Linux Distribution and Installer - Slackware

This is a discussion on Linux Distribution and Installer - Slackware ; "Paulo Costa" (paulocosta[at]uniarde[dot]pt) writes: > "Sylvain Robitaille" escreveu na mensagem > news:slrnf7lgnj.4126.syl@alcor.concordia.ca... >> Abhilash wrote: >> >>> I am planning to base a Linux distro based on either slackware or >>> debian. ... >> >> Questions: >> >> - why ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Linux Distribution and Installer

  1. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    "Paulo Costa" (paulocosta[at]uniarde[dot]pt) writes:
    > "Sylvain Robitaille" escreveu na mensagem
    > news:slrnf7lgnj.4126.syl@alcor.concordia.ca...
    >> Abhilash wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am planning to base a Linux distro based on either slackware or
    >>> debian. ...

    >>
    >> Questions:
    >>
    >> - why base a distribution on either Slackware or Debian (or any
    >> other distribution)? If someone wants to use Slackware, wouldn't they
    >> just use Slackware's Slackware? Same for Debian, etc. (these have
    >> already been done; are you intending to provide anything that would be
    >> new?)
    >>

    >
    > Hello Sylvain;
    >
    > Maybe the OP wants to create a new distribution just for his own educational
    > purposes. I'm by no means familiar with any stage at all of software
    > development cycle, but I can only imagine that putting up a Linux distro is
    > a heavyweight exercise in many aspects: software development, debugging,
    > project management, Q&A, etc.. Surely looks good on anyone's resumé...
    >

    But then if he's "basing" it on an existing distribution, where does
    the innovatin come in?

    I could take Slackware, and cut it down, take out the things I don't
    want/need, and then issue it as a distribution. But that's hardly
    creating a new distribution.

    Unless one is making considerable changes, there is no work to creating
    a "new distribution" from an existing one. I think most of the "based
    own distributions", at least the ones we can all name, have travelled
    considerably from their base distribution.

    Michael


  2. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    "Paulo Costa" wrote:

    > Maybe the OP wants to create a new distribution just for his own
    > educational purposes. I'm by no means familiar with any stage at all of
    > software development cycle, but I can only imagine that putting up a
    > Linux distro is a heavyweight exercise in many aspects: software
    > development, debugging, project management, Q&A, etc.. Surely looks good
    > on anyone's resumé...


    Would not a specialised version of LFS or even BLFS look good on ones
    resumé? Is that not what the OP is seeking to do?
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  3. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:13:53 +0000, B.Hoffmann wrote:

    > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:57:23 +0000, Ron Gibson wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:14:10 +0000, B.Hoffmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Very off-topic, this new version of pan is starting to seriously annoy
    >>> me. 0.14 was better. Off to compile it (or use Opera?).

    >>
    >> I was able to just copy the pan binary over to Suse and it worked.
    >>
    >> What is up with this new version - Talk about a giant sep backwards ???

    >
    > Yes. 0.131 seems to have seriously lost functionality compared to 0.14.1


    More a change of funx than a loss but it's true that on the pan-ml
    some posts may help, not rants (well, not rant-only posts) but clear
    description of what you're missing badly.
    The dev(s) usually make real your hopes within zilch to 3 subreleases
    when it's a real drawback from 0.14* so that's quite up to you to
    come and help.

    > and just seems dumbed down. Few options seem to be available and if they
    > are they are not to be found in the cumbersome context menus.


    This point is right to my POV but I'm not the blade nor the mirror.

    > Too much
    > of the Gnome or even Windows philosophy? No seriously, on Win there are
    > actually better readers than this, like Xnews.


