Slashdot Mirror
Toward a New Kind of Linux Distribution
An anonymous reader writes "Progeny co-founder Ian Murdock wrote a weblog entry that has been reprinted at Newsforge. He talks about how current distros are built from the top down, making a 'one-size-fits-all' solution of technology. He proposes making a modular solution that encompasses building modules so distros can include only the technology they need to suit their purpose, kinda like building from the bottom up. Interesting read, good arguments, potential for a new Linux community."
Progeny co-founder Ian Murdock wrote
Wouldn't it be worth mentioning that he is founder of Debian as well?
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
but wouldn't something like this be better based on Gentoo? If it's going to be modular and simple to use for the majority I think it'd be better off with package management more along the gentoo line, instead of debian, which while good is more suited to hackish, more finely grained options?
This seems like a pretty good idea, I am sure that many people would adopt it. However, it sounds an awful lot like Linux From Scratch, or Gentoo. I'm assuming that a distribution like the one proposed must be a binary one to appeal to the masses.Overall, though, this sounds like a good way to attract more people to the Linux community.
What I don't get is how this is different from, say, Debian or Gentoo at all. At the end of his blog he says "If this sounds a lot like Debian, that's because it is in many ways", goes on to list the ways, and then doesn't list any differences other than an Anaconda installer. So, is this debian that installs like redhat and lets you choose packages? I mean, it doesn't sound like there's anything new here at all.
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
Many options are selected at compile time, rather than in configuration files, for instance processor selection. My php configuration includes "--with-mcrypt --with-gd --with-jpeg-dir --with-png-dir --with-freetype-dir". The number of different downloads for any pre-compiled distribution will be enormous.
Rock Linux isn't a Linux distribution: it's a distribution build kit, that allows you to build your own tailored distribution from sources, with your choice of configuration options.
Even if there aren't currently the options that you want, the simple text-mode configuration files allow you easily to add your own.
One size fits all is good. That is why everyone knows how to use a PC (and Windows) and why Unix is a support nightmare. The last thing we need is another Unix/Linux dialect.
They started by making products designed for single roles, with a database server, a groupware and messaging server, and a fileserver.
Modularity is great for large organizations, but at this point it would be foolish to fall into MS's line of thinking, that you need a separate server for each role in the industry. It would behoove us to try harder to break down the barriers between servers so that they can act in a cohesive, stable and seamless fashion, whether there is one server, five servers, or five thousand servers.
And that's why we need a stronger LVM!
I don't know about the distro he's using, but my build of Gentoo only has the packages I want (plus their requirements).
The bottom up model is being used by distros other than Gentoo, too. He's not breaking any new ground or creating any unique ideas IMHO.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
Sounds like a great idea - but surely that's what you get from the gentoo linux system - you custom build a verison of linux that not only has 'just the components you need' in it, but also is (or can be) specifically tailored to suit your hardware and peripherals etc. I can see an avenue for component based distributions taking off, however. The two challenges with Gentoo are 1) the need to compile everything from scratch (which can take ages) and 2) the almost vertical learning curve required to get the resulting linux system to work (work out of the box? - not really!). Presumably the component model might allow both of these to be addressed...
Interesting. I'd always felt that this is how Linux really works the best., rather than being a giant 1 gig hunk of software, I can pick and choose the parts I want to play with. This leads to lots of mistakes early on, but over time, you learn how to optimize and reevaluate what you need and where, with the end result of understanding your system that much better. So my question is: Was this a suggestion for Linux in general, or a suggestion for a new type of business model?
We could always base it on the AmigaOS method
Release an operating system and... uhh leave it at that, while never releasing an update ever again. It's worked for the last 20 years of Amiga's!
sounds like he's referring to exactly what gentoo is.
Or am I missing something?
RST
In order for Linux to appeal to the masses, these "choices" must be available in an easily installable "package". It would be great to install only those options you need, want or require. And, I think most important, is the time it takes to set up the system.
His idea sounds very close to Morphix. It allows easy building of customized live-cd distributions. It supplies its own installer too.
Morphix is modular, and can be adapted with less effort
The base, the Knoppix part contains the kernel, kernel modules, hardware detection, etc. This base is left untouched. You can either a change a mainmod or add lots of minimodules.
The are four basic images to start off with. So making you own LiveCD is much easier.
It even possible to save you files, configuration and setting to the Morphix CD you using, ready for next boot up.
Did I mention the GUI installer ...
Brendan Mentioned before and here
He says a basical iso is avaible and "More components and a component-aware, Anaconda-based installation mechanism will be added in the coming weeks".
Heh, compiling everything for oneself through an intuitive gui sounds pretty cool to me !
Gentoo now accessible to the unwashed masses (which I'm part of), Yay !
I think it would be good from a security stand point to be able to quickly build the most minimal system, but there is still probably a lot of stuff in the Kernel that isn't needed. Still it would be great to have a tool that was based on the reserve of package dependency and removed everything you didn't want/need.
http://www.hawknest.com/
Care to explain how AmigaOS is now at 4.0 while they've "never released an update ever again"?. to my mind that's at least 3 major revisions of the OS after the first. There were many in between also
RST
Wouldn't it be neat if you could go to a website, enter in a list of all the hardware on your computer, enter in the applications or types of applications you want to use, and then download a customized installation CD with only what you want included? Then if you changed any hardware or wanted more software, you'd revisit the site, enter in the changes, and then download a patch including required modules, applications, and a script that installed/configured the changes?
That would be cool.
... is, in my opinion, one of the more interesting Linux distro's around right now.
...
Its not so much a distro, as a 'meta-build system', for building and packaging your own distro.
To me, this is the best solution, and while these sorts of build-system efforts are still in their infancy, I can see a day when you just answer a few questions, press a button, and get a custom CD designed -exclusively- for the application you've defined.
That's pretty nice. As a Linux user since the minix post, I'm excited about more and more of these sorts of 'smart build environments' becoming the 'distro construction set' de jour
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Would be a program that would generate a Linux distribution based on your desires.
It would be a wizard that would ask you questions about what you want. For example, do you want a server or a desktop distro, do you want KDE or Gnome, do you want office software, games, web browsers.
After you answer all the Questions it would make you give it a Name, Such as MooKore Linux, and it would genreate an ISO filled with the RPMs for you for you to install.
found here
But isn't/wasn't this what BeOS intended to do? On the one hand it would be nice, it would be compact as opposed to having 3! cd's full of stuff, yet at the same time, they'd better have a squadron full of developers who would change things on the fly considering the speed at which things change.
MoFscker
Diversity is certainly a strength of Linux.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Will this distro be the one that finally disavows socialism and embraces western capitalism?
Never mind that Ian Murdock is also a founder of Debian, and that Progeny has always been built on Debian; what objective reason is there for building this kind of OS on Gentoo rather than Debian?
First of all, Debian is quite modular and simple. In fact, Lindows uses it behind their "click 'n' run" front end, and its supposed to be amazingly smooth. Debian can be used for more finely grained options, but can also be used for a modular system as described Murdock.
Plus, lets be honest; source distributions just aren't going to cut it in an environment where package installation speed is important.
Point is it doesn't matter. He has an itch, didn't see anyone willing to scratch so is doing it himself. Maybe it will satisfy others peoples itches as well but if it doesn't it doesn't matter. His itch is being scratched. A non-commercial distro with 1 user who is satisfied is 100% succesful.
Better then all those whiners who want someone else to fix their problems.
But isn't redhat and mandrake and suse modular anyway? Not like they force me to install apache or a window manager. Just the if I want say xmms I bloody well going to have to install X for reasons that should be obvious. You may want MS to stop bundling IE but then don't go complaining that Windows Light doesn't come with a browser installed.
As for putting everything on the CD. Well yes I thought that was pretty nice. Since they want you to buy the thing it means that people with modems don't have to download several gig of extra data just to get a working desktop. KDE is about the only real offender insisting on installing games on every distro I tried.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Software architecture is a blend of extensibility, maintainability and optimization. This type of proposal is so old and so common it is becoming trite. How many of you would use an operating system or application that was 10x slower than another? Telling the customer, "yeah, buts its more modular" doesn't cut it. Thats not to say that there isn't room for improvement - but any consideration must be weighed against other considerations. Any piece of software whose only consideration is modularity is sure to be a barker.
Every split, every fork, every new distro, hurts Linux's chances on the desktop. I wanted to switch once but I couldn't figure out WTF I was supposed to install?!? You guys need to come up with a standard: The One True Linux and then market the hell out of it so that Man on the Street names that distro when he's asked about Linux. Or you can continue with all the different distros and have fun playing around with them. Either way is fine by me, but realize you can't have it both ways. This is *not* a troll, just some advice from an outsider who clearly sees what's wrong. As it stands, once Windows comes out with its trusted computing platform and I'm forced to switch, I'll switch to a Mac.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
seems like the weblog entry and the webpage used a lot of buzzwords (e.g. "upstream", monolithic, top-down etc), however it did not explain how it will achieve this objective, or how it differs from other distro that offer custom installs.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Gentoo is compartamentalized, but not in anyway that other distros such as debian isn't.
Both Debian and Gentoo are heavily optimizable, you choose the componates that you want etc etc.
Bot have your advantages and disavantages.
Debian's is that the developement cycles that forever to make sure that everything is working correctly, but you get a reliable computer that is usefull for hundreds of different applications.
and Gentoo's big disadvatage is that it's worthless for anything other then home desktop, but you can play around with newest technology.
(could imagine administrating a hundred gentoo boxes buy yourself and getting someone to actually think it's a good idea to pay you to run a OS on them that takes a average of two days to get installed?)
And no compiling for speed is DEFINATELY NOT WORTH IT JUST FOR A PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE in 95% of the apps you would use on a daily basis.
But IMHO people are naturally moving towards comparmentalized OSes anyways in Linux. Weither or not they realise it.
Think about, APT and other decent package managers have caught on in a big way. Fedora can use both Apt and or Yum.
Using package managers it's easy to customize any install and the BIGGEST advantage is that it's simple to keep everything up to date and to install new programs.
A BIG advantage over closed source stuff. (once you get it set up.)
Now if most linux distros agree to stick to a common Filesystem Hierarchy system (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) then you can use all sorts of packages together.
I could use Fedora packages, apt packages, debian packages, gentoo build scripts and all sorts of stuff and pluss get support for closed sourced software easily in any distro of my choosing.
If Debian doesn't have a new enough XFree86 build you can install it from Fedora and build the latest KDE 3.x beta from portage scripts from Gentoo.
That's what we should aim for, and a common FHS is pretty close. People are beginning to learn the best way to do stuff and the directory systems are beginning to be more and more common to all Linux distros.
In a few years I hope the consept of numbered linux distro releases will be gone and we will move to a stable/unstable model similar to Debian.
There is mkcd, which allows you to create custom Mandrake CDs with the software and options you want.
And mandrake has a customizable auto bootup/install via drakx (mdk's installer system).
Add all of the above, and a little knowledge about SRPMS (if you want true customization), and it works rather well. Also Mandrake's public download edition is 100% FLOSS, so there are no issues about redistributing the software (unless *you* add some non-FLOSS stuff on your own, heh)
Sunny Dubey
This article is by Ian Murdock, who is the Ian in Debian. The logo isn't there because of a direct relationship to the subject of the article; the Debian logo is there because of a direct relationship to the author.
Notice that his current project (Progeny) is about companies looking to build on a 'distribution neutral platform', and the link in the article goes to a page about 'Progeny Componentized Linux.' Believe or not Gentoo is not the only highly configurable linux game in town: Progeny seems to be playing that game, but at the enterprise not the consumer level. He's definitely not thinking of Gentoo for this role. He's talking about Progeny.
I think PLD (Or in English) tries to be highly modularized:
no restrictions for a set of packages that must be included in the distribution. The user can have access to every package already prepared for PLD. If something had been prepared in conjunction with other packages, it means somebody did need it, and maybe someone will need that package in the future
Now, this is not to suggest that PLD does this well, or that it does this actually implements what Progeny is suggesting, but it's still a starting point.
Although I dont think Ian raises any particularly unique arguments, the article is a susinct introduction to the elements that emphises Linux's strong points.
The thing that aroused my interest in Linux was not its cost, but its ability to be used in projects that were not limited to traditional PC software.
Imbedded linux will (as long as MS doesnt rethink its licensing) rule the non-pc computing world.
It makes perfect sence. Who cares how your C64 watch works, as long as it does.
