Tiny Core Linux
Off-Topic => Off-Topic - Tiny Tux's Corner => Topic started by: tclfan on October 30, 2009, 02:50:36 PM
-
Now, when this fantastic project of creating and stabilizing TinyCoreLinux has been achieved, I would like to propose to developers and particularly to the TCL creator that a new project is started to parallel TCL: Architecture and build a Tiny Core BSD in a similar modular architecture as TCL. The added value would be a new dimension of OS freedom to be made available for practical use and to build upon using similar software modules as TCE/TCZ and have a pristine system free from system rot.
Is this feasible?
-
...
The added value would be a new dimension of OS freedom to be made available for practical use and to build upon using similar software modules as TCE/TCZ and have a pristine system free from system rot.
...
Would you be more specific? It sounds very marketing. What would be the benefits of such project not available in the TC/MC ecosystem?
If you ask TCL creators to start it, you ask to reduce resources can be spent on TC! If you like TC, do not ask it! For me it sounds a very bad idea. BTW, what is TCE?
On the other hand, for sure you can develop anything you want freely :) It is the beauty of LINUX and being opensource.
-
Thank you for first response. It could be a bad idea as you say. There is no doubt I like TCL a lot, particularly modularity and architecture. This was a fantastic idea and I think that at this point none other matches dexterity of concept and architecture. That is exactly why this idea should be extended to other systems and BSD is the first one that comes to my mind as the biggest impact after Linux.
The importance of this would be very significant IMHO. Let us consoder this: Linux is great as opensource, etc. The problem that developed over time is that it is terribly fragmented, poluted with garbage and most Linux became horibly bloated. Even TCL, fantastic as it is, it is among hundreds of distributions and it is hard for many to recognize it's due value... BSD would open another dimension for this architecture. Let us also consider the fact that TCL has matured at this point. New software will be ported, etc. and will be more and more usefull. TCL will continue to evolve but at this stage of maturity its evolution will be quantitative. Similar such earthshaking architectural chage could be brought to BSD and thanks to less fragmentation of the landscape and rock-solid kernel, security including, this might be of significant value for practical implementations.
-
For one thing, adobe flash doesn't work on BSD.
-
Tclfan, maybe you should look at minix.
-
Tclfan, maybe you should look at minix.
MINIX 3.1.3 was released friday, april 13th 2007. On 8 june 2007, 3.1.3a, containing some fixes to 3.1.3, was released. Seems that there are no development resources.
Same feeling with Kolibri.
You can throw away LINUX Kernel for example, but who will develop hardware drivers? You can also create higher levels to a certain level, without knowing anything about hardware layer. It can be a nice hobby. But to develop Kernel requires hugh amount of resources, including deep knowledge of hardware, protocols, etc. This is the issue. Or you can be happy with a working sw fits to your machine.
-
Tclfan, maybe you should look at minix.
MINIX 3.1.3 was released friday, april 13th 2007. On 8 june 2007, 3.1.3a, containing some fixes to 3.1.3, was released. Seems that there are no development resources.
Same feeling with Kolibri.
You can throw away LINUX Kernel for example, but who will develop hardware drivers? You can also create higher levels to a certain level, without knowing anything about hardware layer. It can be a nice hobby. But to develop Kernel requires hugh amount of resources, including deep knowledge of hardware, protocols, etc. This is the issue. Or you can be happy with a working sw fits to your machine.
I trust you have a good point. My raising this question was to ask whether it is feasible. If it not realistically feasible, then it cannot be accomplished.
My thinking is however that BSD kernel appears to be continually updated, considering some heavy use of BSD on the server side, utilities such like FreeNAS (Great NAS!), etc. Also if I remember, Apple is based on BSD? If this is correct there must be some significant recognition of BSD out there. In addition to recognition, BSD is focused, while Linux is extremely fragmented, which makes decisions adopting Linux for practical use quite difficult...
However if resurrecting BSD requires development of drivers, etc, then unfortunately this solid and secure OS might be as well considered dead for desktop use, which is another loss of good system...
-
The team, who are volunteers, are putting in a lot of time and effort developing Tiny Core.
You should appreciate what they are doing, not expect them to do more.
Maybe in the future more people will get involved.
If more people are involved, they may decide to develop Tiny Core in different ways.
What happens in the future remains to be seen. There are probably many other things which are higher priority than building Tiny Core for BSD. It is up to the people doing it.
Someone could develop Tiny Core for BSD if they wanted.
-
Disclaimer: I know little about Linux and less about BSD (just what I've seen from a quick glance at various BSD websites).
That said, my impression is that BSD distros already use the core + custom set of applications approach that TCL does. However, the BSD "core" piece is much larger and more tightly integrated than are the equivalent pieces in Linux. A small BSD equivalent of TCL may not be possible.
My opinion: BSD looks like it was developed by and for software engineers (just as Windows looks like it was developed by the marketing department for whoever they can sell it to). Linux (and TCL) looks like it was developed by people who want useful computers for other people who want useful computers.
Winner: Linux (and TCL).
-
IMHO a port of TCL to ARM would come before a fork to BSD
-
IMHO a port of TCL to ARM would come before a fork to BSD
Agree!
-
IMHO a port of TCL to ARM would come before a fork to BSD
Agree!
me too :)
-
Most ARM boards are flash based, and their boot loaders are not as easy to deal with.
I moved away from my NSLU2 developement to eBox and X86 because of this.
I would be more interested in seeing a fix for the SiS x86 boot issue on V2.x.
It does not appear to be related to the red herring apic warning everyone reports.
-
The next XO2 of OLPC will be an arm.
TC would be perfect for that type of machine!
(http://blog.makezine.com/First-Leaked-Picture-of-the-Next-Generation-XO-2-OLPC-Laptop-2.jpg) (http://www.olpcnews.com/laptops/xo2/)
I want as miniPC/ebookreader :o
-
agree too, i'd like to use tc/mc with my jornada 728, or a beagle board
-
Now, I hope we will see TCL on ARM devices as well. I myself have an ARM Pocket/PC, Windows Mobile based and would be excited to run the same using TCL instead of Windows...
Having said that, however:
1. Most of Pocket/PC devices nowadays are PDA phones. TCL for ARM would need to provide telephony function and easy to use.
2. Are we planning to re-flash the native OS in such phone/PDA with TCL firmware?
3. If we do ask our happy PDA/phone owners to re-flash their devides with TCL firmware, then we need to make sure all functions are easy to use: telephony, productivity, email, etc.
4. Various hardware integration challenges will need to be resolved. E.g. to make Skype sound come out of the phone speaker, not the PDA speaker, which is often on the other side...
If on the other hand the scope is not to implement such TCL on Phone/PDAs, then the target customer base appears to be quite limited...
No question, this is a very challenging and exciting project, in competition with Microsoft WindowsMobile and Android...