User Feedback :: Moving Forward - What's Your Desire?



stoneguy: I started responding to individual parts of your post, but decided that would be more argumentative than useful (and was taking up too much time), so I'll just say this...
I disagree with practically everything you just said. =o)
Interesting analysis, Stoneguy.

I always been dead against losing the 50MB restriction, because (as I've said) that is what *defines* and has defiined dsl.  That is what creates the discipline in its design and motivates the preference for light, tiny apps.  Otherwise it just becomes dsl-n or another minidistro.  You might as well move to Vector or something.  It's no longer much to do with creditcard cds and hasn't been for a long time, that's just a remnant in its marketing.  It's to do with light and fast and small, and being able to do toram boots on 128MB ram.

This is why I like the dsl classic + dsl-n type of model: the latter loosens the restrictions and moves into gtk2 and fatter apps, but we don't lose the heart of dsl in classic dsl.  A modular approach would also be much more useful in dsl-n.

Quote
If your system falls into the newer group, I'm not sure why you want to runDSL. You folks can run any Linux you want. Why not one with glitz and glamour?


I run dsl all the time on a 1.87GHz Centrino 512MB ram as a toram boot.  Why?  Because it absolutely screams and I love speed!  And I like minimalist apps in the unix tradition.  A number of other users also use dsl on newish machines for the same reason.

For 'glitz and glamor' I barely tolerate Fedora, which has it all, and other distros in the recent past.  In terms of desktop responsiveness, KDE crawls along like a snail on valium.

PS: I also haven't voted because none of the options exactly match my desires.
Quote
I've finally euthanized my Pentium 133MMX 64MB system, so I doubt if I'll be lurking around these parts much any more. My current low-end system is a 400MHz Pentium with 384MB RAM. That's sufficient to run the Ubuntu family.


good riddance as far as i'm concerned. i like my dsl small and fast, and modular. scalability is the key.

torp
Quote (torp @ April 04 2007,15:37)
good riddance as far as i'm concerned. i like my dsl small and fast, and modular. scalability is the key.

I  couldn't agree more.  The more it looks like windows, the more bugs   , reboots, freezes, etc., etc.; exactly why I'm no longer using windows.

(OTH..I have no idea why someone would choose DSL to run a recording studio...)
i'm sure most of us don't agree with stoneguy's points, but then i just realized that some/most? of the users that stumble upon this site probably share the same view, stoneguy reflects a portion of pc users which other distros gladly target. i would like to think more users are looking the other way nowadays.

dsl is still 'different' enough to keep it's place. the mydsl modularity ensures that. maybe years ago, only us 'geeks' could appreciate that, but these days the popularity of the U3 software has taught more people that 'lean is mean'.

likewise, the 50mb limit is surely an attractor. sure you can store more on today's pen/usb drives, but everybody knows the more room you have left over, the better. you don't need to be a geek to know that.

seperating the apps from the base is actually a striking concept. to say to the the guy on the street that you can load this software by just placing it in this directory, or to load it only when you want to, and there is a repository of this stuff, and even if you get in a mess, you just have to reboot. This goes down well too.
Next Page...
original here.