[openbeos] Re: Why I am against distributions.

The pkg format is nice. Maybe it would be a good thing to build 
something on it? OpenBeOS Package Manager for example. Or even 
OpenPackage Format. (opk)

Just a thought...


Elver

>BSD has ports though ...
>
>We just need something like that, except better and something thats a 
GUI.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Reid" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 8:21 AM
>Subject: [openbeos] Re: Why I am against distributions.
>
>
>> I agree that openbeos should have an ISO available, but disagree 
about
>what
>> it needs...
>>
>> I'm not sure we really need to offer everything, just enough to get 
the
>user
>> up and running. I mean Free/OpenBSD don't come with all that stuff, 
just
>an
>> OS. Depending on how you install you then have to add X and the 
various
>> packages. Perhaps what we should offer from openbeos is just a very 
basic
>os
>> with the package manager and this way users can customise it 
themselves.
>>
>> Of course the other thing we need to guarentee is that obos only 
ever has
>a
>> single package manager. Let's not waste time and effort getting into
>> fighting about which pacakage manager etc etc We settle on one and 
it's
>part
>> of the OS. beUnited or whoever else use it and everyone else does. 
We can
>> include a method for checking permissions based on purchased access 
or
>> subscriptions or whatever, but essentially everyone uses the same
>installer.
>>
>> Without this we will fail.
>>
>> david
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrew McCall" <mccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 1:52 PM
>> Subject: [openbeos] Re: Why I am against distributions.
>>
>>
>> > On Sunday 23 June 2002 04:46, you wrote:
>> > > >Hi All,
>> > > >
>> > > >I was going to write this as a newletter article, but refrained 
due
>to
>> the
>> > > >"negative" comments on how we currently plan to produce a
>distribution
>> of
>> > > >OpenBeOS, I hope that it makes a good read, and I hope it maybe 
helps
>> > > > shape the path of OpenBeOS in more ways that code.
>> > > >
>> > > >=============>> > > >
>> > > >Why I am against vendor-style distributions, and for a *BSD-
style
>> > > >distributions.
>> > > >by Andrew McCall
>> > > >
>> > > >=============>> > >
>> > > [In brief summary, hoping that I do justice, complaints about 
Linux
>and
>> its
>> > > myriad of paths and distributions, testing apps across different
>> installs
>> > > and why Be/FreeBSD had/have a better model]
>> >
>> > > Now, having said that, what I would like to see is OBOS make a 
distro
>> for
>> > > distro makers. Basically, we should put together an image (be it 
.iso
>or
>> > > .zip or whatever) that contains all of the servers, headers,
>libraries,
>> > > libraries, kernel, etc, and an installer. Something that you 
could
>stuff
>> in
>> > > a drive and install a (very) minimal working system. It would be 
the
>> distro
>> > > makers job to put whatever web browser, mail client, GNU tools, 
etc on
>> and
>> > > package, document and ship. Much like the FreeBSD people do. In 
this
>> way,
>> > > we do not dictate what is on the distro more than what we have
>> > > written/included. We make sure that the paths and kits and such 
are in
>> > > place, but we do not step beyond that.
>> >
>> > This is nearly what I am driving for - with one addition, I think 
that
>> > OBOS.org should make a distro for distro makers, but one that if a 
user
>> wants
>> > can use themselves i.e. I can forget all the BeUnited.org ISO and 
use
>the
>> > OBOS.org ISO.
>> >
>> > This may sound similar to what you are offering already, but there 
is
>one
>> > important difference, if this is to happen, the OBOS.org distro 
must
>come
>> > with similar things that Be, Inc's distro did, and that includes a
>> browser,
>> > email client etc.
>> >
>> > You see, if you start doing things like not including a browser 
because
>> people
>> > have different opinions on whats the best one, you shouldn't 
really
>> include
>> > an email client either - and we already have done.
>> >
>> > I think that a decent way to approach this would be by the 
installer.
>> >
>> > If you remember the R5 installer had check boxes that let you 
include
>> bundles
>> > of apps, like this (if I remember, its been a while since I 
installed)
>> >
>> > BeOS R5 intel [ ]
>> > Language [ ]
>> > Development [ ]
>> > Media Pack [ ]
>> > Trialware [ ]
>> >
>> > Why not have the OBOS base like this :
>> >
>> > BeOS R5 <platform> [ ]
>> > Language [ ]
>> > Development [ ]
>> > Media Pack [ ]
>> > Documents [ ]
>> >
>> > and then the distro makers add extra fields to this, so for 
instance a
>> > BeUnited.org's distro (just and example) might look like this :
>> >
>> > BeOS R5 <platform> [ ]
>> > Language [ ]
>> > Development [ ]
>> > Media Pack [ ]
>> > Internet Apps [ ]
>> > Graphics Apps [ ]
>> > Commercial Apps [ ]
>> > Trialware [ ]
>> > Music Apps [ ]
>> > Documents [ ]
>> >
>> > .. then if for instance you started with the OBOS distro, you 
could
>later
>> get
>> > the BeUnited distro and add the extra options.
>> >
>> > One difference here is that it would be OBOS.org who made the 
standards,
>> or
>> > perhaps it would be "approved" BeUnited.org's standards.
>> >
>> > I really don't think that  a third party should be making 
standards for
>an
>> OS
>> > that we are making, there are all sorts of problems that arrise in 
the
>> future
>> > if BeUnited.org becase a commercial profit making company.
>> >
>> > Andrew McCall
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Other related posts: