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

Re: SEUL: LaetOS: Some thoughts about Distributions, Users and Goals of this project

>> Do we make the end user and the linux community a favor when
>> we create just another entirely new distribution?
> It depends on whether the distribution is "entirely" new or not.
> Independence is not entirely new. LaetOS ( if and when its available )
> will not be "entirely new" either.

This is not the point. LaetOS wants to build a Linux for the end-user, a
Linux "for the masses". But the way we do it, our nice distro will sit
on a ftp-server and wait that someone, an end user, will download it.

>> I would say: no, its confusing to the users.
> I would say "yes". By creating an enhanced Redhat, we ( and Mandrake
> ) offer users a "software suite" for Redhat. If our additions really do
> make Redhat better, Redhat can put our stuff back in their distro. So we
> also help Redhat improve.
>> Additional arguments why *not* to create a new distribution:
>> - The end-user is a guy who buys his software just out of the
> so ? if Redhat improves, end users can buy a better Redhat. 

If the big distributions are the only way to get our stuff to the end
user, why are we doing our own little distro that no end-user will want or
maybe even get?
If we can't get in touch with our market-segment, whats the use for the
end-user market in the end? Should we build our distro and wait and hope
that RedHat will possibly include our tools in some years?
This isn't very efficient.

>>     -> we must get a big market share to be important
> not true. For example, Independence has almost no market share, but I have
> seen some software I built show up in Mandrake. Since we do not put
> restrictions on our distro, any distribution developer can give the fruits
> of our labour to their user base.

and because of that, Independence is important? I don't want to belittle
your work. If they inlcude something from you, it must be well done.
But in the market LaetOS points to, the mass-market, market share *is*
Independence doesn't shares exaclty the same goal with LaetOS. So we have
to differenciate that.

>>          less between the big distributions. SuSE in Europe,
>>          RedHat in America, Debian in the open-source-community
> so unless you have something that is 100% compatible with a big
> distribution, you will probably fade into irrelevance. That's why we used
> a big distribution.

I totally agree with you.
But I am from Europe. And I would like that Linux is used in Europe, too.
But here is no way around SuSE, because of the great langauge-integration.
And in Asia, some other Linux Distro is more important. Additionally, I
think, every Distro has a right to exist.
My goal would be that the LaetOS-tools are usable in all big
distributions. Because they are the ones that reach the end-user, our

>> What I think we should do:
>> We should interact with *all* or at least most of the big
>> distributions, even the commercial ones. Only this way we
> This is almost impossible, since Redhat/Slackware/Debian all have some key
> differences. A more reasonable approach would be to main compatibility
> with one of those three.

I don't fully agree with you. In the end, it's all GNU/Linux.
Software like isapnp etc. can be used in every distribution. Maybe you
have to fix one or the other thing, but in the end, all can use it.

If we can't design software, that is usable on all systems, it is simply
not good enough.

Of course, there are exceptions. But that means work for the distributor
and not for us.

>> We should develop tools that simplify installation and
>> configuration for end users. But it makes no sense if only
> IMO its better to let the distros take care of this unless you can attract
> some very good programmers to your project. Redhat and SUSE have the
> manpower and resources to get some heavy programming jobs done.
> Independence does not. SEUL doesn't either.

Ok, then LaetOS may rest in peace...

>> This would mean only, that we concentrate our resources on
>> a topic that other guys are already working on; testing and
>> packaging etc.
> This is a fallacy, because you have assumed that we will test and package
> software that someone else has already tested and packaged. This is not
> true. Our efforts are devoted to testing and packaging software that
> doesn't come with Redhat. We have taken care to avoid duplication

Ok, but you are talking about Independence. And you do well.
But I was talking about LaetOS. What is the gain of the user if LaetOS
makes just another distro. Because: we could build our tools for existing
distros, as an example, tools for Independece. Or for RedHat. Or whatever.
This way, we could combine our forces, instead of making all the same
things again...


"Those are my principles and if you don't like them... Well, I have others..."
    -- Groucho Marx