[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Project clarification

> Are we trying to build a fully-featured system, that is, capable of serving
> both as client and server (httpd, ftpd, ircd, gopherd, SMTP, POP3, IMAP
> (maybe), mailing lists), development tools, and all the things we know and
> love about Linux?
IMO, I think these things should be available, but they should not be our 
primary focus.  Being an end-user-oriented system, these things are less 
needed than for todays average Linux machine.

What I'd like to do is revive the Linnet group, and work very closely with 
them.  Their goal is to make a Linux server that's easy to set up.  It seems 
to me that we have basically the same task ahead of us: we need to set things 
up carefully, build administrative tools, and smooth over all the rough 
edges.  Sometime soon it would be good to contact the leaders of that group 
and try to get something planned out so we can start cooperating.

> More importantly, will it still be recognizably Linux when it's done?
Most definitely.  Ideally, I'd like a system that can be stripped away layer 
by layer, until you can see bare rock (Linux).  The core of the system will 
remain relatively unmodified, except for some obvious things like boot-up 
sequence, better FSH 2.0 compliance, etc.

> (Not counting the screaming of vi and emacs lovers, especially on
> redhat-devel <g>).
I agree with Alan Cox on that one.  It's getting really old.

> My personal dream is to see a system that basically has a nice graphical
> front end, but sacrifices none of the power inherent in the Unix scheme of
> doing things.  That is, I want bash, vim, XEmacs, apache, and all of those
> things.
I'd go mad on a system stripped of such tools.  That's one of the primary 
reasons why I go absolutely insane when I have to try to 'fix' a Windoze box.

> The idea that abandoning FHS was even discussed bothers me a bit,
> since 1) there's no reason a user should be bothered with it (and really
> it's not that much more complicated than DOS, except for file permissions);

> 2) it would invalidate many HOWTOs and other documents.
Though many of the HOWTO's will be invalidated by the features we provide, 
i.e. you likely won't need the X setup HOWTO, etc.

> Do I understand what SEUL is trying to do?  Is what I am looking for
> unrealistic?  Thanks, one and all, for appropriate enlightenment. <G>
I just hope this helps out some.

Have fun,  (and I sleep now, really!)

     Erik Walthinsen <omega@seul.org> - SEUL Project system architect
       /  \                SEUL: Simple End-User Linux -
      |    | M E G A            Creating a Linux distribution
      _\  /_                         for the home or office user