[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: distro or add-on?
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, -cEnsE- wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 03:35:21 GMT
> From: -cEnsE- <email@example.com>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: distro or add-on?
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Dinos Kouroushaklis wrote:
> > Yes, we could have an Indy CD by it self as well as Indy as an add
> > on to RH but that will probably complicate things and slow us down
> > as it has in the past or even worse which we do not want to have
> > happening again.
> I agree with usability being more important than putting out another
If you are going to produce CDs it will cost money. From where does Indy
plan to get the investment for materials?
If you only distribute it via FTP and CVS repositories, the "end
users" will not have the ease-of-use you speak of intrinsic to Indy.
Can you clear this up for me?
> > Going as a different distro with just one Developer (JFM) is very hard.
> > Going as an add-on for RH is much easier (?JFM). In the first case our
> > audience is people who will be interested in changing their distribution.
> > In the second case our audience is all the current RH users who might be
> > interested in making their distribution easier to use. This might attract
> > other users to RH due to the value added from Indy for the ease of use.
> > We do not need to make enemies just friends. It will be easier to become
> > more useful to the public as an add on rather than a separate distribution.
In Debian, they have very flexible managment of packaging and
distribution, all via the net. One idea I've seen them use (refering to
Indy as an add on) is the concept of task-$packagename. For example, #
apt-get install task-debianjr might install _only_ the apps that compose
the kid-geared debian installation.
I think that this idea of "add-on" can be harnessed to make something
highly-dispersable, extremely quickly, given your guys' prowess.
> > Agree with all that Roger said here.
> > Since our purpose is to make Linux easier for the user then we will make more
> > good if our user base is the existing RedHat base instead of needing to
> > our own from scratch.
> I was not stating that Indy should just pretend its not RedHat under the hood
> but i was just wondering whether someone who wants Indy would have to install
> RH first. I dont think that would be good.
> > An additional example is Bastille Linux which helps Linux users to tighten
> > security on their existing RH and I think Mandrake distribution.
> > Why not be like them?
Bastille is an excellent example of an add on. I can see Indy becoming
extremely popular in a similar sense. Popular, meaning "of the people",
not meaning "watered down" nor "common".
SEUL/edu projects guy
Sys Admin, Virginia USA
> > JFM ... your comments are much needed here.
> > Dinos firstname.lastname@example.org