It seems unlikely that "componentized Linux" is the answer because only imbedded linux realy needs to get down to the "Linux from scratch" kind of level - otherwise, you'll probably be looking for a higher level distro.
I know this is way off topic, but im just bothers me the most. /. has M$ banners sometimes.
every time i read a linux article on some news site they have a *BIG* microsoft ad with something like the "get the facts" shit, "win-dev stuff" or "unix services", even
this guys are spending LOTS of money in the wrong place...
what person that goes to read an ian announcement have ever thought to buy a M$ product?
well ive had to say it
s4nt
Disclaimer: sorry for bad english
Wow - he managed to write 600 words without really explaining what he wants to do.
Is he just saying that distributions should go for niche markets by allowing greater customisation? So instead of installing everything of the 3 CDs you only install what you want? Kind of like every other distro?
Or is it more than that? Some kind of pluggable component system akin to Debian's virtual package "provides" system? So you can have different packages that provide standard services (mail, desktop, web-serving etc.) through common interfaces to the other components.
People keep saying "should be done like Gentoo" or "Debian is like this".What Ian is trying to say is everyone needs to cooperate on this and build a framework which all distros can use.
In my eyes one of the problems Linux has is libraries and their versions. you can't simply take an executable and guarantee it will run on another Linux installation (unless you statically link).
Pourquoi avons-nous besoin d'une autre collection?
God! Yes! That's it! Why didn't I think of it before? That's what Linux and Linux users need... Another distribution.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Almost all Linux distros are componentised. OK everyone let's hear it: "Linux is not Windows."
We've got distros mainly because we aren't all kernal coders who know all the in's and out's of every single chipset. Quite frankly I don't know who even has the time (but apparently some of you do). We have generic groups of packages/aptget/emerge/etc. to allow for faster deployment. And that's another beautiful part to Linux: Choices!
Yes, perhaps it's overwhelming at first, but you can build it from the ground up if that's what you really want or just pile it on thick and zesty!
The author wants to promote Progeny and "Componentized Linux", and I think there's always room for Yet Another Distro (YAD), but to say the others are doomed to fail because they came on 3 CD's (Think Fidora) is misleading. Mandrake 9.1 came on 3 CD's but it certainly won't force you to install all of it. In fact, you can just select a kernal only option, and it won't even ask for the other two disks. Not only that, but you can hand select only the packages you want. How cool is that?
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that most linux distros have options to allow their users to build it pretty much from the ground up. The reason for the different distros lies in what their vision of the ultimate system looks like when it's totally loaded down.
Can somebody who actually READ THE ARTICLE tell me how much more moduler than apt-get install packageX it can be?
Sounds to me like a front end "Install Web Server?" "Install Development TOols?" choices that proxy a few packages is all this is about.
Aren't all Linux distros these days already got some sort of package managing that manages every file? Even the base Libc? How more moduler can you get???
Isn't this really more along teh lines of marketing hype then it is general user useful?
Come on now, we no longer have sub 50Mhz CPUs (but many times that and getting faster),all the expensive backup media we used to use has been replaced with CD/DVD writers (and that's only going to improve), general storage/access media (hard drives) are far more massive in storage space than the old 120Meg drives and and even far more inexpensive (the larger the drive the cheaper per Meg you pay)....ETC...
And HEY, we can even use more ram bits for dates, avoiding things like Y2K... Or is not gigs of ram not enough?
Is it really a value to have injected additional parts complexity to have to deal with?
What is the trade off? You use up a little less drive space, maybe make a fraction better use of your CPU, use a little less ram space and backup media....in exchange for....
Additional complexity to allow you to screw things up more often...
Hell, just wait 6-18 months and get a new faster, larger storage, more ranm, etc... system.... The cost difference will be less than what you might spend in maintaining componentalized linux.
Hell, I really like the Live CD concept, where it determines what hardware you have and auto-configures.....but all from a standard full package.
I wrote a journal entry in which I discussed this very scenario. http://slashdot.org/~lpret/journal/39435 Mind you , this was July 15th, quite a few months ago...
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
But by having MANY different genome sets, we resist total annihilation by having some people resistant to different things.
Likewise, if linux worked this way, we'd be safer from virii, hacks and other attacks.
Hmm, well, it seems you might be slow, so I'm going to state this just about as clearly as I can.
It's impossible for Gentoo to be as fast as binary-only distributions because it has to the job of the binary distribution (the "make install" part) in addition to the compilation. Which, by the way, is slow (with any program or reasable size) on any hardware. I do use an athlon XP 1600+ which is fairly old (and did indeed perform quite poorly at installing Gentoo packages), but even on a Dual Xeon system, I wouldn't want to have to compile KDE from source.
But the most important thing to note is that many people do use old hardware. Why not support them as well? My work computer is a P3 700, and it runs Debian quite smoothly, and installs even big packages in less than a minute (of course, it helps that my work connection gets > 1megabyte/second to MIT's Debian mirrors). Why should that hardware not be viable? Just because you think everybody should use source only distributions? I don't think so.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from the Rock Linux manual, it looks like installs work pretty much like they do for command line installs with ANY source based distribution, just that the installer script includes a small extra section to copy all the stuff to an ISO.
That's maybe four lines of code.
It's worth a bit more to go ahead and use an established distribution - source or otherwise, since you'd be building generic binaries anyway if you want to use it on CD - for that purpose.
If you're really keen to use installers like this, Gentoo is probably a better way to go because they have more people to test code and get it working reliably. Like I said, the addition of about four lines of code are enough to do this - and I'm talking about a little bash script, not C code.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
One size fits all,
Be you short or be you tall,
Be you wide or be you slim,
Be you her or be you him.
Now please, don't start to scream and yell,
We never said it would fit well.
There are times and places where one size fits all may be vaguely suitable for a good many, even the majority of, people. If one happens to be exactly that "one size" you might even wonder why anyone would ever want something else.
There are also, however, times when one size fit's all, no matter how close the fit, is simply intolerable and a wee bit of tailoring is in order.
If you don't feel the need of another Linux "dialect" than ignore it. Those that do may find the new "dialect" finally makes life bearable.
KFG
The problem we have here is that linux is designed for linux users. Like myself, I prefer gentoo. It fits my person style and I just love emerge-ing all kinds of junk and making my own kernel.
