Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!
newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!ina.zfn.uni-bremen.de!
marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!
zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ub!
ns.potsdam.edu!news.potsdam.edu!nelson
From: nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Distributions considered harmful
Date: 17 May 1994 10:35:49 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <NELSON.94May17063549@crynwr.crynwr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.143.201.14
I don't think the current state of Linux distributions is good. Free
software works because the users can be programmers, and everyone can
cooperate. But with the various distributions, we have
noncooperation. Guys, that's what the SysV people do, not us. They
feel a need to differentiate their product from the base System V
distribution from USL. So when they fix a bug, or add a feature, they
*don't* send it back to USL.
We can do better than that.
We've got at least four different package conventions (SLS, Slackware,
Debian and Yggdrasil). Why? No good reason I can see. FTP sites
carry these different distributions, most of which differ only slightly.
I feel that there is need, and room, for two Linux distributions, one
conservative, and the other radical. The conservative distribution is
probably the harder, and potentially more money-making, distribution
to do. It is marketed at Linux "users". People who don't want to
have to fiddle. People who are willing to pay for the software to
"just work". So the conservative distribution has its work (and
profit) cut out for it.
And there's plenty of money to be made on the radical distribution,
because it's obvious that some people out there want the latest and
greatest, and they're willing to pay for it. "Who has the latest CD"
is the subject of a recent Usenet message.
And multiple distributions are not good, because they tend to fragment
the market. The Linux market is small enough as it is -- we don't
need to make it smaller! If I'm running Slackware, I don't feel like
I can purchase SLS's support package. Or if I've bought Yggdrasil's
CD-ROM, can I install an slackware package? And not break everything?
And Adam's not doing himself any favors by not creating an FTPable
Yggdrasil distribution. In the free software market, you create
business by giving away your software to create a need for your
services. The less you give away your software, the less your
services are needed.
And Debian, while it has the support and name of the FSF, is just
plain not needed. Much, much better to fix the problems with
Slackware, SLS, or Yggdrasil.
We should start with a merger between SLS and Slackware. Send your
requests for same to Peter and Patrick, imploring them to cooperate
for the betterment of all. Yes, they've had words, but they should
still be able to work together.
So who am I to be giving out all this free advice? Why, just someone
who's been supporting himself for 2.5 years by selling support for
free software.
--
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!
newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!ina.zfn.uni-bremen.de!
marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!
zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!crcnis1.unl.edu!herbie.unl.edu!jepler
From: jep...@herbie.unl.edu (Jeff Epler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: In defence of variety (was Re: Distributions considered harmful)
Date: 17 May 1994 19:47:38 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Lines: 126
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2rb70q$e5p@crcnis1.unl.edu>
References: <NELSON.94May17063549@crynwr.crynwr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: herbie.unl.edu
nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
>I don't think the current state of Linux distributions is good. Free
>software works because the users can be programmers, and everyone can
>cooperate. But with the various distributions, we have
>noncooperation.
I don't have that much of a problem with the fact that there are
different distributions. Of course, I may not like some of them
much...
We've got MCC, the small system. Slackware, the complete system.
SLS, the broken system with exactly one feature that might be nice to
have elsewhere. Debian, the release that doesn't really exist yet.
Yggdrasil and the other CDrom distributions, for those with slow or
nonexistant linkage to the net..
They all have their place, and the fact that there are so many doesn't
really detract from them.
>Guys, that's what the SysV people do, not us. They
>feel a need to differentiate their product from the base System V
>distribution from USL. So when they fix a bug, or add a feature, they
>*don't* send it back to USL.
I don't know that this is really the case with the Linux
distributions. The only thing I can think of that could be called
'truly innovative' is the SLS Modular Kernel. I don't know if it's
not a part of the standard kernel because it is still quirky (I see
many posts about people trying to compile the SLS kernel, but I
haven't read any of them), because the SLS maintainer doesn't want the
mainstrean kernel to have these features (This would likely violate
the GPL), or because Linus just doesn't want those drivers there...
Are there other such situations you're thinking of?
>We've got at least four different package conventions (SLS, Slackware,
>Debian and Yggdrasil). Why? No good reason I can see. FTP sites
>carry these different distributions, most of which differ only slightly.
