Re: [lfs-chat] A GNU distro

[Richard Owlett]

On 7/14/2016 6:24 AM, Daniel Bernhardt wrote:


While LFS is a complex problem, it isn't all that complex in the
long run. [snip]


But it was tedious[poor word] enough to keep me from doing it. 
Just reading its references was worthwhile in itself.




I have found that even the most robust distributions can be
installed in very compact ways.  Debian, for example, has the
debootstrap method which installs a mere skeleton of the
distribution which can then be added to according to your own
choices.


Any recommended tutorials for a computer _user_ since the 60's, 
but new to Linux?



 There is also the "standard" installation (console
mode), as well as light-weight and heavier weight desktops. So,
as always the choices remain yours. This is the freedom Linux offers.


AGREED.


--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-chat
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-chat] A GNU distro

[LM]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Serge Hooge  wrote:
> Parabola and a few others already do this job, but another free distro
> is never bad. I only have a problem with the name "GNU" (I am sure the
> FSF won't let that sort of a deal happen).

Parabola is a good example of a "free" operating system.  ConnochaetOS
( https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ ) came to mind for me when I was
reading these posts.  However, after using Deli Linux from the same
developer, I personally wouldn't try it.  With Deli Linux, there
really wasn't a good way for users to share packages they created and
the repository was rather limited.  Not sure if ConnochaetOS has
worked out some of those issues or if the system is still very
dependent on the developer in charge for everything.  I've seen a few
lists of Linux systems that strive to be "free" operating systems.
One list is at https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html

Marcus Fonzarelli wrote:
> I'd like to know if anybody is interested enough to start a new project, a 
> new distro (maybe called "GNU") with these >characteristics:
...
> installs official GNU packages only, from official GNU repos

I've been interested in making a customized distribution for a while.
My personal preference would be to favor BSD and MIT licenses over GNU
licensed tools.  BSD and MIT licensed programs would be perfectly
allowable on a "free/libre" distribution.  I find a lot of the BSD
alternatives to common GNU programs are less bloated than the GNU
versions.  For instance, I use the BSD version of patch (the one used
on BSD operating systems) over the GNU version of patch.

Daniel Schepler wrote:
>The main idea would be "no patches" aside from patches
>officially distributed by the same upstream.

I've personally been interested in the exact opposite.  Most of my
programs, libraries, etc. are patched, either by me or using patches
from various sources.  I really like being able to not only customize
my operating system, but to customize the source of the applications I
use on the operating system.

I often see posts of people wanting to make their own distributions.
Would be nice if there was an easier way to share some of that work
even when the people interested have very diverse goals on what their
desired distribution should be like when it's done.

Sincerely,
Laura
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-chat
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page