Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brederlow) wrote on 07.05.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Rev. Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [1 text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)] On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 04:19:42PM +1000, John Boggon wrote: Can someone tell me why a new distribution has to be started up just because the current one isn't newbie friendly or easy to install ? There isn't really. Apart from flames one will get from Debian developers for using their work, especially when selling the distribution. And you get quite a lot. What are you talking about? Debian developers certainly _expect_ people to sell the distribution. That's why we make official CD images available. MfG Kai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No problem here. As I said I *DID* find the answers and got my debian installation to talk to my ethernet card after making use of available documentation. But it was not Debian specfic documentation that was most helpfull, but rather general linux networking and slackware specific documentation that gave me my answers. I found the Suse handbook a valueable source of information. Debian needs a good Handbook (maybe tex, dvi, ps, html) Yep, lots of apps need to be ported - are you volunteering? Ok put your money where your mouth is eh? I'm not yet at the point where I could make the kind of contribution that I'd like to. First I need to get my own system in order (I'll end up starting from scratch with debin 2.0 when it is ready for prime time). Then I need to learn how to program GUI under X (which standard? Motif etc?), I currently know MFC under windows professionally. I would suggest GTK, it has interfaces to many languages and it looks and works good (see gimp). You shouldn't make the same error as many other projects and start writing your own toolkit. It will never be as good as taking something like gtk and enhancing on that. May the Source be with you. Mrvn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Rev. Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [1 text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)] On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 04:19:42PM +1000, John Boggon wrote: Can someone tell me why a new distribution has to be started up just because the current one isn't newbie friendly or easy to install ? There isn't really. Apart from flames one will get from Debian developers for using their work, especially when selling the distribution. And you get quite a lot. Why not concentrate on an installation system or front end for dpkg / APT along with a system management GUI package that can help an inexperienced sysadmin or user maintain his/her system ? This work could be done independently of Debian and be designed to sit over the top of it. Wouldn't this achieve Bruce's aims ? Why re-invent the wheel ? Not quite that, but similar is what a few of us have been talking about and I have had in mind for some time now.. Debian's a good dist. Why duplicate the effort? And, we could not duplicate the shortcuts that the developers have already if we are working on newbie stuff. Then it would end up like redhat, either you can have it really simple or not at all. Debian has a lot of shortcuts for people who know their way around the system. Those are just as important as the the configuration scripts for the most absolute novice in the world. Moreso really because most will eventually grow out of the novice scripts and tools and into the standard shortcuts found in Debian now. One of the big Problems with Debian for a newbie are all those questions asked, he never heard about. Also questions are asked every few minutes during the installation, which is a bad thing [tm]. One can change the first by preconfiguring most stuff and thus blowing up the base.tgz, the second can not easily be changed. One would need a new mechanism that asked all questions beforehand or afterwards, or dpkg should continue installing other packages when waiting for user interactions on another. Debian is a very good starting point, but Debian changes slowly. There are too many people makeing and talking about decisions, so quick Reactions are hardly possible. That also has a good site, things arent changeing without being well thought and many Problems are thought out before being programmed. Also things are just programmed by someone, and if its helpfull for most people, the Debian community really use it and enhance it. May the Source be with you. Mrvn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No problem here. As I said I *DID* find the answers and got my debian installation to talk to my ethernet card after making use of available documentation. But it was not Debian specfic documentation that was most helpfull, but rather general linux networking and slackware specific documentation that gave me my answers. I found the Suse handbook a valueable source of information. Debian needs a good Handbook (maybe tex, dvi, ps, html) Within the Debian Documentation Project we're working on a Debian Tutorial (as well as some other documents and manuals). Maybe you want to join us? Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://www.tip.nl/users/ardo.van.rangelrooij PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
From: Anthony Fok [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know you have the best intentions, but to be honest with you, I felt somewhat betrayed and abandoned when I first read your announcement. I don't blame you. Unfortunately, I think that the conflict attendant upon my (entirely theoretical) return to Debian and attempting to force my goal set on it would be worse than my staying away. And I still want to get that stuff done. The base system standarziation I discussed will be something that Debian and all Linux will benefit from. It would have been completely impossible for me to operate that project while maintaining a tight connection with Debian, it would make me appear too biased for the other distributions to accept me. The project should have a computer on the net in a few days, and I will announce list addresses, etc., at that time. Thanks Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Can someone tell me why a new distribution has to be started up just because the current one isn't newbie friendly or easy to install ? Why not concentrate on an installation system or front end for dpkg / APT along with a system management GUI package that can help an inexperienced sysadmin or user maintain his/her system ? This work could be done independently of Debian and be designed to sit over the top of it. Wouldn't this achieve Bruce's aims ? Why re-invent the wheel ? John. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 12:05:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Focus on the user issue ] This is the case for a lot of debian developers, not for all of them, I have to admit. I think it's too large a number for me to go against. Vocal Minority; Silent Majority. Please tell us where we have to improve our mechanisms according to your oppinion. Oh gosh, you're not serious, are you? My solution would be rather draconian. The alternative I've chosen is much better than a draconian one. Well, our previous leader leaving Debian, saying that Debian is at odds with his goals and thus intending to start a new distribution... Gee, I really don't know what to think of this. I know you have the best intentions, but to be honest with you, I felt somewhat betrayed and abandoned when I first read your announcement. Isnt' there already a distribution based on Debian? No, there isn't. Somebody took a little of our stuff for some French dist, but it's not Debian. What about SEUL? Isn't it still in development? I noticed some Debian users and developers participating in the SEUL project a few months ago. Oh well... Who cares... Anthony -- Anthony Fok Tung-LingCivil and Environmental Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Alberta, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep smiling! *^_^* Come visit Our Lady of Victory Camp -- http://olvc.home.ml.org/ or http://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/OLVC/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 04:19:42PM +1000, John Boggon wrote: Can someone tell me why a new distribution has to be started up just because the current one isn't newbie friendly or easy to install ? There isn't really. Why not concentrate on an installation system or front end for dpkg / APT along with a system management GUI package that can help an inexperienced sysadmin or user maintain his/her system ? This work could be done independently of Debian and be designed to sit over the top of it. Wouldn't this achieve Bruce's aims ? Why re-invent the wheel ? Not quite that, but similar is what a few of us have been talking about and I have had in mind for some time now.. Debian's a good dist. Why duplicate the effort? And, we could not duplicate the shortcuts that the developers have already if we are working on newbie stuff. Then it would end up like redhat, either you can have it really simple or not at all. Debian has a lot of shortcuts for people who know their way around the system. Those are just as important as the the configuration scripts for the most absolute novice in the world. Moreso really because most will eventually grow out of the novice scripts and tools and into the standard shortcuts found in Debian now. pgpobOAzTnJYP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been giving serious thought for a while to forming a new Linux distribution. My reason is to fulfill some goals that currently are not addressed by Debian or the commercial distributions. I've posted my first message on this topic to debian-devel, as I think a lot of you have similar goals to the ones below, and those who do have earned the right to be in on the project from the start. I don't currently have a mailing list for this project - I guess I'll have to start one. Hmm... you seem to be inviting comments, so I'll give it a go: (1) we probably don't want to talk about this in much depth on the debian lists, since you've explicitly stated that it's not debian. Please announce an alternative venue as soon as you can. (2) I've never been able to keep up with all the various distributions (free or not) that keep popping up, but I guess I'll assume you're correct that none of them match the needs you see. (3) This could be a very positive thing for debian (call it cross fertilization, competition, or just more attention on the underlying problem). Or, if people get all upset about it, it could be negative. (4) Debian was founded with a we will develop no software statement. Obviously, we've relaxed this (dpkg, apt, ...). It looks like this new project you're proposing will embrace development, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but you're going to need a Linus to lead and coordinate it. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 08:05:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: I've been giving serious thought for a while to forming a new Linux distribution. My reason is to fulfill some goals that currently are not addressed by Debian or the commercial distributions. Certainly no distribution can meet the needs of everybody. Debian seems to be the best distribution on technical merit, but it seems to be missing some things from the easy-to-use standpoint. I was thinking about building an unofficial set of installation scripts and the like for Debian to make it easier on a new user but still show some of the power in Linux in general.. My plan was to make a console-only thing that could really install to a 100 meg partition (I'm aiming high and trying to get it in 40 or less) and have it be compatible with Debian enough that you could later show dpkg the main Debian mirrors and have it act like it was a normal installation, if perhaps a little nonstandard as to what was installed and what wasn't, and it should be able to integrate itself with no fuss. Thought even that some of the Debian maintainers might be interested in some of the resulting scripts if they were very useful at all. I've posted my first message on this topic to debian-devel, as I think a lot of you have similar goals to the ones below, and those who do have earned the right to be in on the project from the start. I don't currently have a mailing list for this project - I guess I'll have to start one. I'm not a programmer. I just know what's easy to work with and what's not. I can build a package but am currently doing much of it by hand since I don't yet understand the workings of debhelper. I'll RTFM later and maybe learn how to use it. = You want rpm though. =p I personally think rpm is nasty when you consider that a friend of mine (a newbie) tried to install bitchx today and found that she didn't have libcurses.so.4. Yeah, that she didn't have the FILE. No clues where to get it. No hint as to the package. For libcurses that's a no brainer, but what about some of the less known libs? dpkg would have told her what package and what version she needed. Using apt she could quite easily just run apt-get install package and it would. Some packages like pine and qmail are worth the fact that to make them useful they must be in source packages. We ALL (all of us who thought pine was an important package at all) agreed on that. And you wouldn't get me away from qmail--so don't try. = The older version of ncftp is now GPL, but what of the new version? Would you say there's no need to use that because it was not OpenSource? Not everything is OpenSource and not everything needs to be, really. When OpenSource versions of similar programs appear, that's fine. But until they do, you'll be crippling yourself by not using what's there. Some of them are quite free despite not being quite free enough. With the exception of rpm in place of dpkg, there is very little you want to do with this planned dist that Debian doesn't already in terms of techincal forms.. Debian is not the most user-friendly dist, but that could chanage with a few custom scripts and possibly a few rebuilt packages using different conffiles. pgpSUZk3CVsa0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] (1) we probably don't want to talk about this in much depth on the debian lists, since you've explicitly stated that it's not debian. Please announce an alternative venue as soon as you can. Right. It's not my intent to abuse the Debian lists. I'll try to get a list server going through hams.com tomorrow. (2) I've never been able to keep up with all the various distributions (free or not) that keep popping up, but I guess I'll assume you're correct that none of them match the needs you see. About the only other viable volunteer distribution is Stampede, a Slackware derivative. They and Patrick are OK folks, but I don't buy into their technical direction. (3) This could be a very positive thing for debian (call it cross fertilization, competition, or just more attention on the underlying problem). Or, if people get all upset about it, it could be negative. I'll try not to get people upset. As far as I can tell, my stated direction is different enough from Debian that they would not really compete. (4) Debian was founded with a we will develop no software statement. Obviously, we've relaxed this (dpkg, apt, ...). It looks like this new project you're proposing will embrace development, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but you're going to need a Linus to lead and coordinate it. I'm not Linus, but I'll try. Thanks Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Bruce Perens wrote: 9. A Random List of Other Goals. RPM as the package system - possibly with an APT port later on (is that what it's called now?). It's necessary to get the other distributions in on the project. We'd have to add a few missing features to RPM, but this would be pretty easy to do. FYI I took a quick looksy over RedHat's web site, specificly the descriptions of packages bit (I think it was the package finder or something) As I see it there are two major problems that preclude using APT with RPM as it stands, 1 - They don't actually have package dependencies. They have dependencies on files - big difference. 