[openbeos] Re: Why I am against distributions.
- From: Andrew McCall <mccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:52:50 +0000
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:
