Jack Johnson wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 11:13 AM, Matt Grice <mcjgrice@???> wrote:
>
>> There's a potential problem here - each module is a squashfs filesystem.
>> What would be the overhead moving from several mounted squashfs
>> filesystems to several hundred?
>>
>
> You're right, but I think there's a happy medium. I wouldn't mind
> seeing the base a little thinner and moving some of the supporting
> libraries into their respective modules. I keep meaning to go on a
> scavenger hunt but haven't had the time yet.
>
>
Makes sense to me.
> If you look at some of the "competition" like Morphix it's pretty
> amazing how thin the base can be. I think with some more judicious
> pruning and package selection we can keep the richness of available
> tools and still give something like Damn Small Linux a run for the
> money. I also think d:b is excellent in so many different areas (and
> bonehead easy compared to things like CCRMA), I would even vote for
> bigger modules to hone them towards being *the* solution for different
> applications (like maybe Film GIMP + Cinerella for video).
>

I think that whenever we propose changes (direction?) like this, we need
to consider Jaromil's original vision for Dyne : Bolic, it's raison
d'etre if you like. Does Dyne:bolic need to be small enough to fit on a
credit card cd-rom like DSL to fulfill that?

I'm here because of the potential for DB to become a hacktivist's
toolkit: Icecast and Nvu for getting the word out, encrypted nests to
keep sensitive data out of harm's reach, encrypted and signed emails to
prove veracity, maybe a few security tools for phun. When I get chance
I'd like to author a module full of cool extras for the nomadic
hacktivist. :D

A lot of other people are here for the easy to configure multimedia
aspect as you mentioned above. The modular aspect of Dyne:Bolic is it's
greatest strength IMHO.

(Sorry for the stream of consciousness BS by the way guys - I'm working
a nightshift and I've been awake for 22 hours. :))

Matt