2 - They seem to lack a well formed index file, I couldn't find any rpm index on their ftp site. I took a -VERY- quick look some time ago, at first glance everything else seemed about on par with dpkg. But if they are true, those are two very major problems. It might be smart to fork rpm (call it something else) and re-do the header fields to be more sensible, then use APT to provide understanding of the fields and use librpm for the actuall installing. Then you get all the benifits of Debian's dependency system and the benifits of APT's ordering sequencer, dependency engine, multi-source handing, (and someday it's GUI too). If #1 is really true there is zero point in making APT understand RPM, 90% of it's functionality would have to be disabled. Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 05:10:54AM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 08:05:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: I've been giving serious thought for a while to forming a new Linux distribution. My reason is to fulfill some goals that currently are not addressed by Debian or the commercial distributions. Some packages like pine and qmail are worth the fact that to make them useful they must be in source packages. We ALL (all of us who thought pine was an important package at all) agreed on that. And you wouldn't get me away from qmail--so don't try. = The older version of ncftp is now GPL, but what of the new version? Would you say there's no need to use that because it was not OpenSource? Not everything is OpenSource and not everything needs to be, really. When OpenSource versions of similar programs appear, that's fine. But until they do, you'll be crippling yourself by not using what's there. Some of them are quite free despite not being quite free enough. I'm curious how this distribution is supposed to be more 'main stream'. Ok, easy to use, fair enough.. rpm... I guess, but what else? Baseing it strictly on open-source software? I think the 'mainstream' if we are talking about numbers and averages, are the people who go about distancing themselves from Stallman and talking about how they really don't care whether software is really free or not, as long as it works. Hrm.. you really need to set up a different list.. this being Debian, how could you not know that it would start a big long thread?:-) -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Well, admittedly I am rather suprised at this. Although Bruce's post is so calmly worded that it is difficult to find fault, a bird's eye view of his actions produces a scene that really makes me wonder. The most revolting thing to me is that this whole tantrum stems from the fact that Manoj Shrivasta would not allow Bruce to dictate what his motivations for writing free software should be. Bruce could have followed the great Freeware tradition of building concensus by putting togethor a team of Debianites dedicated to creating a newbie-friendly wrapper for the technically excellent Debian distribution. Instead he selected a person almost diametrically opposed with his viewpoint and built an otherwise small and questionable issue into a conflict ultimatly ending in his resignation from the Debian group. Free Software is all about diversity. Any development effort that wants to grow to a significant size needs to understand that. The best way to make a friendly Linux distribution (be it Debian or any other name you should chose) is not to eliminate all the people who are deeply interested in the technical component of the work. The people who want to make something for the new users should cooperate with the die hard hackers to create a system that perserves both sets of needs. Either extreme is lopsided. At a fundamental level I question the proposition that Debian is not concerned with usability. Beyond that I question the fact that RedHat is so much more usable than Debian. It may install easier, but is it easier to run? You spend a few hours installing your system, you spend years running it. In the interest of diversity and competition I support the idea of a Debian faction or even an alternate distribution that is focused on the user. I cannot endorse the extreme (ditch dpkg, go work for RedHat) that Bruce has gone to. My personal feeling is that every man hour that Debian loses to this effort is one man hour too many. I had understood that Bruce had a lot going on personally and the demands of Debian were simply too great. Apparently he is willing to take on the even larger project of rebuilding Debian from scratch. Rather than duplicate a lot of effort I would suggest that Bruce gird up his loins like a man and come back to the Debian effort to establish a usability commitee. On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 08:05:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: I've been giving serious thought for a while to forming a new Linux distribution. My reason is to fulfill some goals that currently are not addressed by Debian or the commercial distributions. 1. Focus on the User Who is the real user? An experienced hacker or a person who has no understanding of Linux at all? Perhaps we should get rid of the command line? Create a registry? 2. Maintaining a non-commercial alternative to the commercial Linux distributions. I think Debian's drifted too far from the mainstream of Linux to continue to fulfill this purpose. Totally do not follow this line of reasoning. See the slashdot poll on distribution preference. It shows Debian a close second to Red Hat. 8. Marketing On An Equal Footing with Engineering I don't recall anyone forbidding the development of marketing materials. The only cold blanket I've ever seen marketing wise was the selection of old blue eye as a logo. I could give you the opinions of professionals on that drawing as a logo if you are not interested in mine. RPM as the package system - possibly with an APT port later on (is that what it's called now?). It's necessary to get the other distributions in on the project. We'd have to add a few missing features to RPM, but this would be pretty easy to do. Why? No obscentity. Avoids legal problems and makes _me_ feel better. There is lots of room for free-speech distribution sites on the net. Well, I hope you can get bitchx, Satan and the other daemons on board. E ps. Bah humbug. -- ___ Ean SchuesslerDirector of Strategic Weapons Systems Novare International Inc.A Devices that Kill People company *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 08:05:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: Dear Debian Folks, I've been giving serious thought for a while to forming a new Linux distribution. My reason is to fulfill some goals that currently are not addressed by Debian or the commercial distributions. I really don't know what I should think of this. I am speechless. Anthony -- Anthony Fok Tung-LingCivil and Environmental Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Alberta, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep smiling! *^_^* Come visit Our Lady of Victory Camp -- http://olvc.home.ml.org/ or http://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/OLVC/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My personal feeling is that every man hour that Debian loses to this effort is one man hour too many. Er.. Debian is not that kind of effort. Personally, I think every hour of flamage we lose will be paid back in an order of magnitude of better coordination (and development). But (a) personal feelings are just that: personal; (b) Debian doesn't track (nor own) man hours; (c) coordination time is not equivalent to development time, and neither are equivalent to testing time; (d) if what they produce is well designed free software there's no reason we couldn't also use it. I regret having wasted any of my, or your time on the recent flame war about what if policy isn't really policy, by the way. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1 - They don't actually have package dependencies. They have dependencies on files - big difference. Perhaps this could be synthesized from a complete list of all files provided by rpm, and a limited scope which prohibits presenting competing versions of the same file. 2 - They seem to lack a well formed index file, I couldn't find any rpm index on their ftp site. Presumably, this could also be addressed by work. [Since it's not specific to the rpm format, but the rpm site.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 29.04.