Roles for distributions

[mberglund]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Michael Schmitz wrote:

> > > However, the intractible part is getting my fix into the official sources.
> > > I'm not working for a distribution; maybe it would be easier if I was.
> > > I'm just a user who doesn't want to have to keep reapplying my patches every
> > > time I get a new release, and would like to fix stuff properly so the next
> > > guy who comes along has an easier time than I did.  It's not at all clear how
> > > to get fixes in even once you've dug up the solution.
> >
> > You guys are discussing some of the issues our group (of two) would like
> > to rectify. This is an on-going problem, and I think part of it has to do
> > with the fact that there is not a "non-commercial" distribution going. We
>
> Please clarify. I thought Debian qualifies as a non-commercial
> distribution?

Yes. I conceed that debian is a non-profit organization. I would argue
that there is a great many things about them that are 'commercial-like'. I
have always wondered why one of the Linux distro's has not taken a look at
the BSD method of system updates. Each one, (I have asked four, with SUSE
being the most blatant) has said no. I am forced to believe that this is
amoney issue. I will also conceed that I have NOT asked Debian, but I am
not sure I like thier gpl-centric way of doing things.

Don't misunderstand, I do respect (and even believe in) the gpl, for
ceratin situations. But I will not limit myself to only this type of
software.


> I don't think any of this really is about commercial vs. volunteer
> interests. Rather mainstream vs. oddball architecture issues.

I would argue that it is both. No doubt, ppc gets a short stick compared
to intel. So does S390, and probably ARM.

But the OS's have yet to be built with some of the features that a small
group of us would like. The only answer I can see is to do the work
myself, and hope some of you guys will come along. The commercial
guys(specificly SUSE, slack, Redhat, and Corel) don't want to talk about
what we want to do. And it's a shame, because it will make updating
systems one hell of a lot easier than they are now.

It also seems like the lost art of making an OS the SAME from platform to
platform is just that, LOST. This is another lofty goal in the project.

I mean, it is hard enough to learn a new hardware platform, without having
to learn a new version of linux(or unix, for that matter). And even redhat
has not been able to make thier distro the same from platform to platform.

I'm of my soapbox now. If you get it, I hope you'll help with what we are
doing.

Later,
Matt

Unix is best described as an old, sturdy tree.
It is well structured, always growing, and has passed the test of time.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/