George:
Sorry for the late reply...
> Time to do some good old-fashioned "market classification" here. We have
> two base-level types of people using LRP:
>
> 1. People who want to have a firewall/router that will let them share IP
> addresses and don't want to spend the money on a commercially available
> one.
>
> 2. People who want to tinker, and as such have a fair bit of knowledge.
I more or less agree with your generalization. I think
Eigerstein proves your point substantially. Recall LRP without
it, back when modmaker was alive? Every newcomer was pushed
in the tinker category. From my pov, Eigerstein was the "eighty
percent" solution, and has been a great success both on its own
and for the project in general.
> The problem then becomes where we draw the line between the two.
Perhaps a way to think about it is from the point of view
of the newcomer. That is, we'd answer the question: "why would a
new user use this LEAF stuff". So, similar to what Eigerstein
did, we could break it out by high level description:
* Using a Cable-modem with a DHCP? Download MapleLEAF 1.0
* Using a DSL-modem with PPPoE? Download FigLEAF 1.3
* Using a dial-up modem? Start here with RedLEAF 1.1
* Experts only: want everything? MallornLEAF is for you.
That sort of thing. Or if MapleLEAF was tied to a
specific kernel/glibc version, we could post pre-rolled
images like "MapleLEAF for DSL", "MapleLEAF for Developers",
etc.
> Any thoughts or ideas? I'm thinking that trimming the fat off of this
> stuff, combined with UPX, might be enough for us to go glibc 2.1.x or
> even 2.2.x for base router images. At least then, it would be easier to
> transition from the basics to the fun stuff.
Starting with a a base router image the same on all of the
above LEAF trees would be terribly valuable. Glad this is being
thought out...
cheers,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
