> Having [perl and python] doesn't cost much, IMO. this is true however, you only need a single deep-seeded flaw to exploit an entire system when it comes to scripting. for further reading, see bash. --Gravis
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Joel Roth <[email protected]> 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/ > > cheers > >> --Gravis > > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:49 PM, T.J. Duchene <[email protected]> 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 >> > [email protected] >> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >> _______________________________________________ >> Dng mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > > -- > Joel Roth > > > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