I would like to see a linux distribution the exact opposite. One that I could give to people fed up with windows. It should detect all the hardware like knoppix. Then it will bring up a simple GUI style disk formatting tool, like the mandrake installer. Then after I select which partitions it should just install, no more questions asked. When its done all the hardware should be working. One of every necessary software application should be installed. The gui will be simply laid out with big pretty buttons. One that says Web Browser, another for Word Processor, etc. Wine, lilo and other things will be configured perfectly and automatically without user input. There will also be another big button that says "install software". It will have a big nice easy to use app that sorts softwares by categories, shows screenshots and readable descriptions of different programs. With a single click these programs will be installed and new icons will be created. With another click these programs should also be automatically updated to the newer versions without breaking anything. And of course easy uninstallation is a must too.
I see no reason why this isn't possible. Why hasn't anyone (that I know of) done it yet?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Is it only I that have noticed that portage is getting horribly slow as new packages are added. Unless someone (not me) rewrites that whole thing reasonably optimized, I'm switching (so I'm probably switching. NetBSD here I come (back).
The point of Gentoo is that using the source for installation allows much finer grained dependency resolution.
For example, take vim. Depending on what you have installed, it may or may not have Perl integration, Python integration, an X UI, ctags support, make or ANT integration, and so on.
A binary distribution needs to provide a different binary for every possible combination of those, if it's going to allow fine-grained choice around what the Linux system has installed. Either that, or you have to turn off a lot of functionality which could be turned on, in case the dependencies aren't installed.
With Gentoo, the binary's dependencies are determined at install time, so you can have a single package which supports all the possible combinations of other components the user might have chosen to install. If I have Perl but no Python dev tools and opted not to have Python integration, no problem, vim is built appropriately from the same package everyone else is using.
In practice, the binary distributions seem to provide only two versions of vim, a "minimal" terminal-only one, and an "everything, including X" version. Personally, I don't want either of those--I want most things, excluding Python and X. Gentoo lets me have that, Debian doesn't because it doesn't have a vim-perl-ant-make-nox-nopython package.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
as this has been in red hat and debian and probably other distributions for years, 'your' idea was hardly original
There are thousands of fanboys waking up (or getting ready for bed :P) across America right now that are reading this, and all of them are thinking, "Well, this or that distro already does it!" You've all missed the point.
:P) Seriously, though. Linux is linux; let's not make a fuss. It's just nice to see a movement away from the techniques of the past - RPM, in particular, which doesn't make custom rollouts terribly easy.
Has it occured to you that his writing isn't directed towards those of us that already use Linux? Could it be that the founder of Debian would possibly want to make a little money on his toils and ventures by selling his ideas to Suits and PHBs?
No, that couldn't be. Could it?
Yes. (And no, I'm not saying this is a bad thing.)
Stop thinking the world revolves around you (us) and your (our) zealotrous love of your distro. (Particularly you gentoovian freaks with your distcc clusters!
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
That Linux distros are taking the shotgun marketing approach, unlike Microsoft who has painstakingly researched what end users want in an Operating System and for the most part, has delivered exactly what the majority of PC users want. Granted, Linux is destined for the server market for the time being so a distro packed with services is appropriate for the most part, but if Linux ever wants any substantial share of the desktop commodity its going to need to do some serious work on several fronts like UI, ease of use, intuitiveness, size and speed.
End of Line.
good link
well, wow .. sounds a lot like what gentoo should be, except that gentoo is b0rked
.. it won't be achieved because this nebulous too-many-hits from .. what exactly is the point?
the fact is, most of the linux 'community' has no idea what parts of their system they need and what parts they don't
this is just another load of bunk
the-bong goal doesn't really Mean anything
Why are people STILL SPREADING THE MYTH that linux is hard to use on the desktop? ITS NOT! Please tell me what distro are you using? Distros such as Mandrake, Lindows and Xandros give you exactly what you want, they are all very focused for the consumer. So why are you spreading 5 year old myths about linux?
Linux is getting so easy to use its getting mainstream websites reporting about it
My organization is standardizing on it for critical servers, and I think it does a lot of what this article talks about. On install, it asks which services you want to run ... and it ONLY installs what is absolutely necessary to run them. It's pretty lightweight, but gets the job done. And it's also hardened like you wouldn't believe, with most services preconfigured to run in a chroot() jail, something the others should have been doing from the start IMHO.
Website
No, gentoo only has sources, only has sources only has sources!!! (/me puts his hands in the ears) only has sources, only has sources only has sources!!
Care to explain how AmigaOS is now at 4.0 while they've "never released an update ever again"?
No way dude - that would totally ruin the joke!
It's called UnitedLinux
There are several reasons that distros are built top down and you would think that Ian would know.
Linux packaging isn't bad at all, it is actually the lack of any standards that hurts the natural evolution of a modular Linux.
GCC/glibc are moving targets. You can't depend on linking between two versions of GCC or glibc, so all the apps we package today will be of questionable use tomorrow.
All other libraries suffer from the same problem. There is no guarantee that you can upgrade or install anything on the system without breaking random other applications.
There are far too many compile time options in applications. Instead of checking for dependencies at runtime and acting on that information, the applications have to be built either for a minimal system configuration, possibly dropping features, or built with every possible dependency, making installation require far too many dependencies.
Until these issues are cleared up, there is no other way to create a distribution than top down so that all dependencies are known and accounted for or built from source.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
When he talks about a bottom-up distro, there's really nothing more bottom-up than gentoo. Gentoo basically downloads the source off of the developer's web site, cvs, whatever, and compiles it.
...enjoy pre-registering for your Phantom.
;)
If that's too "bottom-up," well, then write a tool that generates binary packages off of the gentoo portage tree, and then a pretty installer that uses them. You could run an apt-style repository on a gentoo box, and then have this new distro just combine the binary packages from gentoo. However, you have to make standardizations on certain libraries, and then you're in exactly the same position of debian or red hat. So what's he talking about, a red hat that's more "modular?" He really didn't do a good job of describing what he has in mind or why it's different from debian.
Why doesn't he just add features to existing distros? Face it, if the linux geeks don't see any unique features in a distro, it's going nowhere. Sure, impressing the PHB's is great and all, but who's going to use it? Who's going to work on it?
In short, the article really fails to give us anything meaningful to talk about. Some of you people seem ready to start gushing before you've even heard any details, saying how the PHB's love this stuff, but all I can say is...
