the LJ test would want to make you remove the GUI from 3.7? I could not see any negative aspect, merely the encouragement that on the whole, TC is moving in the right direction.

[roberts]

It was not the LJ article that I was referring. See the change log for 3.7rc2. The decision was based on feedback from community and team based on the following:

1. That being since one cannot perform an installation without needing other extensions
2.  Such is typically a one time event.
3.  Combined with the fact that the entirety of the base defaults to being ram loaded.

It was decided to move the installer to the starter pack install-tools.gz

The LJ article actually makes me question the decision to move the installer to a starter pack. It is a decision that I have been struggling with for some time. I suppose having a coreplus.iso for those with a CD drive and the loadpack for those without will suffice.

It was nice to see the LJ article notice my efforts to continue to improve Tiny Core.

Now that I am also trying to support NTFS installs, the starter pack concept perhaps is the best way.

[bmarkus]

Now there is an article in DistroWatch's weekly review:

"Finally, a link to an interesting article about Tiny Core Linux, the world's smallest graphical Linux distribution. As Michael Reed notes in Linux Journal, the latest version of this mini-distribution that fits into an 11 MB ISO image, now offers a graphical system installer"

See full article at http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20110530#news