From jc at thp.org Sat Oct 1 01:49:05 2005 From: jc at thp.org (John Coonrod) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:49:05 -0400 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question Message-ID: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> I cannot figure out the difference between these two distributions, and the documentation on the website never actually spells it out. Why would I use one over the other? In which cases would "classic" have an advantage? What are there two distributions? I started out with classic, then switched to enterprise because I wanted apache 2.0, but now both have basically the same applications, roughly the same kernel and file system. Can anyone shed light on this? (And once it's shed, could you - omar - add that to the website?) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Dr. John Coonrod, Vice President, The Hunger Project 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010, www.thp.org/ From Browser2 at go.com Sat Oct 1 03:55:23 2005 From: Browser2 at go.com (Jason Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] No Extras Repo 4 New Tiny Message-ID: <5342135.1128138923309.JavaMail.Browser2@wmailweba01> I have installed the latest TinySofa And it dosen't have the Extras Repo for some reason which means I cant install a Desktop like xfce4 etc. I have searched with google and cant find the repository anywhere. Could someone be kind enough to share this repo to add so I can install xfce4. Also if there are other repositories or 3rd party ones that someone could share I would appreciate it as I would like to add my favourite Apps once I can get Tiny Going, Thanks Youres, Sincerely ,Mr Jason Hutchinson ___________________________________________________ Check-out GO.com GO get your free GO E-Mail account with expanded storage of 6 MB! http://mail.go.com From andrew at neep.com.au Tue Oct 11 17:39:07 2005 From: andrew at neep.com.au (Andrew Shugg) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:39:07 +0800 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> Message-ID: <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> John Coonrod said: > I cannot figure out the difference between these two distributions, and > the documentation on the website never actually spells it out. > > Why would I use one over the other? In which cases would "classic" have > an advantage? What are there two distributions? > > I started out with classic, then switched to enterprise because I wanted > apache 2.0, but now both have basically the same applications, roughly > the same kernel and file system. > > Can anyone shed light on this? (And once it's shed, could you - omar - > add that to the website?) My understanding, based on what Omar said on the -devel list a while ago, is that classic is intentionally very similar to Trustix so that Trustix users had something up-to-date yet familiar to move to. Indeed, from classic's "about" page: tinysofa classic server is based on Fedora, tinysofa enterprise server 1.0 and Trustix 2.1. It features a very similar package set to Trustix. TES was, on the other hand, a separate thing entirely, with a different package management system SELinux support (grsecurity), 2.6 kernel, etc. I would assume that if you were new to tinysofa, you would choose TES 2.0U1, but if you already had a few servers running Trustix, some old RedHat or a previous version of tinysofa classic, you'd go for TCSU2. Hopefully Omar and Jaakko can contribute more helpful answers for you than this. And then you can add them to the FAQ in the Wiki. =) Andrew. -- Andrew Shugg http://www.neep.com.au/ "Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself." "Is there? Well I'd like to meet him. I could do with a good laugh." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.tinysofa.org/pipermail/tinysofa-discuss/attachments/20051012/1d3aa9d6/attachment.bin From jh at tinysofa.org Tue Oct 11 18:57:13 2005 From: jh at tinysofa.org (Jaakko Heinonen) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:57:13 +0300 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> Message-ID: <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> On 2005-10-12, Andrew Shugg wrote: > My understanding, based on what Omar said on the -devel list a while > ago, is that classic is intentionally very similar to Trustix so that Nowadays classic is not very close to Trustix anymore. I think that Omar's comments you refer were relevant before classic 1.1 release. > tinysofa classic server is based on Fedora, tinysofa enterprise server > 1.0 and Trustix 2.1. It features a very similar package set to Trustix. Package set is similar to TSL but otherwise almost all packages has been reworked since Trustix fork. > TES was, on the other hand, a separate thing entirely, with a different > package management system Package management system is the same for TES and TCS. (RPM and APT) TCS offers also smartpm since update 2. (TCS 1.0 had swup which is different.) > SELinux support (grsecurity), 2.6 kernel, etc. TES has SELinux. TCS 2.0 has grsecurity and also 2.6 kernel. (2.6.13 based