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
By caving in to his SCO-like demand to call the system "GNU/Linux", for starters.
Are you not aware that SCO has sued people over their claim to parts of the Linux kernel? Stallman, interestingly, hasn't sued anybody over this particular bit of minutiae concerning naming. And I sincerely doubt he ever will. So how is this anything like SCO?
It's just a request to people to give credit where credit is due, and Debian apparently thinks it is perfectly reasonable. Many other distributions use the term GNU/Linux in parts of their OS; do you believe they are "kowtowing to Stallman"?
The Debian project's goals and that of Stallman intersect in many ways; they both believe in Free Software to the extend possible today. They both true to further that concept by being scrict about what they allow and what they don't (which is also perfectly reasonable). However, If Stallman went off his rocker and started advocating submission to Corporate America, Debian would not follow him. What you consider "kowtowing" is nothing more than a cooindicental intersection of idealogies.
Finally, I don't think there are as many Stallmanites here as you think. There are conflicting ideologies here like anywhere else, and probably the majority of people that you'll see on Slashdot hold pragmatism above all else. Just ask people if they want Nvidia GLX drivers included in their favorite distro; that'll flush out all the non-Stallmanites.
But can a good soul explain me what's supposed to be a "componentized" distribution, and how this is different from a "regular" distribution?
Maybe I'm missing the point, but can't I install whatever I want (name it components or whatever) in most distributions?
Hooray, someone remembers the Unix philosophy; many small components make the whole.
Don't forget BSD.
Now, let's see if I can seporate konqueror from kdebase...
A blog I run for the wealth
It's monolithic nature has been one of my major gripes with Linux. This is most apparent in the kernel itself; the sources are distributed in one big (and I mean BIG) tarball containing sources for nigh on every architecture and every device supported. Then when you configure the beast, many options cannot be built as modules, so it's either bloat your kernel or miss out.
The same is true for many distributions. Although a lot of software comes in packages, installations tend to range from quite heavy to almost ridiculous (about 1 GB). And the kernel, again, tends to be a fairly monolithic one, supporting a few filesystems that are unlikely to all be used, etc.
I have to say that Debian tends to be quite OK. The base install is, what? 100 MB? And to that you can just add what you need, dependencies solved for you and all. The kernels you apt-get are usually modular (although the generated ramdisks haven't always worked for me, and cannot be edited due to their being in cramfs). Still, it's annoying that when I want a feature added to my kernel, I have to reconfigure, recompile (I don't' keep the object filesaround - they take too much space), reinstall, and reboot. Sure, I could get a faster computer and a bigger hard drive, but even then, having plenty of something is no excuse to waste it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Compilation Enhancements
I hear the argument about faster executables a great deal, and it isn't a bad argument. However, Gentoo will allow you to install binary packages, and similarly Debian will allow you to install from source packages. More than that, you can actually find or create apt repositories with dependencies that are multiplexed across a set of architectures (for example, the nerim.net Mplayer repository; just tell it "mplayer-k7" and you get all the nice optimizations for Athlons with it).
Modularity
Again, Debian can be quite modular. Have you heard of Knoppix or Morphix? They are very popular, and quite modular. There are probably more Debian derivitives than any other distro because they are so modular. I realize that Gentoo might also be good in this regard, but if it isn't provably better, I don't see a reason by Debian still wouldn't be a great choice for this project.
Toward? It's spelled 'Torvalds' you insensitive clods... ;)
Sig Nature
What makes you a troll is comparing Stallman to SCO. Sorry if you can't see that- it's not your beliefs that make you a troll, it's the shrill and foolish way in which you shoose to express those beliefs.
I'm sure you'll counter with "well, stallman's action in this case is like SCO." Well, if Stallman had his way, what SCO is doing would be not only illegal (which it probably already is) but vigorously prosecuted. Your comparison papers over differences that are as wide as the ocean.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
From top to bottom, Open Source endeavours should strive to be modular. From apps and OS all the way down to indivual sections of code being clearly object based and modular. Having the window manager, browser, media player, etc separate from the OS is NOT a bad idea, no? ;-)
Open and Free can (and should?) mean more than showing the guts, but easing the burden to reuse and modify said code.
I guess we should stick to improving debian as the defacto standard of Linux instead of building competition for it. Distros like KNOPPIX have shown how a good lowlevel distro can be used for higher level distros, keeping the base (debian) same allows for much more compatibility (dpkg).
Now if only SuSE and Redhat pays attention.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Your post makes sense on one level...
:) it isn't like you do all this by hand fetching...
But think of it it another way: What if instead of a RPM / binary server providing the package - it could built it on demand? And caching schemes could be used... so common packages aren't built allt he times. And ways to build local mirrors for repeat installs.
This type of binary modularity could be the kind of thing that really differs Linux / Open from Microsoft / Apple style of "one binary fits all" packaging.
The long filenames could easily be managed by computers. That is what they are good at, keeping names stored / organized for you
i compiled my own kernel under Debian right from the source i got from kernel.org, so how's this different from Gentoo? i mean, Gentoo and Debian are both Linux, do the samething, what's the point arguing which way we should follow plus apt-get solved a lot dependencies problem, emerge servers are less in numbers compare to apt-get
Of course people are free to do whatever they want with open source (providing they keep it open, if it's GPL-like). And as a technology strategy, tailoring a distro to a specific architecture or even specific HW platform/model/version/chipset will provide specific advantages in better granularity of access to specific HW features. But as an IT strategy for "world domination" (really "world liberation"), it is an insane sidetrack that will doom Linux to failure as an alsoran, by fragmenting the platform.
"Linux" will come to mean nothing more consistent than "32bit", not a platform for development and use. It will be a "style", rather than a substance, a technology rather than a product. "Linux" will become like a "GUI" or a "Desktop", and will be bastardized, diluted and decimated by Microsoft and its ilk, just like they borged Apple, Xerox, Digital Research, GEM, and all the rest of the fragmented innovators who split the PC platform market into incompatible niches. After those early innovators educated the market with their superior, yet non-interoperable, environments with confusingly separate brands, the entire market was harvested by Microsoft. Which has managed to lie about a unified "95%" marketshare, covered by also incompatible OS versions (DOS, WinN.x, Win95/98/ME, WinNT, WinCE, etc) simply because the icons look the same, and they all have the same brand logo.
