Hi Benoit, On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 01:19:42PM +0100, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 13:05 +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 12:41:52PM +0100, Mathieu L. wrote: > > > I'm not sure why you picked ubuntu but you might just want to start > > > from a minimalistic source based distro like sourcemage. > > > > I picked ubuntu for several reasons: > > - it feels like debian > > - it has the best hardware support out of the box (because it > > comes packed with restricted aka non-free packages by default) > > - it has a big user-/developer base which does most of the ugly job > > (reporting bugs, updating packages) > > - it takes no user interaction to boot into a usable system > > - it takes several mouse clicks to install a fresh system > > > > For me the more important thing is that each ubuntu flavor is a > > livecd which is nearly the same as the system you install onto > > the harddisk, hence I can even use the system during install > > already, or install it if I got a new harddisk or if there is > > some sparetime to do it... > > > > And I think the effort to master a special ubuntu flavor is > > rather minimal, because one only needs to change those parts > > which are interesting for us (basically the packages which come > > packed by default). > > > > What is missing at the moment are: > > > > - officially supported Debian/Ubuntu packages for plan9port > > (for simplicitie's sake I vote for a single big package) > > - dwm-desktop package > > - wmii-desktop package > > - plan9port-desktop package (maybe with 9wm) > > > > So the work on 9ubuntu would be to create those packages and > > maintaining a different mastering script. > > > > Regards, > > Why not using something like arch linux ? It provides tools to create > your own install cd (archboot &) or livecd if you need. Hardware is > detected. Pacman is also in my mind a little superior to apt and you can > have minimal install with just needed stuff. Plus, doing packages is > very easy, you have to just use bash and customize one PKGBUILD to > create packages. > > ANother good point for arch linux is that it use rc scripts like BSD > systems to init to the system. No more need of systemv5... > > More info here : > http://www.archlinux.org
I'm open to the base system, but I want a system which can be used and installed from the livecd out of the box. Afaik last time I checked arch it came with two kinds of media (install and live separated from each other). I actually don't care so much about the base system - it has to be stable, usable and updatable on its own, with nearly no coupling with the mastering of our flavor. > Oh and why not take a BSD ? Lack of hardware support - note I'm no friend of closed-source drivers, but it is a pain to get ATI fglrx driver to work in BSD just as an example. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
