[openbeos] Re: Why I am against distributions.
- From: "Sikosis" <beos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:33:06 +1000
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:
