[NTLUG:Discuss] An NTLUG Distro

[Kenneth Loafman]

Daniel Hauck wrote:
> Kenneth Loafman さんは書きました:
>> Daniel Hauck wrote:
>>> I just read some commentary regarding criticism and Linux.  The original
>>> notion was that Linux needs more critics to keep it moving.  Another
>>> person pointed out that the reason there are so many very different
>>> Linux distros out there is because it is essentially "criticism applied."
>>>
>>> This got me to thinking.  Chris Cox is unquestionably a really smart
>>> fellow with strong views on various things.  I wouldn't think to suggest
>>> this if I didn't think he was smart enough to pull it off.
>>>
>>> What about an NTLUG Distro project?  It would naturally be more of an
>>> exercise than something we could expect to actually catch on in the
>>> wild.  But not only could it be used as a vehicle to express critical
>>> views of other distros by addressing them, but could also serve as an
>>> educational experience in rolling one's own distro.
>> You make some interesting points and the project is not really as hard
>> as it sounds, just tedious.  I'll bring up one sticking point as an
>> example from my perspective.
>>
>> I would love to see something like this as long as it was apt based and
>> not rpm based.  I fight with rpm every time I have to use it, so would
>> just as soon not support any distro with rpm.
>>
>> ...Thanks,
>> ...Ken
>>
> 
> You realize that "apt" is not a package management system as much as it
> is a repository retrieval system.  Typically, apt is used in debian
> systems to help in getting "debs."  [DEB :: RPM] and [APT :: YUM]

What rpm needs then is something like apt that does the resolution of
packages.  Is that Yum?  My complaint against RPM is that when using it
I get trapped in this infinitely recursive 'X depends on Y which depends
on Z which...".  If Yum does the same as Apt, then my complaint is negated.

Whatever management system used must resolve package dependencies
without annoying the user.  That was my only real requirement.

My original post was more of an attempt at pointing out why distros are
hard to build.  They are normally a compromise of different requirements
such as the above.  Building a distro is not hard, just tedious.
Getting consensus on what goes in one is the hard part.

I really do agree with Neil that we should adopt a distro, not fragment
the field any more.  The main reason Microsoft is popular with Pointy
Haired Bosses is actually the lack of choices, not the plethora of
choices that the Linux newbie sees.  That plus the old Brick and Mortar
thing that MS has going for it, being a major corporation and all.

Just getting consensus on what distro to adopt will generate enough
email to choke the system.  Out of the N members of the club, there will
be at least N*10 opinions to be considered.

...Ken