Zipslack update? - Slackware

This is a discussion on Zipslack update? - Slackware ; Any idea whether Zipslack will ever be updated beyond version 11.0? Rob...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Zipslack update?

  1. Zipslack update?

    Any idea whether Zipslack will ever be updated beyond version 11.0?

    Rob

  2. Re: Zipslack update?

    On October 15, 2008 16:14, in alt.os.linux.slackware, Rob Chambers
    (rob.chambers@removethisbit.gmail.com) wrote:

    > Any idea whether Zipslack will ever be updated beyond version 11.0?


    As far as I know, Pat V. has not made any announcements one way or the
    other, so /anything/ you read here is shear speculation.

    As of the 2.6 kernel, Linux does not support the UMSDOS filesystem that
    Zipslack is based on. As of Slackware 12.0, PV has moved to the 2.6 kernel
    for the mainline Slackware install, and thus has lost the ability to build
    the Zipslack install (because of the loss of UMSDOS support). PV tends to
    use vanilla kernels, seemingly ruling out a return to UMSDOS support in the
    mainline Slackware distribution.

    My guess is that the Zipslack install has been/will be dropped, and
    (perhaps) a new type of mini Slackware will emerge. Several "small"
    distributions are based on Slackware, so PV may be depending on them to
    supply the Zipslack alternative (like he did with Gnome). OTOH, from what I
    can see, it wouldn't be /too/ difficult to replace the Zipslack UMSDOS
    filesystem support with something comparable, but compatible with the
    current kernel support. If I were doing it, I'd build a Zipslack-like
    system into an EXT2 fs written to a file, and mounted through a loop
    device. This would permit the /file/ to be MSDOS/Windows compatable (for
    instance, in a MSDOS file called ZIPSLACK.E2F), but still provide the
    small Slackware capabilities that we expect in a UMSDOS filesystem.

    HTH
    --
    Lew Pitcher

    Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
    http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request
    ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------



  3. Re: Zipslack update?

    Lew Pitcher wrote:

    > As of the 2.6 kernel, Linux does not support the UMSDOS filesystem
    > that Zipslack is based on. As of Slackware 12.0, PV has moved to the
    > 2.6 kernel for the mainline Slackware install, and thus has lost the
    > ability to build the Zipslack install (because of the loss of UMSDOS
    > support). PV tends to use vanilla kernels, seemingly ruling out a
    > return to UMSDOS support in the mainline Slackware distribution.


    Good points. I've editted the AOLS FAQ to remove references to the now
    probably obsolete ZipSlack. See the diff appended below my signature if
    you're interested ...

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    --- aolsfaq/old/aolsfaq.txt.20081015 2008-04-03 00:00:03.000000000 -0400
    +++ aolsfaq/aolsfaq.txt 2008-10-15 17:18:21.000000000 -0400
    @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@

    alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ
    -Thu Apr 3 00:00:00 EDT 2008
    +Wed Oct 15 17:18:18 EDT 2008

    PART 0: Introduction

    @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
    so they are not specific to any version of the Slackware distribution.
    Where that wasn't possible, the answers have been written so they
    apply to the version that was the current stable release at the
    - time of writing, (11.0 at the time of the last update of this FAQ).
    + time of writing, (12.1 at the time of the last update of this FAQ).
    Any answers that are applicable only to older versions are clearly
    identified as applying to the latest version of Slackware for which
    they are known to be applicable.
    @@ -143,13 +143,6 @@
    way around Slackware Linux on the console or lightweight windowing
    environment (or via network connection, telnet or ssh.)

    - Slackware is also among the better choices for Windows users who
    - are not [yet] willing to repartition their hard drives; these
    - people can use ZipSlack or the umsdos.gz root disk. Bear in mind
    - this option does not work with Windows NTFS filesystem found on
    - WinNT/2k/XP systems, it is targeted at older DOS / Windows boxes
    - with FAT filesystem.
    -
    However, if you're not into reading documentation at all, you may
    wish to try another distribution. All Linux distributions have a
    learning curve, and if you won't read the documentation, you probably
    @@ -165,8 +158,7 @@
    such cases Slackware 4.0 or earlier is likely preferable, as you
    will be able to get more software installed per megabyte used.
    A very useful console-only Slackware 4.0 system can comfortably
    - fit on a 100MB hard drive. Users in this situation should really
    - consider trying the ZipSlack option.
    + fit on a 100MB hard drive.


    Where can I download the book that's on the Slackware website?
    @@ -339,7 +331,7 @@
    release is getting close.

    One hint that an official release is impending is that the HOWTOs,
    - FAQs, and ZipSlack are being prepared. Track the CHANGELOG of
    + FAQs, and boot images are being prepared. Track the CHANGELOG of
    -current to get another rough idea for when a release might be
    forthcoming.

    @@ -1835,3 +1827,4 @@
    Grant Coady
    slakmagik
    Robby Workman
    + Lew Pitcher


  4. Re: Zipslack update?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:27:48 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:

    >... If I were doing it, I'd build a Zipslack-like
    >system into an EXT2 fs written to a file, and mounted through a loop
    >device. This would permit the /file/ to be MSDOS/Windows compatable (for
    >instance, in a MSDOS file called ZIPSLACK.E2F), but still provide the
    >small Slackware capabilities that we expect in a UMSDOS filesystem.


    I don't think zipslack is relevant any more. Drive space is cheap, hardware
    no longer contrained, and there's other projects (busy box) that cater for
    very small environments.

    Now that linux can reliably read-write NTFS there's nothing stopping your
    suggestion for an embedded file on windows.

    But, given the number of free virtual machine applications around, does one
    really need this? Just install one of the virtual machine hosts and run a
    slackware guest?

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au

  5. Re: Zipslack update?

    Lew Pitcher wrote:

    > My guess is that the Zipslack install has been/will be dropped, and
    > (perhaps) a new type of mini Slackware will emerge. Several "small"
    > distributions are based on Slackware, so PV may be depending on them to
    > supply the Zipslack alternative (like he did with Gnome). OTOH, from what
    > I can see, it wouldn't be /too/ difficult to replace the Zipslack UMSDOS
    > filesystem support with something comparable, but compatible with the
    > current kernel support. If I were doing it, I'd build a Zipslack-like
    > system into an EXT2 fs written to a file, and mounted through a loop
    > device. This would permit the /file/ to be MSDOS/Windows compatable (for
    > instance, in a MSDOS file called ZIPSLACK.E2F), but still provide the
    > small Slackware capabilities that we expect in a UMSDOS filesystem.


    I'd suggest Slax. Runs nicely on a usb stick. I've got it on an SD card in
    an eee. It uses ausfs which I beleive is based at least in part on umsdos
    and the union file system. Not sure that it does all zipslack did. I
    beleive that the kernel is patched to support this file system.

    Though slax is definitely based on slackware and feels very similar there
    are some significant differences. How the file system works, depending on
    how you boot changes to the filesystem are either held only in ram and lost
    on reboot, or are stored to disk. Modules work in a different way to
    packages - it is trivial to convert a slackware package to a module.
    However, the contents of /etc will look very similar to you.

    Another piece of culture shock is that on X there is no log in and you are
    root. Thinking about it, you are using an unencrypted memory stick. I
    can't see what extra security it would give you. If you feel nervous about
    this I suspect it is easy to change, I have a vague recollection of it
    being mentioned on the slax website or on a forum.


    Overall, once you have installed your main day-to-day apps that are missing
    from the base install it feels like a lot like slackware.


    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

+ Reply to Thread