in update 2.) > I would assume that if you were new to tinysofa, you would choose TES > 2.0U1, but if you already had a few servers running Trustix, some old > RedHat or a previous version of tinysofa classic, you'd go for TCSU2. I wouldn't say that TCS is only for old Trustix or RedHat users. YMMV of course. -- Jaakko From jc at thp.org Tue Oct 11 22:20:37 2005 From: jc at thp.org (John Coonrod) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:20:37 -0400 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> Message-ID: <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> Jaakko - thanks for this update! However, it does then beg the question - why have two versions? From what you say, it would seem there is no reason at all for TCS to exist. Is there anything a TCS user would lose by switching to TES? Jaakko Heinonen wrote: >On 2005-10-12, Andrew Shugg wrote: > > >>My understanding, based on what Omar said on the -devel list a while >>ago, is that classic is intentionally very similar to Trustix so that >> >> > >Nowadays classic is not very close to Trustix anymore. I think that >Omar's comments you refer were relevant before classic 1.1 release. > > > >> tinysofa classic server is based on Fedora, tinysofa enterprise server >> 1.0 and Trustix 2.1. It features a very similar package set to Trustix. >> >> > >Package set is similar to TSL but otherwise almost all packages has been >reworked since Trustix fork. > > > >>TES was, on the other hand, a separate thing entirely, with a different >>package management system >> >> > >Package management system is the same for TES and TCS. (RPM and APT) TCS >offers also smartpm since update 2. (TCS 1.0 had swup which is >different.) > > > >>SELinux support (grsecurity), 2.6 kernel, etc. >> >> > >TES has SELinux. TCS 2.0 has grsecurity and also 2.6 kernel. (2.6.13 >based in update 2.) > > > >>I would assume that if you were new to tinysofa, you would choose TES >>2.0U1, but if you already had a few servers running Trustix, some old >>RedHat or a previous version of tinysofa classic, you'd go for TCSU2. >> >> > >I wouldn't say that TCS is only for old Trustix or RedHat users. YMMV of >course. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Dr. John Coonrod, Vice President, The Hunger Project 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010, www.thp.org/ From gda at tinysofa.org Wed Oct 12 07:25:14 2005 From: gda at tinysofa.org (Gerald Dachs) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:25:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> Message-ID: <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> > Jaakko - thanks for this update! However, it does then beg the question > - why have two versions? From what you say, it would seem there is no > reason at all for TCS to exist. Is there anything a TCS user would lose > by switching to TES? As the TCS contrib maintainer I would answer you: - flexibility * you can tweak a base install of TCS to fit on a 128 MB compact flash (and I do this really) * the kernel of tcs is recent enough and not so heavy patched for enterprise usage, so that I am able to patch it with RTAI - actuality * I try to keep all rpms for amavisd-new and dependencies very recent * amavisd-new is 2.3.3 * clamav is 0.87 * fetchmail is 6.2.5.2 * firefox is 1.0.7 ... - nice rpms like sylpheed, icewm, firehol ... - me as contrib maintainer. If I can't get the first two points from a distribution, I have to search for another distro and I have not enough spare time to support two. But I am sure that is no reason for you not to switch. Gerald From tinysofa at leave-it-to-grace.com Wed Oct 12 08:55:18 2005 From: tinysofa at leave-it-to-grace.com (Andy Bakun) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:55:18 -0500 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> Message-ID: <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 09:25 +0200, Gerald Dachs wrote: > * you can tweak a base install of TCS to fit on a 128 MB compact flash > (and I do this really) I think I have a TES base install (plus SDL + lots of perl modules) on a 256meg flash sitting around here somewhere, and I think there's some extra space. There's still a lot of stuff in there that I don't need that could be removed. Most of this was Omar's work though, recompiling with space optimizations. I don't think the size of the base install is really a significant differentiator between TCS and TES. -- Andy Bakun From gda at tinysofa.org Wed Oct 12 09:21:05 2005 From: gda at tinysofa.org (Gerald Dachs) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:21:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> Message-ID: <48330.139.1.44.13.1129108865.