On 6/23/07, Isaiah Beerbower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all, > > Yen-Ju Chen wrote: > > On 6/22/07, David Chisnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I did wonder about this a while ago (by the way, you missed Xen and > >> KVM in your list). As I see it, the problem is that all emulation/ > >> virtualisation systems can boot a LiveCD, while no real machines can > >> boot an emulator disk image, and most of them use incompatible > >> formats, making it even harder (if you pick one, then people who > >> prefer one of the others will complain). > > > > We only need to support one emulator, whichever fits our purpose. > > The main point for LiveCD is to let people try it. > > Both LiveCD and emulator serves the same purpose, > > while emulator is easier to make and maintain. > > And while it is easy to make emulator disk, > > I image it won't be too hard to make one for each emulator if anyone > > wants. > > Again, we only need to make an official one. > > An emulator image wouldn't replace the live CD. It assumes to much: > > 1. The user must already have a working install.
Who doesn't ? Even the ones in stores have working install of Windows or Mac. > 2. The user must have an emulator. Some emulator allow you to ship the disk as executable. It embeds an emulator for running. > 3. The user must know how to use the emulator. Again, if they are willing to try a LIveCD, I don't think this is a barrier. > 4. The user must have a machine that is fast enough to run things in > emulation. This is the only valid argument. I think i386-on-i386 emulation is fast enough. But I have no i386 machine to try. So if people don't think it is fast enough, I am fine with that. > > My machine is had trouble running the live CD image in emulation. While > a hard drive image might go faster, it still isn't as nice. > > While at this point we're primarily looking for developers, if we want > to attract users, we should keep the live CD. An emulator image along > side the live CD would be excellent though... Developers are much more capable to use emulator than regular users. To me, LIveCD are for regular users. > > >> I might suggest using something like NetBSD or FreeBSD for the LiveCD > >> in future though, since it's much easier to start with a simple > >> system and add things than it is to start with a complex system and > >> remove things. > > > > I agree with you. > > A smaller distribution is better for us. > > Maybe we can work with GNUstep LiveCD ? > > David said that the Linux philosophy was "Pile on as much crap as you > can, and hope it works." I'd say that the GNUstep live CD follows this > religiously. We don't need to ship as much as GNUstep LiveCD, but at least it is a working system which we can build on top and remove most of the stuff we don't want. But other system, like FreeSBIE, may be good, too. Yen-Ju > > > > That's all I have to say, > Isaiah Beerbower > > _______________________________________________ > Etoile-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss > _______________________________________________ Etoile-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
