[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: distro or add-on?
At 02:37 рм 19/04/2001 -0400, Karl <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I agree with usability being more important than putting out another
> > distro.
>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?
Yes there are always costs no matter what. What about TESTED ISO images?
I do not think we can afford pressing our own CDs. Even though we could
have Indy being available in CDs through www.lsl.com or
www.cheapbytes.com for example.
>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.
> > <snip>
> > > 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
> > create
> > > our own from scratch.
We need to get to some critical mass first ...
> > 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
> > RH first. I dont think that would be good.
> > > An additional example is Bastille Linux which helps Linux users to
> > > 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".
JFM ... your comments ...