FaunOS Fork

Stythys · 2008-10-05 12:06:59

Recently, raymano left our archlinux community, including faunos behind, and I was wonderin' if there was anyone else out there who wanted to help pick the project back up, maybe under a new name. I have the resources and time needed to dedicate to a project like this, but am kinda new to distro creation so I wanted to explore the possibility of maybe getting a small dev team together. thoughts?

molom · 2008-10-05 13:20:55

Can't believe that happened, never knew that happened to FaunOS, if I had the talent, I probably would pick it up, and I'm planning to learn how to make distros etc. But IMO I don't think its necessary, other than the purpose of it being a portable OS for Live sessions and USB's, the Chakra project is planning on bringing an Arch-based KDE distro, so I don't see the point.

Maybe you could fork the distro yourself, raymano learnt plenty from it, you probably could too

Dusty · 2008-10-05 13:49:31

molom wrote:

Maybe you could fork the distro yourself, raymano learnt plenty from it, you probably could too

That's what he's planning, he's asking for help.

molom · 2008-10-05 13:51:10

Sorry, it sounded like he wanted someone to be the lead developer. There's plenty of documentation for these kinds of things and plus you have the forums here to give you support and answers.

dav7 · 2008-10-05 14:01:08

No, he wants a community to cheer him on

I would, except I have no more allocatable diskspace

-dav7

molom · 2008-10-05 14:05:41

Wouldn't just continuing the FaunOS project be better. It has quite a few users and a good image already.

Maki · 2008-10-05 14:53:16

It would be nice if chakra & faunos merged (I.E. faunos would be chakra usb)

lilsirecho · 2008-10-05 15:18:52

Kudos for the thought and desire....

I am too old to be a permanent supporter but have aided many in adopting the OS.

Your idea to change the name might be a winner since the present designator draws undesired factions into the fold.

The present SHADOW is very stable,speedy and versatile, especially due to operating in ram. Pactrac provides a generous serving of pacman with much data and convenience.

I suspect that it would be best to keep it in KDE3 format IMHO.

The original goals set by Raymano have been met very nicely by SHADOW IMHO and do provide a full-sized distro from the get-go...much easier than most distros to initiate.

Testing of new packages is done with ram installs, permitting them to be run without saving.

I have three SATA to CF cards in my Faunos system, one CF for boot and the other two for cachedir of pacman packages. This provides a source for loading r/o any desired package from cache into ram for execution without requiring it to be added to the boot CF as an overlay. Thus, IMHO, it provides for a local repo having the same characteristics as the /var/cache/pacman without affecting the boot device. In my system, the CF pair in cachedir is a raid0 combo. It performs very well and is transferable to a second computer as well.

In the year or so since initial Faunos was formed, many useful ideas have been developed by the users and such is the goal of linux.

I earnestly hope for the renewal of activities in the SHADOW forums and suggest that the distro might well be called SHADOWOS.

Good to see the interest..................

EDIT:Can't use SHADOWOS...already a vampire related thingy!!!
EDIT:Could use OSHADOW and keep KDE3.5 for noob from windows which has merit ...ooh's and ahh's when Faunos is demo'ed to windows users on their windows machines......

Last edited by lilsirecho (2008-10-05 20:20:07)

funkyou · 2008-10-05 15:45:21

Maki wrote:

It would be nice if chakra & faunos merged (I.E. faunos would be chakra usb)

Well, technically it would be no problem

Both FaunOS and Chakra are using larch as their base (FaunOS = larch4, Chakra = modified larch5), and we are always in need of some additional manpower...

The only difference would be...

larch4 -> larch5
kde3 -> kdemod 4.x
pactrac -> shaman
... and of course a sexy installer

godane · 2008-10-05 19:58:25

Well there is my project too. I just made a modular database script so we can update all the modules on a running live mode os on a usb stick now. It will also backup all the older modules too.

But my project doesn't have kde. It just has everything but kde. But i do have shaman and I'm using larchin package for installing it.

lilsirecho · 2008-10-05 20:40:08

IMHO Faunos should be an intro to linux...simple to download and easily installed...intuitive for noobies to Linux...requiring little adjustment and no additional package installs...can be downsized as desired.

Primarily, IMHO, it should remain a full sized OS with minimal impact from arch upgrades and which allows for installing to HDD.

Downloads from pacman can be tested and evaluated without saving and as a bonus, run in ram...speedy.

IMHO, OSHADOW would be a good name for the OS and probably stop the intruders from destroying the forum and wiki. Policing the forums is a must....

It may be appropo to utilize a forum section in archlinux just for OSHADOW which could provide more activity and some measure of protection from intrusion.

My thoughts on the support for Faunos which needs more exposure in archlinux, its base for packages, under new management but retaining the full-sized system needed to impress the windows crowd!

Odd-rationale · 2008-10-05 21:48:22

I would like to see an Arch-based, live distro that would compete in size and features with DSL and PuppyLinux.

lilsirecho · 2008-10-05 22:06:07

This is possible with downsizing OSHADOW...................To each user his own config...

Basic OSHADOW gives it all for purposeful reasons.

EDIT: The named small OS'es are existent and useable by all...Why "me too"? "Copycat"? I reiterate...OSHADOW is downloaded and installed easier than any archlinux installer and many others as well......(new name implied for Faunos).

Last edited by lilsirecho (2008-10-05 22:10:37)

molom · 2008-10-05 23:36:47

Odd-rationale wrote:

I would like to see an Arch-based, live distro that would compete in size and features with DSL and PuppyLinux.