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 1. Focus on the User I'd like to have developers who program because they like to see their work in the hands of users, especially _naive_ users. Well, I must say that while users are nice, naive users ... umm. Well. I deal with enough of these in my day job to not want to deal with them in my free time, too; they tend to be a royal pain in the ass. Now, that doesn't mean that a system shouldn't be easy to use. Of course, I believe that Debian *does* meet that criterion; it sure feels easier than Win95 to me. Competition with Microsoft and other proprietary systems is a stated goal of the project. Market share for the system and its derivatives is a stated goal of the project. That is essentially a question of priorities, of what you're willing to sacrifice to meet that goal. My priority is in technical excellence and usability for those that care to learn about their system. To put it bluntly, I consider software not following these primary goals to be junk. Microsoft is a prime offender. It's nice if it's *also* easy for other people, but that is definitely a secondary goal. Oh, and that's always relative to the context. It sure means different things for a general OS distribution as opposed to, say, some embedded thing to run cash registers. I don't expect cashiers to learn about an OS; I *do* expect them to learn, say, how to cancel entries and stuff. 2. Maintaining a non-commercial alternative to the commercial Linux distributions. This was one of the most important goals of Debian. Still is, of course. I think Debian's drifted too far from the mainstream of Linux I don't think so. to continue to fulfill this purpose. A non-commercial alternative would address the same markets as the commercial Linux systems, and would be compatible with them wherever possible. I propose for this system binary, _dependency_, and package compatibility with Red Hat, the most popular Linux distribution that has made it to LIBC 6. This would guarantee the availability of commercial applications for the system. Obviously, the easiest way to do that is to derive from Red Hat. I am quite certain I do *not* want rpm, or a system that's a Red Hat derivation. From all I see and hear, that would make it quite hard to follow my primary goals above, except if I were Red Hat myself. 3. Provding shared maintainance on the base system for all Linux distributions. This is another early goal of Debian that we've not ever fulfilled. A system based on what commercial distributions are already deriving from, managed by a non-profit, with shared CVS, might be able to realize this goal. This seems fairly orthogonal to Debian. We already share huge amounts of source with most distributions out there, and better coordination of that surely would be good, but if it's to be of use to all distributions, then it's orthogonal to all distributions. Of course, there will be the issue of coordinating with the upstream maintainers, and the difficult problem of not pissing them off. Considering XFree86 seemed offended by the Debian X maintainer offering help, this can get ... umm ... interesting. 4. Maintaining the Open Source standard of Linux. We're at the point where we don't really _need_ non-free and contrib directories any longer - all packages in the system should be Open Source - let someone else distribute the rest. Uh. You the same guy that wrote about commercial applications some paragraphs above? 5. Open Development. I am proposing development visible to all, but not a free-for-all. A core group of limited size to maintain the base system and oversee the rest probably _is_ necessary. I am not planning to copy the Debian constitution - I'd rather have the Bazaar-Method management we used for the first few years of the project. Hmm. The currently debated constitution seems to me to be an attempt to get back to bazaar-style management from too much cathedral under a previous project leader. Some guy named Bruce, IIRC. 6. Direct Commercial Participation. I would encourage direct commercial participation by other Linux distributions who are interested in compatibility through a standard base system. I know most of these people, and can probably get serious consideration from them. That looks like it belongs to the common base efforts. One thing that came up recently would be better coordination of sonames. 8. Marketing On An Equal Footing with Engineering Marketing is important for getting the user's attention and giving the user what they want. Lack of good marketing is the main reason for the failure of Unix derivitaves to achieve market domination.
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 08:05:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: 5. Open Development. I am proposing development visible to all, but not a free-for-all. A core group of limited size to maintain the base system and oversee the rest probably _is_ necessary. I am not planning to copy the Debian constitution - I'd rather have the Bazaar-Method management we used for the first few years of the project. It ain't no bazaar if one can't walk into it. Read Eric S. Raymonds /Homesteading the Noosphere/. Re-read it. Think where you went wrong. Just my .02 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 02:33:54AM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote: [..] Bruce could have followed the great Freeware tradition of building concensus by putting togethor a team of Debianites dedicated to creating a newbie-friendly wrapper for the technically excellent Debian distribution. [..] If there are a group of people interested in doing this still, I am very much interested in seeing this done and contributing what I can to the project. The demo I would want to create for such a thing to show how much Linux can do without even touching X (mostly for the HD space issue) would probably not fit Official status very well because I would almost certainly include pine-src and qmail-src packages in the defaults-to-be-installed area simply because it's a demo designed to be as easy as possible. NO editor is as easy (read: mindless) as pico and pine is a user favorite. And the most config qmail requires after package installation is control/me, which I'd have a script edit for you.. =p Free Software is all about diversity. Any development effort that wants to grow to a significant size needs to understand that. The best way to make a friendly Linux distribution (be it Debian or any other name you should chose) is not to eliminate all the people who are deeply interested in the technical component of the work. The people who want to make something for the new users should cooperate with the die hard hackers to create a system that perserves both sets of needs. Either extreme is lopsided. I agree. Debian is a great dist on technical merit, even though it doesn't have some of the niceties needed for a home-user who wants to try Linux on their machine and is willing to learn--but can't really afford a lot of time to figure out how to handle the common tasks we take for granted. At a fundamental level I question the proposition that Debian is not concerned with usability. Beyond that I question the fact that RedHat is so much more usable than Debian. It may install easier, but is it easier to run? You spend a few hours installing your system, you spend years running it. See Crystal's horror story once she got everything installed. rpm is a file-based dependancy, not a package based. She knew she needed a file, not where to get it. This is the kind of thing dpkg does well IMO.. In the interest of diversity and competition I support the idea of a Debian faction or even an alternate distribution that is focused on the user. I cannot endorse the extreme (ditch dpkg, go work for RedHat) that Bruce has gone to. User-friendly SCREAMS dpkg to me. Not really Debian, but dpkg. rpm is not nice to new users, though it is more flexable with installing combinations of tarballs and packages. Still, with as many packages as Debian has, this is a non-issue really. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Bruce Perens wrote: As I see it there are two major problems that preclude using APT with RPM as it stands, 1 - They don't actually have package dependencies. They have dependencies on files - big difference. 