It would be nice if there was a standardization that allowed
installation of a package from any distribution, even if you don't
have that distribution. However, I don't think we're that far from
it. On my MCC system I was able to effortlessly install the
Ghostscript and Ghostview binaries from Slackware. Slackware easily
accepted tinyX and ran it admirably. Slackware used to recommend
using the TeX package from SLS because it didn't have its own. The
differences are primarily cosmetic, and have probably lessened since
FSSTND. Usually the procedure is:
cd /
tar xzvf PACKAGE.tar.gz
<remove junk files particular to distribution PACKAGE comes from>
Three steps isn't very much at all...
>I feel that there is need, and room, for two Linux distributions, one
>conservative, and the other radical. The conservative distribution is
>probably the harder, and potentially more money-making, distribution
>to do. It is marketed at Linux "users". People who don't want to
>have to fiddle. People who are willing to pay for the software to
>"just work". So the conservative distribution has its work (and
>profit) cut out for it.
If you're asking for this, why not just have one distribution with two
personalities? Slackware and SLS come close to this with the concept
of 'disk sets', and with MCC it's easy to pick and choose which
packages you want since it is somewhat less than rigid in its disk
packing. Perhaps the "users" version would be a stable libc, a 1.0.x
kernel, X 2.1.1 and formatted man pages, while the "radical"/"hacker"
version would include the necessities of GCC, 1.1.x kernel, one of the
unsupported X 3.0's floting around, etc.
>And there's plenty of money to be made on the radical distribution,
>because it's obvious that some people out there want the latest and
>greatest, and they're willing to pay for it. "Who has the latest CD"
>is the subject of a recent Usenet message.
I don't think that keeping on the bleeding edge is something best done
by buying a new CD -- FTP is a much beter idea, for those who have it.
Installing new libc, gcc, kernel, or X is a pretty painless process..
The same for most software that will let me 'make install'.
>And multiple distributions are not good, because they tend to fragment
>the market. The Linux market is small enough as it is -- we don't
>need to make it smaller! If I'm running Slackware, I don't feel like
>I can purchase SLS's support package. Or if I've bought Yggdrasil's
>CD-ROM, can I install an slackware package? And not break everything?
Well, the answer to this is to take a chance that you might break
everything...
>We should start with a merger between SLS and Slackware. Send your
>requests for same to Peter and Patrick, imploring them to cooperate
>for the betterment of all. Yes, they've had words, but they should
>still be able to work together.
I don't need The One True Distribution (But if I made my own, it would
be TOTDOLinux probably), and especially not as a union of SLS and
Slackware. I'm sure someone does, but the fact that I don't want it
and can proceed to not have it but still have Linux is what makes the
idea of many distributions a good idea.
Of course, my views here are more of the hackerish sort, not ones
suitable for those who are going to use Linux in an atmosphere where
there are overworked admins and users who don't understand. The vast
majority of the software I have here comes not from the MCC 0.99.10+ I
installed long ago, but from source code I found, liked, and compiled
myself. Most of the rest is binary replacements of large packages,
such as libc, XFree86 or gcc, packaged independantly of any
distribution. And while it has made a bit of a wilderness out of my
/usr, it has what I need 95% of the time.
The distribution isn't the be-all or end-all of Linux... They're a
base from which your personal Linux machine will grow. Very few Linux
users can really say 'My computer is Slackware' or 'My computer is
MCC', because most everything gets taken out and replaced... But it's
still nice to start out with a Linux that is close to your particular
'personality'. And the diversity of distrubutions is the best way to
get that right now.
Jeff
--
Jeff Epler echo "kill -9 -1" | su jep...@herbie.unl.edu
____ "Nuke the unborn gay whales for Jesus"
\bi/ -- Never seen on a protest sign
\/ 1.5<kinsey<2.5 Running Linux 1.1.11 -- DOS is to boot DOOM!
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@uk.ac.swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: In defence of variety (was Re: Distributions considered harmful)
Message-ID: <1994May17.215759.4468@uk.ac.swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <NELSON.94May17063549@crynwr.crynwr.com> <2rb70q$e5p@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 21:57:59 GMT
Lines: 17
In article <2rb70q$...@crcnis1.unl.edu> jep...@herbie.unl.edu (Jeff Epler) writes:
>nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
>
>>I don't think the current state of Linux distributions is good. Free
>>software works because the users can be programmers, and everyone can
>>cooperate. But with the various distributions, we have
>>noncooperation.
>
>I don't have that much of a problem with the fact that there are
>different distributions. Of course, I may not like some of them
>much...
This suggests to me that we need a more detailed FSSTND and a standard
for package formatting.
Alan
|