    Xnews has been the ever best newsreader for *.bina* usage and one of
    the best in `DOS based world' but I really prefered "newsie" when I
    still had an RTC cnx to my F030 )
    Then, what does it tell about what? Good question...(and I'm happy
    I've been lucky enough to ask it first)

    Now a strictly personal opinion on the new Pan:
    - not really "finished" in the "human interface" domain
    - it was a pain to redo all the conf...
    - the RAM and the disks are really more happy now °D)
    - some missing points, but that's on the -ML! goforit ;-)

    Really, go and submit your points to the Pan ML, that's what
    it is for and never forget that Pan 0.14.* was never finished
    just because of a change of heart, so don't anticipate and provocate
    the next or final fall.

  4. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Two Ravens writes:

    > "Paulo Costa" wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe the OP wants to create a new distribution just for his own
    >> educational purposes. I'm by no means familiar with any stage at all of
    >> software development cycle, but I can only imagine that putting up a
    >> Linux distro is a heavyweight exercise in many aspects: software
    >> development, debugging, project management, Q&A, etc.. Surely looks good
    >> on anyone's resumé...

    >
    > Would not a specialised version of LFS or even BLFS look good on ones
    > resumé? Is that not what the OP is seeking to do?


    Welcome back!!



    Glyn
    --
    RTFM http://www.tldp.org/index.html
    GAFC http://slackbook.org/ The Official Source :-)
    STFW http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...inux.slackware
    JFGI http://jfgi.us/

  5. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:53:01 +0000, loki harfagr wrote:

    > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:13:53 +0000, B.Hoffmann wrote:
    >
    > Then, what does it tell about what?


    It's all relative? Recommendations usually fail because different people
    have different needs/wants.

    >
    > Now a strictly personal opinion on the new Pan:
    > - not really "finished" in the "human interface" domain - it was a pain
    > to redo all the conf... - the RAM and the disks are really more happy
    > now °D)


    Yup.

    >- some missing points, but that's on the -ML! goforit ;-)


    Might do that, thanks. (If time allows.)


    --
    Kind Regards,
    B.Hoffmann

  6. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Glyn Millington wrote:

    > Welcome back!!


    Thank you, without your assistance it would not have so quick.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  7. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:29:50 +0000, Ron Gibson wrote:

    >> The latest (beta) versions are a complete re-write in a different
    >> programming language (C++ I think), as compared to the (stable) version
    >> which was written in C, and has more features. Most longtime Pan users
    >> prefer the older branch.




    > However if there is a beta that was newer than that version (I
    > immediately chucked that piece-o-crap) I had, and don't recall now the
    > exact version number, then perhaps I should give it a look. Or not and
    > wait for a newer version yet?


    I haven't checked out the beta versions in quite a while now, but from
    what I read, they are still missing many features from the older versions.
    I believe scoring/filters is one of the main things missing/incomplete.
    I'm sticking with the stable branch until I see some valid reason to
    change... The scoring ability in the 0.14.2.91 version is quite nice for
    my needs.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  8. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    >
    > No. Slackware teaches you more about the bash shell. It doesn't
    > teach you anymore about linux than any other linux distro.


    Slackware is not the only distro that I have used; but it is easier to
    learn how it os done than other ones. Others distributions are usually
    made of bash scripts (as Slackware) that include a lot of other bash
    scripts and make things difficult to follow.

    >
    > Like many, you are confusing the interface, the shell, with the OS
    > itself. The shell is a layer between linux and the user and the
    > only thing you are learning with slack is an old, clumsy, shell,
    > with a high learning curve. Any good book on operating systems will
    > explain this to you in greater detail. We encourage you people to
    > check these things out instead of sticking your heads in the sand,
    > plugging your ears, and saying "not so."
    >
    > You don't learn anymore about an OS from selecting a command option
    > from a help screen, as in slackware, or from a gui menu, as in
    > windoze. You don't learn anything more about an OS by typing a name
    > into a text file someplace and clicking on an option choice in a gui
    > menu. The real differences are that the gui help screen is a lot
    > faster to use, a lot faster to learn, and a lot more intuitive to
    > those who have cut their teeth on guis. The difference between a
    > modern gui and the old fashioned shell is the difference between a
    > real ship, and a ship in a bottle.