2 - They seem to lack a well formed index file, I couldn't find any rpm index on their ftp site. They have _both_ package dependencies and file dependencies. In fact, earlier versions of RPM only had the package dependencies (e.g. Red Hat 4.2). I know, I've recently made .rpms of texk which had package dependencies. (I wanted pdftex.) The file dependencies are automatically generated, and they are used for shared libraries and binaries needed by install scripts. I took a -VERY- quick look some time ago, at first glance everything else seemed about on par with dpkg. But if they are true, those are two very major problems. The only real problems that I see are: 1. no alternatives or diversions mechanism 2. some problems with default configuration file handling I believe I know how #2 can be handled with a small patch to RPM (changing one constant), and for other problems the developers are very active and open to suggestions. It might be smart to fork rpm (call it something else) and re-do the header fields to be more sensible, then use APT to provide understanding This would be bad. Especially since RPM is a cross platform standard: people are using rpm to install packages on Solaris machines and many other commercial Unix platforms. of the fields and use librpm for the actuall installing. Then you get all the benifits of Debian's dependency system and the benifits of APT's ordering sequencer, dependency engine, multi-source handing, (and someday it's GUI too). If #1 is really true there is zero point in making APT understand RPM, 90% of it's functionality would have to be disabled. It's not true. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2 - They seem to lack a well formed index file, I couldn't find any rpm index on their ftp site. Presumably, this could also be addressed by work. [Since it's not specific to the rpm format, but the rpm site.] There is an index file in the installation tree (RedHat/base/hdlist), and a program to generate it. The file format is concatenated headers, which is very easy to load into librpm for dependency processing, etc. This format could also easily be used for contrib trees, etc. And it is much cheaper to generate than the Debian Packages files currently are. (Last I checked, this required a md5sum of every package.) But this should be discussed on rpm-list, not debian-devel. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 10:06:00AM -0400, Steve Dunham wrote: It might be smart to fork rpm (call it something else) and re-do the header fields to be more sensible, then use APT to provide understanding This would be bad. Especially since RPM is a cross platform standard: people are using rpm to install packages on Solaris machines and many other commercial Unix platforms. .deb files are perhaps more so.. While dpkg doesn't exist for everything, the file format of .deb is just an ar file with a few tarballs inside. pgp52mvuuyXA5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Hi! What I read from Bruce here recalls a discussion on linux-kernel where Linus made the following statement: Ooh, mommy, mommy, what I have now doesn't work in this extremely unlikely circumstance, so I'll just throw it away and write something jcompletely new. -- Linus Torvalds At the time Bruce left nearly nobody has understood why he thinks that Debian does not focus on the end user and can't be improved that way. I don't recall a statement that sounded appropriate to me where it shows that Debian doesn't focus on the end user _and_ that we're unable to resolve this. It makes me feel very sad that our former project leader - co-founder of Debian or at least early co-worker - wants to start something completely new instead of improving our work that is also his work. It is true that a lot of mechanisms, Debian has at the moment, can and should be improved in some ways. I have to admit that there are quite some people working on such issues. On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 08:05:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: Dear Debian Folks, 1. Focus on the User I'd like to have developers who program because they like to see their work in the hands of users, especially _naive_ users. This is the case for a lot of debian developers, not for all of them, I have to admit. Competition with Microsoft and other proprietary systems is a stated goal of the project. Market share for the system and its derivatives is a stated goal of the project. This implicates a lot of projects the single project can't fulfil. It also includes some goals that it may fulfil. Fulfillable goals . Easier installation . User friendly interfaces . Configuration interfaces other than vi / files for all important tools[1] ... New projects . wysiwyg word processors (sorry, but I don't believe LyX is the answer, apart from being based on xforms/qt) . SpreadSheet . Database / frontends / address db's . Compound Office packages . Mail client (sorry, I don't believe that mozilla is the answer) . Network tools ... Please tell us where we have to improve our mechanisms according to your oppinion. 2. Maintaining a non-commercial alternative to the commercial Linux distributions. This was one of the most important goals of Debian. A non-commercial alternative helps keep the commercial distributions stay honest by preventing any of them from having a corner on the market. I think Debian's drifted too far from the mainstream of Linux to continue to fulfill this purpose. A non-commercial What is mainstream? Rpm might be mainstream as most other distribution have chosen it as their package manager. Hey, this doesn't make it any better, MS Windows is mainstream, too. This doesn't justify a movement, too. From the technical point of view dpkg is superiour in it's features. From the users point it's handling (-i, -r, --force-something) looks a lot more logical than rpm (-qiv etc.). I have to admit that dselect isn't able to handle our huge amount of packages. No point, Culus works on apt which will be functional and a wonderful frontend for dpkg. I used RedHat's package manager a few times, glint, on RH 4.2 only, I have to admit. I have to say, that I'm more than happy that we have dselect and its _functionality_ that is somewhat more complicated but results in easier handling. Obviously, the easiest way to do that is to derive from Red Hat. If so I feel offended that you posted this on the debian-* lists and not on redhat-* You're abusing Debian developers who work hard for this distribution. That's ashaming. 3. Provding shared maintainance on the base system for all Linux distributions. This is another early goal of Debian that we've not ever fulfilled. A system based on what commercial distributions are already deriving from, managed by a non-profit, with shared CVS, might be able to realize this goal. Isnt' there already a distribution based on Debian? (I have to admit that I don't recall its name.) Wasn't this one of the reasons Mike Neuffer and Dominik Kubla left? I don't think you seconded that goal at that time. For this, I'd suggest better helping FreeLinux than starting another thing. 4. Maintaining the Open Source standard of Linux. We're at the point where we don't really _need_ non-free and contrib directories any longer - all packages in the system should be Open Source - let someone else distribute the rest. Cool idea but this breaks 1. (Focus on the User, remember?). I would be very glad if we could just skip non-free and concentrate only on free software. But from my experience only hackers and experienced users are able to work without all that crap. (like tetex-non-free, mosaic, kde, xforms based stuff, commercial sql server etc. etc.) 8. Marketing On An Equal Footing with Engineering Marketing is important