Don't think that is possible, the Arch core ISO is 400mb, what would you have to remove to make it 50mb? I imagine the pacman manager is big am I right?

Allan · 2008-10-06 00:45:51

molom wrote:

I imagine the pacman manager is big am I right?

Not really....

> pacman -Qi pacman | grep Size
Installed Size : 1664.00 K

molom · 2008-10-06 00:57:56

Then what makes Arch so big?

Last edited by molom (2008-10-06 00:58:19)

rson451 · 2008-10-06 01:08:20

I believe it's the amount of extra packages on the install disk. This was brought up not long ago about the size of the install disks growing, but I believe everyone came to the concensus that if a cd is 700mb, why should anyone try to keep an install disk under 200mb? Obviously there are arguments against this, but I believe that should answer your question.

molom · 2008-10-06 01:36:18

I believe the size is good enough ATM, Arch serves for the main purpose of being 'simple', nothing relating to 'size' (Of course there is a limit though).

lilsirecho · 2008-10-06 14:24:17

Back to the topic?

Ruckus · 2008-10-06 15:43:57

molom wrote:

Then what makes Arch so big?

The small distros you talk about all use uClinux or w/e, and not the normal GCC libs or w/e. Also, the arch installer is now a complete live cd.

I'd like to see FaunOS ship with less packages, a more KISS version.

lilsirecho · 2008-10-06 16:52:39

A mini OSHADOW could be generated...the previous posts I have made indicate the philosophy for the present full sized version which demos to windows users the versatility of archlinux-based OS systems.

Many demos of Faunos have elicited excitement in windows users responses. Especially the boot-time and the operating speed. This demonstrated performance is not the usual with windows because there is a GB of compressed packages running in ram! Such a "portable" system most certainly has merit in any OS.

Archlinux has ~400mb , not at all small-ball. Archlinux is a major-sized OS by "mini" standards(50mb typ).

Appreciate the sentiment for smaller..perhaps not better.

Again, the user is free to modify the full-sized version to something smaller. I have many packages "on-call" in a r/o raid0 cachedir which reduces the size of the installed OS by many MB. This serves to improve the boot-time.

Linux is a versatile methodology and this is fully apparent when one examines the number of OS'es listed in Distrowatch which doesn't have them all!!!!

Since the system is loaded via USB and runs in ram, the HDD can be used for cachedir. More versatility!

One salient feature of Faunos which demands a larger install size...it must recognize hardware idiosyncracies in users computers of all types..desktop, laptop and whatever else it encounters..including those which don't have usb boot(use CD assist).

SHADOW is STABLE! Undesired intrusion from the web can be eliminated by a simple reboot...that works!

A mini system from USB boot would probably end up at ~750MB in my guesstimate.

On topic, I anticipate reopening the OS activity via an archlinux forum and wiki posts under a new name, with users adopting and adapting the OS as all linux users do!

EDIT: My Faunos system draws 90 watts.

Last edited by lilsirecho (2008-10-06 16:54:49)

catwell · 2008-10-06 20:37:12

I'd like to see what the FaunOS / Chakra merge could give. The ultimate distro for first time users ?

Dusty · 2008-10-07 01:44:05

I'd like to see fewer 'I'd like to see' posts and more 'I'm going to do' posts in this thread.

Dusty

Stythys · 2008-10-07 01:51:51

Dusty wrote:

I'd like to see fewer 'I'd like to see' posts and more 'I'm going to do' posts in this thread.
Dusty

this

Last edited by Stythys (2008-10-07 01:52:29)

lilsirecho · 2008-10-09 18:34:06

Hopeful that the system doesn't die for lack of support from archlinux experts.........

Arch Linux

#1 2008-10-05 12:06:59

FaunOS Fork

#2 2008-10-05 13:20:55

Re: FaunOS Fork

#3 2008-10-05 13:49:31

Re: FaunOS Fork

#4 2008-10-05 13:51:10

Re: FaunOS Fork

#5 2008-10-05 14:01:08

Re: FaunOS Fork

#6 2008-10-05 14:05:41

Re: FaunOS Fork

#7 2008-10-05 14:53:16

Re: FaunOS Fork

#8 2008-10-05 15:18:52

Re: FaunOS Fork

#9 2008-10-05 15:45:21

Re: FaunOS Fork

#10 2008-10-05 19:58:25

Re: FaunOS Fork

#11 2008-10-05 20:40:08

Re: FaunOS Fork

#12 2008-10-05 21:48:22

Re: FaunOS Fork

#13 2008-10-05 22:06:07

Re: FaunOS Fork

#14 2008-10-05 23:36:47

Re: FaunOS Fork

#15 2008-10-06 00:45:51

Re: FaunOS Fork

#16 2008-10-06 00:57:56

Re: FaunOS Fork

#17 2008-10-06 01:08:20

Re: FaunOS Fork

#18 2008-10-06 01:36:18

Re: FaunOS Fork

#19 2008-10-06 14:24:17

Re: FaunOS Fork

#20 2008-10-06 15:43:57

Re: FaunOS Fork

#21 2008-10-06 16:52:39

Re: FaunOS Fork

#22 2008-10-06 20:37:12

Re: FaunOS Fork

#23 2008-10-07 01:44:05

Re: FaunOS Fork

#24 2008-10-07 01:51:51

Re: FaunOS Fork

#25 2008-10-09 18:34:06

Re: FaunOS Fork

Board footer