    The real plus of using a command line is that the command you type can
    be scripted; I use a lot of custom made; often very short; scripts. You
    cannot achieve the same goals with a GUI. Moreover it is a lot faster to
    type a command that to use the mouse to select an option.

    Olive

  9. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Olive wrote:

    > Slackware is not the only distro that I have used; but it is easier to
    > learn how it os done than other ones. Others distributions are usually
    > made of bash scripts (as Slackware) that include a lot of other bash
    > scripts and make things difficult to follow.


    You are probably talking about the startup files. Slackware's BSD
    style startup files are easier to understand, and easier to modify,
    there is no question about that. But most linux distros use the
    professional unix SysV style startup which is more powerful, and
    quite elegant once you understand it. But understanding the
    startup files in a BSD system is easier than understanding a SysV.

    > The real plus of using a command line is that the command you type can
    > be scripted; I use a lot of custom made; often very short; scripts. You
    > cannot achieve the same goals with a GUI. Moreover it is a lot faster to
    > type a command that to use the mouse to select an option.


    It all depends on what the command is. And are you including the
    time it takes to look up the correct syntax for the CLI command?
    Are you including the time and frustration involved in trying to
    debug a simple command line for spelling or syntax errors?
    Finally, with a command line you may sometimes find yourself at a
    loss as to what to do next to accomplish your task. With a gui,
    you simply click on a menu and the options are all there before you.

    There is something to be said for the simplicity of an old Model T
    Ford. But at the end of the day, wouldn't you really rather drive
    a Corvette, even if you can't fix the thing yourself with baling
    wire and bubblegum?

    We remember hearing about a guy who painstakingly resurrected a
    WWII Willys Jeep, using all original parts. It was a labour of
    love and it took him years. But once he finally completed the job
    and took the jeep out for a spin, it was an absolute pig to drive
    and now he seldom takes it anywhere. But he enjoyed rebuilding it.
    And that is how we think about slackware. It is a hobbyist distro.

    Personally, we prefer the command line because that is what we
    learned before the bitmapped gui even existed. Having said that,
    we wish very much that we were more comfortable with a gui because
    we have seen those who are and there is no doubt that a gui saves
    tons and tons of time.

    As far as linux goes, if X didn't exist, how many people would have
    linux on their home machines or their desktops at work? It is the
    gui X that makes linux useful, as much as linux makes X useful.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  10. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    rm@realto.justlinux.ca wrote:
    > Bogwitch wrote:
    >
    >> If it is an installation you are looking for, then most in here
    >> would suggest Slackware, myself included. Slackware might not be
    >> the easiest distribution to 'polish' but it is the distribution
    >> that teaches you most about Linux.

    >
    > No. Slackware teaches you more about the bash shell. It doesn't
    > teach you anymore about linux than any other linux distro.
    >
    > Like many, you are confusing the interface, the shell, with the OS
    > itself. The shell is a layer between linux and the user and the
    > only thing you are learning with slack is an old, clumsy, shell,
    > with a high learning curve. Any good book on operating systems will
    > explain this to you in greater detail. We encourage you people to
    > check these things out instead of sticking your heads in the sand,
    > plugging your ears, and saying "not so."
    >
    > You don't learn anymore about an OS from selecting a command option
    > from a help screen, as in slackware, or from a gui menu, as in
    > windoze. You don't learn anything more about an OS by typing a name
    > into a text file someplace and clicking on an option choice in a gui
    > menu. The real differences are that the gui help screen is a lot
    > faster to use, a lot faster to learn, and a lot more intuitive to
    > those who have cut their teeth on guis. The difference between a
    > modern gui and the old fashioned shell is the difference between a
    > real ship, and a ship in a bottle.
    >
    > Old unix hackers are already comfortable with that shell and that is
    > the only reason that slackware still exists. Many younger people
    > make the same mistake you are making and choose slackware.
    >
    > cordially, as always,
    >
    > rm


    Whilst I appreciate your attempt to spread a little knowledge, albeit in
    a patronising and condescending way, please don't assume to know what
    *I* have learned about Linux (and OSes in general) since picking up my
    first copy of Slackware.