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 02:33:54AM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote: [..] Bruce could have followed the great Freeware tradition of building concensus by putting togethor a team of Debianites dedicated to creating a newbie-friendly wrapper for the technically excellent Debian distribution. [..] If there are a group of people interested in doing this still, I am very much interested in seeing this done and contributing what I can to the project. I find this idea interesting and would like to see it... NO editor is as easy (read: mindless) as pico and pine is a user favorite. And the most config qmail requires after package installation is control/me, which I'd have a script edit for you.. =p I dunno...I think ee and ae are both pretty damned easy and mindless :)(ae is sooo mindless I have noticed it is putting CR in my text documents) Free Software is all about diversity. I agree. Debian is a great dist on technical merit, even though it doesn't have some of the niceties needed for a home-user who wants to try Linux on their machine and is willing to learn--but can't really afford a lot of time to figure out how to handle the common tasks we take for granted. This is very true... I know a number of people who just want toPoint and click and have it work At a fundamental level I question the proposition that Debian is not concerned with usability. Beyond that I question the fact that RedHat is so much more usable than Debian. See Crystal's horror story once she got everything installed. rpm is a file-based dependancy, not a package based. She knew she needed a file, not where to get it. This is the kind of thing dpkg does well IMO.. I have used both Debian and RedHat and I agree... dpkg is MUCH easierto use than RPM isand it works much better...at this point in the short few months I have used debian I have installed and uninstalled and generally used dpkg hundreds of times... on my past RedHat systems I alwasy had a lengthy read of the man page... it took forever to get it to work! The thing is thisRedHat is a GREAT 1st systemby that I mean the firsttime you ever install linux...as much as I love debian and think it is greatly superiour in many ways... I still recommend RedHat for the first time. This is just because it installs a nice useable system so nice and easy... and has graphical admin toolsthe learning curve to linux is sharp (unless you are comming from another Unix) but RedHat makes the first few days/weeks easier remember: There are only 2 kinds of system admins, those who have screwed their computer up while logged on as root, and those who havn't YET after they are at the level of having done that..(I have personally done that um... lets see...at least 3-5 times) ..that is when I suggest debian :) RedHat is a very good system to get started on...but hard to grow with Debian on the other hand makes a great 4th system (yes 4th...I messed it up once after I switched too..probably will again someday) -Steve -- -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: 2.6.3a mQCNAzG30VYAAAEEAK8aj0pclro6ULfzim7TN0Y2FeNtzJKkA9rNZ8KGim3N+ULO 1dn4tfIqymSNDQLc/SDCvliTDP9vodSSYfQaovHE2wWE6n5igGIhA3RqyAnX9ctl 4wPI5FYJHHhsl2OsKJLui1TbTo6uJul3vG4U9CnopYscEbHm+Hxvn0zebBV9AAUR tCVTdGVwaGVuIEouIENhcnBlbnRlciA8U0pDQGRlbHBoaS5jb20+iQCVAwUQMcz2 fnxvn0zebBV9AQFb2QP+OiFDvDvuuomwdZns+pQTVqOu5zy3wdlyQki4Mo/X+5qY Nmj0s4qjfowaimj69db6w6jSvzeEY5gnlM92NI5dj6qliJScBVlRNBRffsHkvHkk C27LjUtVYkF3j30wyCwdzNe0FhRYBsz5F+i78ZSPrxlUkOvfFBUgAo2ZFwlwS4k= =z4IB -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes: 1. Focus on the User I'd like to have developers who program because they like to see their work in the hands of users, especially _naive_ users. You are searching developers who will put significiant time into making parts of Debian (or the distribution-to-be) more user-friendly. Whenever you found them: Why don't they put their time into Debian and work on the relevant parts of Debian? This would save them a lot of duplicate work. I think even Debian developers for who user-friendliness isn't a top priority will be glad to see someone else do it. 2. Maintaining a non-commercial alternative to the commercial Linux distributions. I think Debian's drifted too far from the mainstream of Linux to continue to fulfill this purpose. Heavily depends on the defintion of mainstream. As I got it you believe that RedHat is to define what mainstream is, and mainstream has to use rpm. (You are invited to correct this.) As you know I don't share this definition. 3. Provding shared maintainance on the base system for all Linux distributions. That's what Dominik Kubla wanted to do. He pointed out that this has nothing to do with creating a new distribution, since such a base system approach will not be accepted by other distribution people when you start building your own distribution on top of your own base system. Thats the one point where I agree with Dominik ;-) BTW: What is the current state of Dominik's project (FreeLinux (?)). A base system has to be small, a distribution has to be big. This is another early goal of Debian that we've not ever fulfilled. There weren't that many people who pursued this goal, hence I don't consider this to be Debian's goal. 4. Maintaining the Open Source standard of Linux. We're at the point where we don't really _need_ non-free and contrib directories any longer - all packages in the system should be Open Source - let someone else distribute the rest. We probably don't need it. As long as people volunteer to maintain the packages we can distribute these packages with nearly no extra effort. Remember: Per Definition non-free and contrib aren't part of Debian. We might want to express this more clearly by moving directories around, but that isn't urgent. 5. Open Development. I am proposing development visible to all, but not a free-for-all. A core group of limited size to maintain the base system and oversee the rest probably _is_ necessary. Why is this necessary? IMHO the biggest problem is the (mis)use of the mailing lists. There are to many people chatting about to many things on too many mailing lists. People who know enough to package software for Debian don't necessarily have enough inside knowledge to discuss larger design issues. (And I'd like to see a split between technical and non-technical issues for -devel). I am not planning to copy the Debian constitution - I'd rather have the Bazaar-Method management we used for the first few years of the project. I don't know which of these ways is better. I know how things worked, and this leaves enough space for both improvement and worsening. I didn't understand which problems the constitution is expected to solve, so I have no idea what it will cause. 6. Direct Commercial Participation. That's only important for the base system. (IMHO) 8. Marketing On An Equal Footing with Engineering Marketing is important for getting the user's attention and giving the user what they want. Lack of good marketing is the main reason for the failure of Unix derivitaves to achieve market domination. I would put the marketing team at the same level as engineering, and have them work together constantly. Real developers tend to disklike marketing. You didn't tell us what this marketing team is going to do. (E.g., in case they will start promising impossible things they will become a pain for honest developers.) Marketing may have positive effects, but you have to name them. 9. A Random List of Other Goals. RPM as the package system We've been through this before. dpkg's is design is good. Someone has to fix the bugs. COAS as a system management framework. Why not? Who is going to do this? Non-interactive install. Goal accepted. I haven't seen relevant proposals lately. Limited set of interpreters for system tasks and pre-install and post-install scripts. How about ANSI shell (_not_ necessarily Bourne shell), Do you mean POSIX shell? I have never seen an ANSI shell specification. I'm concerned that Perl is a rather messy language compared to Python, and both Red Hat and Caldera seem to be focusing on Python. There is no point in asking for holy wars. No obscentity. Avoids legal problems and makes _me_ feel better. There is lots of room for free-speech
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
