[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
>> both as client and server (httpd, ftpd, ircd, gopherd, SMTP, POP3, IMAP
>> (maybe), mailing lists), development tools, and all the things we know
>> 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.
I will grant that gladly for everything but the development tools. One of
our best "markets", so to speak, will be those who, like myself, have a need
for professional development tools but don't have the cash to part with for
MS tools, Borland tools or whatever. (Actually, they teach C++ at MSU with
g++...how lucky can a guy get?)
Still, the other things should be dealt with later. Apache seems to have
done quite well as it is; what if a nice X front end appeared for it?
Likewise MTAs et al. They are already talking about families getting two or
more computers and "home servers" as dedicated internet pipes. (Stories run
on news.com and zdnet.com on this rather frequently.) Add the fact that
xDSL rates are dropping, cable modems work (though are not available
everywhere), and you will have lots of people who will want their own
>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
>to me that we have basically the same task ahead of us: we need to set
>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.
Yes, many hands make for light work.
>> 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
>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.
Good. What I'm looking for, ideally, is a system which offers all the
command line stuff as an option, but which users don't have to see unless
they ask for it by name.
>> (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.
It's just like the Mac/PC flames that erupt from time to time. But I think
that the whole discussion touched a nerve most people would prefer to
ignore: a lot of old UNIX guys don't want UNIX to be user-friendly. It's
the old "I didn't like it, but I dealt with it, and now I love it, so
everyone else should have to do it the hard way, too." I expect we will
meet with some open hostility before this is all done.
>> 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
>> doing things. That is, I want bash, vim, XEmacs, apache, and all of
>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
I am glad to hear you say that. Those things are what keep me enchanted by
Linux, despite its best attempts to confuse me and ruin my day <g>.
>> 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.
I never needed it with Xconfigurator/XF86Setup. I understand things were
worse before XFree 3.2 came out.
>> 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.
Yes, indeed it does.
Martin Jackson: email@example.com
Information Science Major
Mankato State University