Yeah, tinycore's biggest failure is that it's too difficult to find the right man pages of certain packages.
On 10/21/13, Carlos Torres <vlaadbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:41 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> then simply don't use pure 64bit, why did you think that was a good idea? > > when i hopped on the pure 64 band wagon i "assumed" that the x86 packages > would have been rebuilt for pure 64 eventually... that was a big mistake on > my > part. > >> it's a feature (tm). works like intended. > > Yeah, its a feature i like. Maybe i'm just complaining about the lack of > packages for pure 64 :p, again i figured there was a community of pure64 > users that were contributing packages (slower but eventually - not true) > >> Just proves you have no taste. > > I tried other browsers before i went the with webkit/surf on this system, > i did most of my work with lynx, i tried opera, links2, w3m etc... none of > which anyone else was using on pure 64 :p (goes back to my initial bad > choice) > >>> I now cringe at the thought of rebuilding any suckless tool on >>> tinycorelinux for any >>> simple tweak. >> >> Granted, the everything-is-in-ram approach requires you to use special >> procedures to properly install anything. For many things that's too >> much of a trade-off. > > its a pretty big one. > >> I exploit this to make sure I don't have too many libraries installed >> so that autohell tools will build against the least amount of >> dependencies possible (without first having to find the right >> configure switches to manually turn features off). > > yes, i really enjoy the boot speed of tinycorelinux with the least deps for > wifi, dwm (et. al.) , surf, acpi; but when i boot into this system its > because i > want to develop something, and so i always end up loading the rest of the > world to build stuff. and i forget api's all them time, of which i end up > using > manuals for (which surely you've noticed everyone purposefully strips them > out of packages (i do it too)... > >