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> > On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 09:25 +0200, Gerald Dachs wrote: >> * you can tweak a base install of TCS to fit on a 128 MB compact flash >> (and I do this really) > > I think I have a TES base install (plus SDL + lots of perl modules) on a > 256meg flash sitting around here somewhere, and I think there's some > extra space. There's still a lot of stuff in there that I don't need > that could be removed. Most of this was Omar's work though, recompiling > with space optimizations. > > I don't think the size of the base install is really a significant > differentiator between TCS and TES. I was so free to tell my opinion, and in my opinion that is significant. Btw. it was not the only point I had mentioned. I have worked hard to contribute many rpms for tcs over the last months. I never got any positiv responses. Now it sounds that you (and maybe more) think that tcs and my contrib work is obsolete. Is there anybody on the list that has another opinion? Do I have a reason to continue? Gerald From mbak at fxnet.hu Wed Oct 12 09:49:52 2005 From: mbak at fxnet.hu (Mikael Bak) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:49:52 +0200 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <48330.139.1.44.13.1129108865.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> <48330.139.1.44.13.1129108865.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> Message-ID: <1129110592.3333.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 11:21, Gerald Dachs wrote: > I have worked hard to contribute many rpms for tcs over the last months. > I never got any positiv responses. Now it sounds that you (and maybe more) > think that tcs and my contrib work is obsolete. Is there anybody on the > list that has another opinion? Do I have a reason to continue? > Gerald, I really appreciate the work you have done. I also did thank all the developers and contributors when answering the original poster. For me TCS is _the_ way a server distro should work. I still haven't had a chance to test either TCS 2.0 or TES, but I will. I must be the last one using TCS 1.1 :-) Again. To all developers and contributors: Thank you very much! Really appreciated! Maybe one day I will be able to give back to tinysofa as a developer. Best regards, Mikael From tinysofa at leave-it-to-grace.com Wed Oct 12 13:40:07 2005 From: tinysofa at leave-it-to-grace.com (Andy Bakun) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:40:07 -0500 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <48330.139.1.44.13.1129108865.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> <48330.139.1.44.13.1129108865.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> Message-ID: <1129124407.21272.32.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 11:21 +0200, Gerald Dachs wrote: > > I don't think the size of the base install is really a significant > > differentiator between TCS and TES. > > I was so free to tell my opinion, and in my opinion that is significant. Yes, and I disagree on it's significance. Our positions on this were covered in the previous two messages in this thread. If one could fit TES in 128 megs (and I think it's possible, at least with optimized packages), then the fact that you can fit TCS in 128 megs is irrelevant to making a decision as to which should be used based on base install size requirements. This was _my_ only point. > Btw. it was not the only point I had mentioned. Yet, it was the only point I had an opinion on. This does not mean your other points were invalid -- quite the contrary. > I have worked hard to contribute many rpms for tcs over the last months. > I never got any positiv responses. Now it sounds that you (and maybe more) > think that tcs and my contrib work is obsolete. Is there anybody on the > list that has another opinion? Do I have a reason to continue? Only stagnant Linux distributions are not worth using. If TCS is active, then there is no reason that someone shouldn't explore using it and see it as an option when choosing a distribution. I don't think the state of TCS is adequately communicated on the tinysofa website if these kinds of questions come up. For example, TCS is kind of a second-class citizen on the tinysofa.org website -- the default page is for TES, the link to TCS is near the bottom (similar to how an "older" version is provided for convenience, but the suggested version is the "newer" one). (it is also slightly confusing, most likely more so to new users, with how the website remembers (via a cookie) if you were last "looking for" TCS or TES. This is a good attempt at giving TCS and TES the same importance, but I think it falls kind of short of the mark. I'm not sure how this would best be fixed. Note that if you don't have a cookie, you get TES by default -- thereby communicating to possible users which one one should choose). But there is obviously some level of confusion as to why there are two modern and current distributions named tinysofa. The bullet points under "why should I use tinysofa" for both TCS and TES are largely equivalent. The use of the term "classic" also implies "older" and "we started doing things a different way in the non-classic versions", which is unfortunate because TCS and TES exist for different reasons, uses and target markets, none of which has anything to do with their age. The problem may be that there are two distinct distributions named "tinysofa", and the "classic" and "enterprise" monikers do not really