    Bogwitch.

  11. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Bogwitch wrote:

    > Whilst I appreciate your attempt to spread a little knowledge, albeit in
    > a patronising and condescending way, please don't assume to know what


    Patronizing and condescending are redundant. In any case, we think
    you have us confused with somebody else.

    > *I* have learned about Linux (and OSes in general) since picking up my
    > first copy of Slackware.


    But didn't you say that slackware is the distro teaches you the
    most about linux? How would you know that? Have you tried them
    all? Have you tried any other than slackware?

    The CLI commands that you type or script are a part of GNU, not
    linux. You do know that, don't you? The bash shell that you use
    to interpret those commands is part of GNU, not linux. You do know
    that don't you? Linux is independant of the file system, the boot
    loader, the startup scripts. These things are not linux. You do
    know that, don't you?

    About the only thing that most people learn about linux is how to
    compile the kernel. Apart from that, writing drivers or actually
    hacking the kernel source code is about all that there is to do
    once you know linux. We wouldn't dream of commenting on your
    abilities in these areas without knowing you better. All the rest
    of it, outside of the application packages, is GNU, or X, or
    slackware, and not linux.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  12. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:47:46 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > I'm sticking with the stable branch until I see some valid reason to
    > change... The scoring ability in the 0.14.2.91 version is quite nice
    > for my needs.


    Perfect for my needs.

    --
    Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
    Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
    Replace borg with net


  13. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Realto Margarino wrote:
    > Olive wrote:

    [...]
    >> The real plus of using a command line is that the command you type can be
    >> scripted; I use a lot of custom made; often very short; scripts. You cannot
    >> achieve the same goals with a GUI. Moreover it is a lot faster to type a
    >> command that to use the mouse to select an option.

    >
    > It all depends on what the command is. And are you including the time it
    > takes to look up the correct syntax for the CLI command? Are you including
    > the time and frustration involved in trying to debug a simple command line
    > for spelling or syntax errors? Finally, with a command line you may sometimes
    > find yourself at a loss as to what to do next to accomplish your task. With
    > a gui, you simply click on a menu and the options are all there before you.



    Except, only the options displayed on the menu are there before you.

    In any given menu system, be it gui or cursed, there are only a finate
    number of menus, a finite number of options. On the other hand, the
    typical shells has a much larger, but still a finite number of commands
    and options.


    The menu is usually designed to provide a simple environment tailored
    to specific tasks, while a shell is usually designed to provide a rich
    general-purpose environment.

    So while both represent a user interface, the design goals are
    entirely different.

    The crucial difference between menu and shell is, that the shell
    allows the combining of commands to create new commands such that
    there exists an infinate number of possiblities.

    The menu allows only what it's designer has implemented for you to
    select from. The shell allows you to do anything, anything you can
    imagine.

    including, for examples, writing a gui.



    >
    > There is something to be said for the simplicity of an old Model T Ford. But
    > at the end of the day, wouldn't you really rather drive a Corvette, even if
    > you can't fix the thing yourself with baling wire and bubblegum?
    >


    The corvette won't do much good if you need to haul a load of
    freight. or if you are only going from the house to the garden.

    But the corvette is still fine for a drive out and about.

    The is no inherent intrinsic 'better' to a corvette as opposed
    to a truck, or your own two feet. They just, 'are'. What is
    significant is, what do you want to do with them?

    i think it is unfair to compare a shell with a model T - it is
    much more like some fantastic science-fiction vehicle which can
    instantly transform from a walker to a truck to a corvette to
    an airplane to and orbitor to a ...