This might turn out to be the real watershed for Linux, its longterm defining moment: there's no "Linux, Inc." to realize that its greater good for survival is as a whole greater than the sum of incompatible parts, so short-term business interest might take it down the road to doom. But, as usual, Linux's strength is in its distributed, heterogeneous user/developer base. Demand for the synergy benefits of a unified OS platform that compiles differently on each HW platform might be enough to keep the suppliers on the right track.
Probably a best outcome of this current existential debate would be to get both alternatives, instead of making a false choice between the two: increase the kernel's modularity even more than just drivers, to a nano- or picokernel, with only truly HW independent logic. A clean, simple design for the interdependency of the factored-out modules in surrounding layers around the kernel, and published (RFC) specs with test suites, would get the best of both worlds. Innovation in one module could be quickly directed into development of that function in another HW version, without holding up the original while porting to every incompatible version of the HW. This "crisis" might even be the kickoff to finally dethroning the OS as the central privileged app through which all other apps must work, opening the door to an Internet of truly decentralized distributed objects. But we might be following a will-o-the-wisp of fragmented optimization into the dismal swamp incompatibility, wherein lies waiting the abyss of niche markets, a drainhole for Microsoft waste runoff.
--
make install -not war
Wouldn't it be even cooler if you could just download a small program, run it, and have it list all your hardware (including versions), ask you a few questions about what you want to use the PC for, and then send a list to a site that would produce a system tailored for you hardware and usage needs?
Paul
www.opencouncil.org
Open
I gave my first talk 2 days ago on trying to radically reshape free tech culture which I believe will help it move well beyond, uh, "oppressive" software?
:)
I work with a wide array of people and am looking to gather volunteers to collectively work on this from a very wide range of backgrounds.
One slide is about repartitioning Linux:
http://abuzar.com/tpm/slides/slide24.html
Right now there's only an outline of things that we're working on at http://abuzar.com and we'll put up a more concrete and detailed plan by March 14.
Progressive thinkers, and diverse minded people are greatly needed for this project
Funny as this is, it's on the right track. The system Ian is describing could lead to each user effectively creating their own distribution each time they install Linux. If it's easy enough, what's the downside?
Even when you install Windows, you get the choice (or used to at least) of installing important optional components - like, say, Solitaire. :) But Microsoft can't afford to unbundle and componentize Windows to the extent Linux allows - they're afraid of losing control. Besides, "Microsoft dependency management" is an oxymoron: Microsoft uses unnecessary interdependencies to force users to upgrade. Smart MS admins know this - when you find yourself having to upgrade the browser when installing a new version of Exchange, you tend to clue into the fact that something is fundamentally wrong.
If the customizability of Linux could be delivered to the end user or even "end sysadmin" level - i.e. "professional" sysadmins who aren't Linux geeks - that could be just one more way in which Linux could chip away at Windows' dominance, and it's a way that Microsoft will have a tough time competing with. (First thing they'd have to do is figure out how to unbundle their browser, something they claimed was impossible, in Federal court no less.)
Damn straight. I agree with you 100%. However, I wouldn't expect the kernel to become any less monolithic, unless some distro maker wants to come up with kernel 'subpackages'... Linus has stated over and over again that the monolithic design of the kernel is a good thing. Which might be true from a hacker's point of view, but it's a pain in the neck to keep up with.
GNAA stands for 'Gay Niggers Association of America'. Buncha trolls who post on Slashdot every so often and think their tongue-in-cheek politically-incorrect humour is pretty clever and impressive.
(not that political incorrectness is bad, mind you... I for one hate political correctness in many of its forms. But political incorrectness just to get a rise out of someone is pretty obnoxious.)
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
It is true that there is more gnu code in the "system" then there is "linux" code. However, not all of the code is "linux" and "GNU" what of a system that has KDE on it? GNU didn't write that, qt, or Xfree86. So should I call such a system Xfree86/TrollTech/KDE/GNU/Linux? What if it also runs Apache? Because there isn't asingluar distribution of the operting system that has linux as its kernel, I suggust just calling it what ever the distribution is named. If its gentoo linux, call it gentoo linux or gentoo for short.
You know trying to impose a naming scheme on users of your code almost violates the GPL as we've seen with the Xfree controversy, apache , and BSD. Thats so fittingly ironic. Just because of the irony, I think I might never refer to any linux system as anthing other than linux.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Over the past several days I have seen a number of good ideas being posted on Slashdot and elsewhere. It seems when I read the posts I go "Yeah! That's right on!" and then as I think about it I wonder if the idea can transition into practice well.
First, I love the idea of a truely modern, modular, personalizable O/S. It is what I have been looking for! I just hope that considerable thought will be put into making applications and upgrades very easy to install.
Lindows and Lycoris have the kinds of repositories that I am talking about. Lindows calls their's "Click & Run" but you have to pay for it. Lycoris provides theirs free when you buy their distribution. Both offer one click installation services and try to make software installation as easy as possible.
It sounds like an idea that people should be able to grab on to and develop. Maybe one group could concentrate on the "core" (the O/S and a very few simple tools) and another group could develop the installer.
Sounds simple until you start to think about all of the variables that you lose control of when you open the doors to the thousands of different basic configurations that people may try. Just think of the wide variety of Window Managers are out there and you'll start to understand what the loss of control does to complicate things.
I'm not saying it can't be done, nor am I saying that it is a poor choice or bad idea. In fact, I want it to be a success and I am all for it! I really hope it works.
My concern isn't as much technical as it is political. Almost all projects have their share of politics and more than one great idea has failed because of political differences. I sense that this kind of project is probably more susceptible to these kinds of influences than a more "inclusive" project.
I do think that there is a way around these political turf-wars. Rather than fighting over what will be supported and what won't be why not establish a set of guidelines that other projects can use to bring their projects into compliance with this distribution's installation requirements? This way they can borrow heavily from other projects (ie: Debian, Red Hat, and other distro's that have mature installation protocols) and not have to worry so much about the minutia that creates the political struggles.
What's always bugged me is how many Linux distros lump most of their installed programs in just a few directories. I think that has been one thing that has kept me from using Linux as a main OS for the longest time. Is there a current distro that actually seperates installed applications?