communicate their differences. I personally have not used TCS for any significant amount of time, only TES, so my experience in exactly how they differ is pretty limited. -- Andy Bakun From jh at tinysofa.org Wed Oct 12 14:18:44 2005 From: jh at tinysofa.org (Jaakko Heinonen) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:18:44 +0300 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> Message-ID: <20051012141844.GA1245@ws.jh.dy.fi> On 2005-10-12, Andy Bakun wrote: > I think I have a TES base install (plus SDL + lots of perl modules) on a > 256meg flash sitting around here somewhere > Most of this was Omar's work though, recompiling with space > optimizations. If we talk about unmodified versions TES minimal install is about 500 MB and TCS is about 200 MB. -- Jaakko From jc at thp.org Wed Oct 12 14:35:46 2005 From: jc at thp.org (John Coonrod) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:35:46 -0400 Subject: [tinysofa-discuss] Classic vs Enterprise Question In-Reply-To: <1129124407.21272.32.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> References: <433DEB11.4050404@thp.org> <20051011173907.GS1715@neep.com.au> <20051011185712.GA10279@ws.jh.dy.fi> <434C3AB5.60806@thp.org> <42744.139.1.44.13.1129101914.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> <1129107319.17592.6.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> <48330.139.1.44.13.1129108865.squirrel@sohoserver.homelinux.net> <1129124407.21272.32.camel@artifex.privvy.leave-it-to-grace.com> Message-ID: <434D1F42.60903@thp.org> Since I"m the one who asked the question - let me say that I LOVE the answers, and I LOVE that people are working hard to keep both these distributions going. In terms of letting the world know, I HEARTILY endorse having Omar list the key selling points on the importance of each distribution on the website, leading with the small install size of TCS. Andy Bakun wrote: >On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 11:21 +0200, Gerald Dachs wrote: > > >>>I don't think the size of the base install is really a significant >>>differentiator between TCS and TES. >>> >>> >>I was so free to tell my opinion, and in my opinion that is significant. >> >> > >Yes, and I disagree on it's significance. Our positions on this were >covered in the previous two messages in this thread. > >If one could fit TES in 128 megs (and I think it's possible, at least >with optimized packages), then the fact that you can fit TCS in 128 megs >is irrelevant to making a decision as to which should be used based on >base install size requirements. This was _my_ only point. > > > >>Btw. it was not the only point I had mentioned. >> >> > >Yet, it was the only point I had an opinion on. This does not mean your >other points were invalid -- quite the contrary. > > > >>I have worked hard to contribute many rpms for tcs over the last months. >>I never got any positiv responses. Now it sounds that you (and maybe more) >>think that tcs and my contrib work is obsolete. Is there anybody on the >>list that has another opinion? Do I have a reason to continue? >> >> > >Only stagnant Linux distributions are not worth using. If TCS is >active, then there is no reason that someone shouldn't explore using it >and see it as an option when choosing a distribution. I don't think the >state of TCS is adequately communicated on the tinysofa website if these >kinds of questions come up. For example, TCS is kind of a second-class >citizen on the tinysofa.org website -- the default page is for TES, the >link to TCS is near the bottom (similar to how an "older" version is >provided for convenience, but the suggested version is the "newer" one). > >(it is also slightly confusing, most likely more so to new users, with >how the website remembers (via a cookie) if you were last "looking for" >TCS or TES. This is a good attempt at giving TCS and TES the same >importance, but I think it falls kind of short of the mark. I'm not >sure how this would best be fixed. Note that if you don't have a >cookie, you get TES by default -- thereby communicating to possible >users which one one should choose). > >But there is obviously some level of confusion as to why there are two >modern and current distributions named tinysofa. The bullet points >under "why should I use tinysofa" for both TCS and TES are largely >equivalent. The use of the term "classic" also implies "older" and "we >started doing things a different way in the non-classic versions", which >is unfortunate because TCS and TES exist for different reasons, uses and >target markets, none of which has anything to do with their age. > >The problem may be that there are two distinct distributions named >"tinysofa", and the "classic" and "enterprise" monikers do not really >communicate their differences. > >I personally have not used TCS for any significant amount of time, only >TES, so my experience in exactly how they differ is pretty limited. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Dr. John Coonrod, Vice President, The Hunger Project 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010, www.thp.org/