On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:18:59PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:05:32AM -0500, Gravis wrote: > > > My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in > > > a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd > > > is. You can't get rid of them > > Having them don't cost much, IMO. > > A lot of the Debian infrastructure is written in perl. In > Gobo Linux, the system administration software is written in > shell. Utility for administrating Nix are written in Nix language. > > > this is actually something i'm looking into fixing. my preference > > would be to make a standard POSIX base to build upon. the LSB is a > > bad joke. > > As a basis for building Linux distributions? > You may look into Automated Linux from Scratch > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/alfs/
And interesting to find that the LFS "books" exist in regular and systemd flavors. http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/alfs/wiki/SupportedBooks The jalfs software hasn't been undated changed since 2009, however the LFS books are current. > cheers > > > --Gravis > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:49 PM, T.J. Duchene <t.j.duch...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 18:11 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> With all respect, T.J., those are merely programming languages--shell, C > > >> and C++ are also "hard to extract"--but none are trying to dictate > > >> policy. > > > > > > I would not consider C in that group, as the system actually requires > > > the C library for the OS to function on the most basic level, not to > > > mention that the kernel, Perl and Python are actually written in C. > > > > > > My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in > > > a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd > > > is. You can't get rid of them, without pulling a DIY. Linux as a > > > platform does not require them to function. > > > > > > What makes it relevant to the conversation is that it is all about > > > attitude. They are enthusiastically endorsed by communities that refuse > > > to acknowledge that either can be as much of a hindrance as a help in > > > many cases. For example, Python as a programming language is designed > > > specifically to dictate how you do things, i.e. Zen of Python: "There > > > should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." > > > > > > Sometimes Linux can be its own worst enemy. > > > > > > > > >> Other tools we're familiar with also dictate policy at some level such > > >> as dpkg and apt, however, the authors of those tools don't start > > >> throwing around the term "haters" whenever someone sets out to compile > > >> from source outside of their policy. Do you see the difference? > > > > > > There is some truth to that, but you can revisit that virtually anywhere > > > there are fanboys/fangirls. The fact that few authors like LP can use > > > the term "haters" to divert attention from the real issues, and then get > > > a free pass just shows how easily the issue has polarized others and how > > > easily the "sheeple" are manipulated into going along. > > > > > > t.j. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dng mailing list > > > Dng@lists.dyne.org > > > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > > _______________________________________________ > > Dng mailing list > > Dng@lists.dyne.org > > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > > -- > Joel Roth > > > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng -- Joel Roth _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