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
forget modularizing components on install time! What needs to be done is for a distro to dump everything onto the harddisk during install, only recompile the kernel based on the hardware probe, and then include an ai with the package to monitor how the user uses his computer. For example, if the user doesn't use the office pacakge for some time, uninstall it! Similarly for other programs. Resize the harddrive once in a while to get more room back if programs have been uninstalled. All of the sudden the user needs to use office suites again? Install it transparently via precompiled pacakges over the web.
Every package management system which supports dependencies (apt, portage, ports, etc etc) will do this. KDE is just a package which depends on all those other packages. In fact this is how it works in the real world anyway: A full KDE3.x environment is made up of such and such libraries, such and such applications, and so on. They just release a new ebuild for the new KDE version, which depends on all the new versions of the component pieces, and when you emerge -u kde all of those packages will be upgraded in order, because the system tracks dependencies. It handles it in much the same way as debian, actually, in that you can make things depend on and provide virtual/foo (for instance vim supplies virtual/editor.) You can also have packages depend on actual packages, with specified version numbers, or you can specify a version >=, etc. Of course you probably know this stuff, but I felt it was worth mentioning here. Anyway apt provides dependencies so debian has the same feature.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A binary distribution needs to provide a different binary for every possible combination of those, if it's going to allow fine-grained choice around what the Linux system has installed. Either that, or you have to turn off a lot of functionality which could be turned on, in case the dependencies aren't installed.
There are thousands of apache modules out there, but I can get pretty much any combination of them without recompiling. What you're talking about is a design flaw in vim, not a fundemental fact of computing. Look at Emacs with it's LISP based adons. No recompling needed.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
My take on this is that he's not talking about a new kind of distribution; he's talking about a central repository. Look at CPAN. It's not a "Perl distribution", it's a central repository of software that can be applied to an existing Perl installation.
Similarly with this Componentized Linux idea (or my idea, if I have it wrong). You'd have a central repository of software (linux.com, linuxsoftware.com, packages.com, whatever). The individual users would download a core from a distribution or a provider, or whatever (like they do with Perl), then they would go through a wizard, choosing the various things they want (KDE, X, Apache, Mozilla).
The components would then be downloaded from the central 'official' repository, customized (if needed) for your specific core, and installed easily.
The result is that there wouldn't need to be a duplication of packaging effort and hosting bandwidth for each distribution out there. All distributions would use one repository, call it the Central Linux Software Repository (CLSR) or something. New software would uploaded to that, and thus be available instantly to all Linux users.
It's a completely different paradigm.
You dig?
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
I have always felt the right trick to system management would be to divide up changes and components not just by what they are but who (as in which class of person) provides, installs, maintains and configures them.
Thus you should be able to compartmentalize all of "your" changes, your company's, your distro's into independent units. To upgrade, just replace the parts the distro maintains, keep your part. To move to another environment, move your part.
More details at this essay
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
You know this is very simple, really. Use FreeBSD. Call it off topic if you want. If you want to build from the bottom up, but not take days to do it like with Gentoo (yeah I am sure some people have convinced themselves that is easy) then use FreeBSD.
I am horrified by the piles of crap in most distros today, and while I have nothing at all againsed Linux itself, it is just not worth dealing with all the mistakes others have made. I would rather start from a good solid base, working ssh and local mail client and go from there. WHY IN THE HELL DO I NEED KDE AND KNOME INSTALLED BY DEFAULT when I say I want a GUI? BLOAT is everywhere in Linux now, the danger is that Linux will end up just like Windows only worse because there is no high god to organized it.
Thanks.
The reason Linux distributions tend towards being large amasses of software is that Linux itself is more of an embedded system development kit than a platform. The best (only?) way to have everything working today is to deliver it all the user as a pre-built kit.
A good platform (Playstation, Windows, MacOS, N64, OS/2, etc.) is designed to make everything interoperate. In almost all cases, the software end-users download comes directly from the authors of the software. In Linux, this is seldom the case, because it does not work very well. To do this, a user usually has to download the source and build it themselves. Sometimes they even have to know which version of the source to use.
In fact, "Redhat 7.2", "Redhat 8.0", "Debian", and "Gentoo" are all platforms. When you download software, usually the software vendor needs to provide a specific package based on which one of these distributions you're using.
There are many reasons for this, but I argue the start of it all can be traced back to the UNIX philosophy of compiled-in and hardcoded paths. It is seldom that a piece of software on Linux can be used properly without lots of hardcoded paths. When different distributions make subtle changes to the way software is to be installed, it requires different binaries to be built. There are also fundamental problems with fitting software that has hardcoded paths into more complex installations. For example, installing software on fileservers, or installing multiple versions of software requires compiling from source. Worse yet, to date these Linux distributions are _all_ more centralized than distributed, and that's a shame.
I could go on, but the major point has been made. We have lots of different distributions because Linux itself is not itself a platform.
- David
Why does this sort of article keep getting posted?
Yes, Ian Murdock is the person who founded Debian. But that was over ten years ago, and he is not the same person. Anyway, even if he was, much of what makes Debian Debian came after he was no longer involved in the project.
With all respect, Ian Murdock is a business man now. His discussion of what Linux needs is really just a promo for what his company is doing. I doubt that it has much relevance for anyone outside Progeny.
If anyone else had written this article, it wouldn't have been published.
It does sound exactly like my web server, which runs on ancient hardware and a small drive just for the hell of it.
I don't really see how this is useful. The point I'm making is that there is really no point in this other than to do it "for the hell of it". I'm typing this on a fairly old computer, barely from this century. Yet, even for this AMD K6-2 500 MHz with 384 MB of memory there seems to be almost no point in trying to be minimal.
A short anecdote: Last summer I wanted to watch a a very high-res DivX on the machine, and it was not even close to work without skipping on XP. Since my Linux partition was screwed at the moment I saw it as a good time to test a new distro: Gentoo. So, I installed it during a (whole) weekend and picked just the packages I needed: kernel, X and mplayer. And in the end I could watch my movie barely without skippning (as long as I didn't move the mouse or do anything while it played). Next weekend I wanted to see how fast the GUI was, so I compiled KDE. After working for two days at it, the system literally melted down. Two condensators and a FET had gotten too much heat and had to be replaced. Well, after some soldering the system was up again, but still without KDE. So, to I downloaded Mandrake and waited for half an hour to get it installed. Then I tried Mandrake with a lightweight WM and mplayer with the same DivX that had barely played in Gentoo, and it still barely worked. I could hardly tell the difference.
