I have been evaluating several foundations and many with squashfs+lzma+unionfs and many still have many issues. Perhaps with a full size distro that is the way to go, or even wait until some of the issues are resolved.
initramfs is not something unique to Slitaz but has been developed in the 2.6 kernel. It has been very interesting to read the kernel development list as to why the change from initrd+ext2 to initramfs. If anyone wants the links I will post them. For a tiny core, as I have proposed, it seems quite suitable. Then with the addition of the DSL way, i.e., factoring out static (extensions) + fine grained backup/restore would seem also appropriate.
Also, the next version of DSL is not really targeted at old hardware. Old hardware does not change. We have DSL 3.x & DSL 4.x for such.
Newer hardware has way more memory than a tiny core + a few user selected additional application extensions would require.
I am going to go ahead with a prototype and see how it sails.
@lucky13: No, I haven't, yet. Cramfs differs with squashfs mainly in the compression level, which is lower and so better for older comps.Robert, Slitaz will not boot on my 64MB machine due to its trying to load into ram, where as Puppy 3.0.1 in live cd mode runs ok (without Seamonkey) and a homemade Linux Live cd will function in text mode even with it's built in overhead. I know your long standing position on making existing hardware useful, and so this is a stupid question. But will the new DSL try to run totally in ram or default to live cd mode? In live cd mode, a modern kernel with basic apps will run on a 64MB machine of course. That is a bit above the current DSL requirements, but sounds like a reasonable floor. But if it is time to move on period, then I respect that.
Slitaz will not boot on my 64MB machine due to its trying to load into ram
I think there's a lowram version as well iircSliTaz will not boot in Qemu with 128mb ram.. And the lowram version they talk about is something you must remaster yourself..Next Page...