    --
    William Hunt, Portland Oregon USA

  14. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    William Hunt wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Realto Margarino wrote:
    >> Olive wrote:

    > [...]
    >>> The real plus of using a command line is that the command you type
    >>> can be scripted; I use a lot of custom made; often very short;
    >>> scripts. You cannot achieve the same goals with a GUI. Moreover it is
    >>> a lot faster to type a command that to use the mouse to select an
    >>> option.


    >> It all depends on what the command is. And are you including the time
    >> it takes to look up the correct syntax for the CLI command? Are you
    >> including the time and frustration involved in trying to debug a
    >> simple command line for spelling or syntax errors? Finally, with a
    >> command line you may sometimes find yourself at a loss as to what to
    >> do next to accomplish your task. With a gui, you simply click on a
    >> menu and the options are all there before you.

    >
    >
    > Except, only the options displayed on the menu are there before you.


    The only options available to a CLI command are usually listed with
    a xxxx -h or something similar. There may or may not be as many
    options for a CLI command as there are with a gui command. The
    differences are that the gui commands are a lot easier to see and
    select and you don't have to worry about cutting and pasting or a
    super memory to get the syntax straight.

    > In any given menu system, be it gui or cursed, there are only a finate
    > number of menus, a finite number of options. On the other hand, the
    > typical shells has a much larger, but still a finite number of commands
    > and options.


    Much larger? Hardly. What makes you say this? You can click on
    just as many icons as you can type program names. And you can
    click on just as many submenus of options as you can add options to
    a CLI command. There is no difference at all.

    > The menu is usually designed to provide a simple environment tailored
    > to specific tasks, while a shell is usually designed to provide a rich
    > general-purpose environment.


    Nonsense. Hit the Start button in windoze and you won't find a
    "richer" general-purpose environment anywhere. Everything the
    computer can do is accessible from the Start menu.

    But with a gui you can restrict commands in certain situations to
    only what is necessary and this is a good thing. You could do this
    as well, theoretically with shell commands but there isn't much point.

    > So while both represent a user interface, the design goals are
    > entirely different.


    Not at all. The gui can do anything the CLI can do, and a whole
    lot more besides. A gui can launch any program that a CLI can
    launch and it can include every option of any program that a CLI
    can launch. And yet the gui can do so much more.

    > The crucial difference between menu and shell is, that the shell
    > allows the combining of commands to create new commands such that
    > there exists an infinate number of possiblities.


    That is a feature of unix in particular and msdos as it copied
    unix. Perhaps if you knew how to spell infinite you would know
    that the combining of commands couldn't possibly be infinite. But
    there is a place for the CLI and that is why almost all guis
    contain a CLI. But it is seldom necessary to use it if you know
    what you are doing. And whatever it is that you think you can gain
    by combining various bash commands, you can achieve much more, a
    lot faster and with less knowledge by writing a program in a visual
    basic environment. Or whatever they call their basic now.

    > The menu allows only what it's designer has implemented for you to
    > select from. The shell allows you to do anything, anything you can
    > imagine.


    Now, the shell allows you to do anything that the designer who
    wrote the CLI programs has implemented for you to select from. And
    just as you can write programs for the CLI that the designer
    hasn't included, you can write programs for the gui that the
    designer hasn't included.

    > including, for examples, writing a gui.


    Or even writing a CLI. And it would be a lot easier writing either
    a CLI or a gui, using a gui, than using vim and gcc.

    >> There is something to be said for the simplicity of an old Model T
    >> Ford. But at the end of the day, wouldn't you really rather drive a
    >> Corvette, even if you can't fix the thing yourself with baling wire
    >> and bubblegum?


    > The corvette won't do much good if you need to haul a load of
    > freight. or if you are only going from the house to the garden.