If someone has the desire to install an operating system on a computer that is created, supported, and distributed by volunteers they should expect to have to do some amount of reading to configure the system to their liking. When someone does the install and then proceeds to cry because the system doesn't do what their friend's does, without being willing to read and follow the documentation I quickly lose patience. It is a different issue if the person reads the documentation and doesn't understand it, or the solution is not in the documentation. At least the person has *tried* to help themselves. No problem here. As I said I *DID* find the answers and got my debian installation to talk to my ethernet card after making use of available documentation. But it was not Debian specfic documentation that was most helpfull, but rather general linux networking and slackware specific documentation that gave me my answers. Yep, lots of apps need to be ported - are you volunteering? Ok put your money where your mouth is eh? I'm not yet at the point where I could make the kind of contribution that I'd like to. First I need to get my own system in order (I'll end up starting from scratch with debin 2.0 when it is ready for prime time). Then I need to learn how to program GUI under X (which standard? Motif etc?), I currently know MFC under windows professionally. As with most free things, you get out what you put in. If you want a system that is easy for the casual user, you need to develop that and be willing to hold the hand of all the casual users when they don't understand why the system is doing what they told it to, not what they think it should be doing. Yes I'd also like to help improve system friendlyness for the begineer. I applaud Bruce for attempting to follow this goal, and wish him the best of luck in the endeavor. I hope it meets with better success than the Linux for Hams project. Maybe Debian should become linux for hams. How about a default configuration for amateur radio users? And solicit more ham radio packages. I'm willing to write / port some, in the near future. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote: I dunno...I think ee and ae are both pretty damned easy and mindless :)(ae is sooo mindless I have noticed it is putting CR in my text documents) As it turns out the DOS CR is coming from slang and is being worked on. Ae's .rc files are currently broken as well, from the transition to slang. Most of the details have been worked out, although I am still looking for a reasonable way to deside whether ae is running in an xterm or the console. (trolling for ideas on this one at every opportunity ;-) Look for a much cleaner operation of ae in the next release...the vi stuff is even working again! I have gotten a lot of good help on this problem, and I want to take the time here to thank everone who contributed info and fixes. If I haven't thanked you in person, it is only because I am moving too fast and you fell through the cracks. Many thanks, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
BTW: What is the current state of Dominik's project (FreeLinux (?)). No messages regarding its progress or lack thereof for the past year. Real developers tend to disklike marketing. Don't tell that to my colleauges at Pixar. Or most other commercial firms. As far as I can tell they only dislike _bad_ marketing. You didn't tell us what this marketing team is going to do. Tell us how to please the user, mostly. There is some gap between the user and developer that the marketing people can help to bridge. We've been through this before. dpkg's is design is good. Someone has to fix the bugs. Actually, RPM's design is good too. It's pretty much a clone of dpkg. We seem to have established that it has the things Jason thought were missing. Do you mean POSIX shell? I have never seen an ANSI shell specification. Right. I'm concerned that Perl is a rather messy language compared to Python, and both Red Hat and Caldera seem to be focusing on Python. There is no point in asking for holy wars. No, I was just asking for a smaller base system. That means someone has to choose. Thanks Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Thanks for taking it as intended - and not the flame bait it might have sounded like. (Rough night last night - but I did put the delete disclaimer in) I've been using hamm for some time, and as long as you check to be sure that application you can't live without exists, it has been fairly stable for the last month. The autoup.sh script was a bit rough (I have heard it is much better now) and I trashed a system with it. After I installed from scratch everything has been reasonable (except the soundmodem programs were linked against libc5). When you get around to porting those ham apps, let me know and I'd be happy to help if I can. 73 de KB8PYM Pat Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Amateur Radio (voice): KB8PYM on KB8YVY repeater (52.650 / 146.835 / 444.650) Amateur Radio (packet): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running down the hall: Hey you! You can ping your node, you can ping you neighbor, but you can't ping your neighborÂ’s node. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution If someone has the desire to install an operating system on a computer that is created, supported, and distributed by volunteers they should expect to have to do some amount of reading to configure the system to their liking. When someone does the install and then proceeds to cry because the system doesn't do what their friend's does, without being willing to read and follow the documentation I quickly lose patience. It is a different issue if the person reads the documentation and doesn't understand it, or the solution is not in the documentation. At least the person has *tried* to help themselves. No problem here. As I said I *DID* find the answers and got my debian installation to talk to my ethernet card after making use of available documentation. But it was not Debian specfic documentation that was most helpfull, but rather general linux networking and slackware specific documentation that gave me my answers. Yep, lots of apps need to be ported - are you volunteering? Ok put your money where your mouth is eh? I'm not yet at the point where I could make the kind of contribution that I'd like to. First I need to get my own system in order (I'll end up starting from scratch with debin 2.0 when it is ready for prime time). Then I need to learn how to program GUI under X (which standard? Motif etc?), I currently know MFC under windows professionally. As with most free things, you get out what you put in. If you want a system that is easy for the casual user, you need to develop that and be willing to hold the hand of all the casual users when they don't understand why the system is doing what they told it to, not what they think it should be doing. Yes I'd also like to help improve system friendlyness for the begineer. I applaud Bruce for attempting to follow this goal, and wish him the best of luck in the endeavor. I hope it meets with better success than the Linux for Hams project. Maybe Debian should become linux for hams. How about a default configuration for amateur radio users? And solicit more ham radio packages. I'm willing to write / port some, in the near future. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
Ean Schuessler wrote: [..] Bruce could have followed the great Freeware tradition of building concensus by putting togethor a team of Debianites dedicated to creating a newbie-friendly wrapper for the technically excellent Debian distribution. [..] Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: If there are a group of people interested in doing this still, I am very much interested in seeing this done and contributing what I can to the project. Stephen Carpenter writes: I find this idea interesting and would like to see it... Same here. This is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote pppconfig. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