So, my question then is: this old machine is probably not even worth 100 anymore, yet it still has 50 GB of harddisk space, which is way more than I could ever fill with any programs. The performance difference between a "monolithic" system and a custom built one also seem negligible. Also, given that both space and performance keep getting cheaper all the time: Where is the value in being lightweight?
Counting the value of my time against the savings in hardware costs by lightweight systems, I just don't see the point! Please reply and tell me why I'm an idiot, Honestly!
if this had just been generic in scope i may have been interested but as he had to say that this is just what they are doing with progeny if just falls flat on is back as a media stunt for progeny...
what was he realy saying in what way the current distros where to monolithic. if i dont want a server i dont install that server, how can it be made more modularized?
the only part that cant change in a distro is the bottom level libs. if they are changed you will have to change every binery that link to them unless the lib is binary compatible with the old one. so the only way to make a distro truly modular is to package everything as static linked and then we are looking at a explosion in storage space needs!
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Thats just it, he doesn't force it, but at every oppertunity he corrects people. My point is that because it uses the GPL you can call it anything you want. He gets upset when GNU doesn't get credit. Thats just it, GPL doesn't require that any credit be given, and explicitly prohibits that it be required.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Seriously. There are more than 100 distros. Probly lots more. Someone will inform me.
Why do we need so many?
Consider the consumer OS: there are already too many windozen (NT4, 95, 95sr2, 98, 98se, ME, W2K, XP) -- that that's a handful compared to Linux distros.
How is my grandma (OK, my ma, grandma writes letters long hand and has no PC) supposed to choose a Linux version?
http://www.rubyx.org/
From the Rubyx page:
Rubyx is an operating system, created and maintained by rubyx, a script written in the ruby language.
The script grew out of the need to create highly specialised linux installations for a massive multi-player online game, but has become a viable operating system for general use. It is working and usable (it's running this website) and package support grows daily.
The Rubyx script actually builds your own customizsed distro with pretty-much whatever you want in it.
http://www.rubyx.org
You can use the Rubyx script to create your own custom distribution. This seems a lot closer to the 'new kind of Linux distro' talked about on the Progeny site.
(and yes, distcc is supported, however compilation happens at your end, not at some central location, but it's still worth a look as you could probably build on Rubyx to do something like you describe.)
OK, I'll get this out of the way right up front: I don't use linux or a Mac. I use XP.
Now for those of you that bothered to read past that statement, the reason why: I've customized all of the 'features' that I don't like right out of Windows. I've replaced the shell and modified the installation process such that *all* user data (including what remains of the registry after I got through with it) is on a different partition, with the option to switch to USB keychain if one is detected at login (doing this the first time was like compiling linux in a chroot environment, many iterations, much frustration). For each of the mission-critical pieces of software I use, I have a clean-up script that removes all of the unnecessary crap from the registry. (There are a couple of programs that continue to reinsert all of that useless crap, so I have a service process that runs (like a cron job) to strip out the Bad Stuff each morning). I know how I want my computers set up, and each computer gets only the things it needs to do its job (one is purely graphic design and cad, the other is circuit simulation, schematic, and board layout. Both have full internet tools, firewalled, with ZERO reliance on any of MS's communication protocols other than wsock32. Not a trace of IM, Outlook, Outlook Express, NetMeeting, or IE on any of my machines... the custom shell helps with that, so now on my machine you can't type a WEB ADDRESS in a FILE EXPLORER box and be taken to a web page... what a phenomenally bad idea from the start... and it just helps them maintain their assertion that they need to keep giving us the rubber glove because IE is so intertwined. Bah.)
Once I have a computer set up the way I like it, the first thing I do is Ghost the whole partition. Now with a bootcd and a USB keychain, I can go from fdisk to photoshop in less than 20 minutes. I've got a custom USB driver that allows encrytion at the hardware layer, so data is transparently cleartext to the computer (if the driver and a password are present) or reasonably well encoded (I'm not trying to defeat the NSA, I just don't want whoever steals my keys to get my phone and address list as well... so I use a password as a seed into a pseudorandom number generator polynomial. It slows access a little bit, but with USB 2.0 it hardly matters.
I thought linux would be perfect for this sort of approach, but I found that you basically have to start at the LFS level, and once you get above a certain level of complexity/usefulness you either resign yourself to using some wacky package handler (at which point you lose fine-grain control over your 'optimal' build) or compiling *everything* yourself after rewriting and debugging endlessly to remove dependencies that will never apply to you (which is a bit reminiscent of "Internet Explorer is too connected to the guts of Windows, we can't remove it", no?.
I used Debian for awhile in the old days, and I was amazed sometimes at the almost endless dependencies that would arise when trying to install some basic program. It was a cryptic adventure using apt-get (You are in a maze of twisty little assumptions about how you are going to use your computer, all alike), so I switched to dpkg, which turned out to be a fucking nightmare... change one tiny thing, and dpkg decides it needs to un/install all of gnome, for example. The dependencies are written in broad strokes, which is undesirable if you are trying to limit the amount of unused crap in your OS.
So in the long run, I needed a bullet-proof system that truly let me decide which pieces got installed, and with Windows all I had to do was hijack the registry and the installer apps, using the Window kernel and a customized replacement shell, (and happily, windows runs that 'fresh-install' speed indefinitely), while with linux I'd need to learn the 'what', 'how', and 'why' of every line of hand-reviewed code. I know that doesn't sound too drastic to some of you tin-foil hat guys, but it seems a bit excessive to me.
I tried Knoppix..
Isn't that exactly what the Rock Linux folks are doing? A modular toolkit for building distros/systems?
Advanced Liberal disgonificator -- "What if the fetus would have cured cancer, aids, and the screwed up gene that allows Liberals and other idiots to develop?"
User MUST show picture ID
Distros are what system admins cut their teeth on. Freedom and open source allow people to make what they want. It is not a matter of "need", it's called "choice" - be glad you still have choice! You are free to choose or recommend an existing distro or even build a custom one for Granny!
I think that this will settle out over the next couple of years. I do think that it makes linux SLIGHTLY unapproachable but there are good reviews of the major distributions and they are really are more the same than different!
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."