From: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I read from Bruce here recalls a discussion on linux-kernel where Linus made the following statement: Ooh, mommy, mommy, what I have now doesn't work in this extremely unlikely circumstance, so I'll just throw it away and write something jcompletely new. -- Linus Torvalds It doesn't seem to match the current circumstance. I'm not proposing to throw away Debian, but to address a different target from Debian. Splitting off sounds a lot gentler than pulling a Boris Yeltsin. [ Focus on the user issue ] This is the case for a lot of debian developers, not for all of them, I have to admit. I think it's too large a number for me to go against. This implicates a lot of projects the single project can't fulfil. It also includes some goals that it may fulfil. Obviously, we can't do everything by ourselves. We can provide a framework to support the work of others. Please tell us where we have to improve our mechanisms according to your oppinion. Oh gosh, you're not serious, are you? My solution would be rather draconian. The alternative I've chosen is much better than a draconian one. What is mainstream? Rpm might be mainstream as most other distribution have chosen it as their package manager. Hey, this doesn't make it any better, We seem to have established that it's functionaly equivalent to dpkg. It can use a better user interface. MS Windows is mainstream, too. And you should know that we'd love to have a WINE or TWIN that worked. That would make lots of users happy, and a free-software Windows system would not necessarily be technically bad one. Obviously, the easiest way to do that is to derive from Red Hat. If so I feel offended that you posted this on the debian-* lists and not on redhat-* Oh, they'll hear about it too. I do still get mail from the please come back folks on debian-devel, you know. I don't think coming back is a realistic option, Debian and I are going in opposite directions. Isnt' there already a distribution based on Debian? No, there isn't. Somebody took a little of our stuff for some French dist, but it's not Debian. Wasn't this one of the reasons Mike Neuffer and Dominik Kubla left? Yes, but their project did not succeed. Dominik was the only worker and had no time. I don't think you seconded that goal at that time. Gee, maybe I should have. Can't I change my mind in 3 years? 4. Maintaining the Open Source standard of Linux. Cool idea but this breaks 1. (Focus on the User, remember?). I don't believe that. Yes, some stuff needs improvement or replacement (like LyX), but free software is pretty fundamental to other goals of the project. Let the derivers add the non-free stuff. Thanks Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 04:35:24PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: [1] The KDE team produces a lot of them like kppp, kisdn, kheise etc. I don't believe that these is the answer as long as Qt is non-free but it's a way in the right direction. My personal hesitation with Qt has been overcome finally knowing that Troll Tech wouldn't pull an Open Group stunt on us, but you are right in that it would be nicer if the license were OpenSource. Would it be possible for a sort of dual license to be considered OpenSource? Something that allowed free creation of OpenSource software (commercial or not) but proprietary software required commercial licensing for it? This sounds SO CLOSE to what the license does now, the only real difference is focusing on whether or not the developer can make a profit doing what they do (RedHat for example whose development has always been GPL even though they make $$ doing it..) The GPL even has that restriction, though it's more limited to RMS' vision of the Perfect License and not all software that is Free. I think it's possible at least the Qt people might actually agree, considering. And they would suddenly have a LOT more Qt users out there (which would mean more Qt developers) if things like KDE didn't have to go in to contrib. pgp0btd8Fz1oC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: on forming a new Linux Distribution
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 10:44:21AM -0400, Stephen Carpenter wrote: [Debian for the clueless users] If there are a group of people interested in doing this still, I am very much interested in seeing this done and contributing what I can to the project. I find this idea interesting and would like to see it... Then I suppose if you're not the only one, something might get done with it.. = Anyone else interested is free to email me and we can see about actually getting a mailing list for the job and start DOING something about it. It's one thing to say oh that'd be nice but another all around to get off our tails and make it happen. Some of what I can imagine doing already is not suited for Debian's official CD really, but I suppose that would be the kind of thing to want and see what the Debian developers and users think. One thing I would like see (if there are any mildly compitent programmers interested) is more tools like apt that are able to be used in console or X. editor is as easy (read: mindless) as pico and pine is a user favorite. And the most config qmail requires after package installation is control/me, which I'd have a script edit for you.. =p I dunno...I think ee and ae are both pretty damned easy and mindless :)(ae is sooo mindless I have noticed it is putting CR in my text documents) I found pico to have more features than ae, and I know that's not true. ae was just harder to use. I agree. Debian is a great dist on technical merit, even though it doesn't have some of the niceties needed for a home-user who wants to try Linux on their machine and is willing to learn--but can't really afford a lot of time to figure out how to handle the common tasks we take for granted. This is very true... I know a number of people who just want toPoint and click and have it work Most of them would settle for a DOS-looking configuration, but you can only do so much with dialog and most people DON'T write even that much. Most of the enhancements to usability I can think of would be fine with sh scripts and whiptail (or dialog which I despise--it should be an alternatives thing with whiptail having higher priority IMO) and in places that's not suitable perl scripts would be fine. There's not MUCH we would actually NEED programming done for---but I can think of a small number of Make Linux Easier For Everyone programming tasks (better XF86Setup!) See Crystal's horror story once she got everything installed. rpm is a file-based dependancy, not a package based. She knew she needed a file, not where to get it. This is the kind of thing dpkg does well IMO.. I have used both Debian and RedHat and I agree... dpkg is MUCH easierto use than RPM isand it works much better...at this point in the short few months I have used debian I have installed and uninstalled and generally used dpkg hundreds of times... [ Side note to self: I can't believe joe just formatted that paragraph with the 's in the right spot, it's never done that before... shrug ] Oh yeah, rpm is the one thing Redhat should have ignored. dpkg is really a better program, though it may not have been quite what they wanted at the time. on my past RedHat systems I alwasy had a lengthy read of the man page... it took forever to get it to work! The thing is thisRedHat is a GREAT 1st systemby that I mean the firsttime you ever install linux...as much as I love debian and think it is greatly superiour in many ways... I still recommend RedHat for the first time. This is just because it installs a nice useable system so nice and easy... and has graphical admin toolsthe learning curve to linux is sharp (unless you are comming from another Unix) but RedHat makes the first few days/weeks easier remember: There are only 2 kinds of system admins, those who have screwed their computer up while logged on as root, and those who havn't YET after they are at the level of having done that..(I have personally done that Whelp, if I get my way (and I'm stubborn) you'd also be able to show them a Debian CD and they would at least have the OPTION of having an installation that was easy for the kind of system they would need at home. um... lets see...at least 3-5 times) ..that is when I suggest debian :) RedHat is a very good system to get started on...but hard to grow with Debian on the other hand makes a great 4th system (yes 4th...I messed it up once after I switched too..probably will again someday) I was the one who sat down one day and finally dove in, using a multiboot with OS/2 and WFW (I won't run 95, WFW is the most stable Windoze ever) on my system. I just Partition Magic'd myself a new pair of partitions and installed Debian. Life as I know it changed that cold December night.. = Installation was a snap. I knew basic shell commands from working on a SunOS (and later the buggiest Slowaris you ever saw when they upgraded) machine, so once I was installed