    Well buy a silverado if you must. But the Corvette can make
    multiple trips and it can pull a trailer and it will most certainly
    outperform a Model T in any capacity.

    > But the corvette is still fine for a drive out and about.


    > The is no inherent intrinsic 'better' to a corvette as opposed
    > to a truck, or your own two feet. They just, 'are'. What is
    > significant is, what do you want to do with them?


    We happen to think that a Corvette is much better than a truck. If
    you had to choose between a Hummer and a Vette, you would choose
    the one that you thought was better. We would choose the Corvette
    because we think it better.

    > i think it is unfair to compare a shell with a model T - it is
    > much more like some fantastic science-fiction vehicle which can
    > instantly transform from a walker to a truck to a corvette to
    > an airplane to and orbitor to a ...


    Hardly. In any case, a gui is also a shell and it is most like the
    science fiction stuff. The CLI shells have been around almost as
    long as the Model T and we think that analogy is just about perfect.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  15. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:47:58 -0700, William Hunt wrote:

    >> you may sometimes find yourself at a loss as to what to do next to
    >> accomplish your task. With a gui, you simply click on a menu and the
    >> options are all there before you.


    > Except, only the options displayed on the menu are there before you.


    > In any given menu system, be it gui or cursed, there are only a finate
    > number of menus, a finite number of options. On the other hand, the
    > typical shells has a much larger, but still a finite number of commands
    > and options.


    Geez, I was a DOS batch file freak before linux. Linux CLI is no
    tougher but sure is more powerful.

    Anyway what do you do if X is broken and all you can get is a tty?

    No problem. Connect to the WWW with links, browse files with mc, ftp a
    fix with mc and use jed to do your editing.

    Or boot a Slackware CD and fix via chroot.

    Oh my bad. Forgot to mention chroot is a CLI thingy...

    --
    Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
    Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
    Replace borg with net


  16. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Ron Gibson wrote:

    > Geez, I was a DOS batch file freak before linux. Linux CLI is no
    > tougher but sure is more powerful.


    The bash shell is much tougher. What are you talking about?

    > Anyway what do you do if X is broken and all you can get is a tty?


    Bootup windows instead.

    > No problem. Connect to the WWW with links, browse files with mc, ftp a
    > fix with mc and use jed to do your editing.


    mc is a gui.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  17. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    >
    > That is a feature of unix in particular and msdos as it copied unix.
    > Perhaps if you knew how to spell infinite you would know that the
    > combining of commands couldn't possibly be infinite. But there is a
    > place for the CLI and that is why almost all guis contain a CLI. But it
    > is seldom necessary to use it if you know what you are doing. And
    > whatever it is that you think you can gain by combining various bash
    > commands, you can achieve much more, a lot faster and with less
    > knowledge by writing a program in a visual basic environment. Or
    > whatever they call their basic now.


    But writing a program in a visual basic environment is using the command
    line. As I said earlier I usually prefer the command line because it can
    be scripted. Writing a script in bash or in Visual Basic is just
    changing the shell.

    I remember a post on a forum of someone that, for some reason, want to
    convert hundreds images files from one format to another one in
    WindowsXP. Some GUI programs present by default in XP that could do the
    conversion could not be used to do the task. The only solution was to
    seek a program that have that capability. Of course you could have a GUI
    program that provide this functionality from the beginning but you will
    never forecast all the things someone could want to do. With a CUI
    program; you could have written a very easy script that do the task (I
    have in fact a lot of small programs written like this).

    Now there are functionality that are better usable with a GUI and it is
    usually good to have both.

    Olive

  18. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Olive wrote:
    >>
    >> That is a feature of unix in particular and msdos as it copied unix.
    >> Perhaps if you knew how to spell infinite you would know that the
    >> combining of commands couldn't possibly be infinite. But there is a
    >> place for the CLI and that is why almost all guis contain a CLI. But
    >> it is seldom necessary to use it if you know what you are doing. And
    >> whatever it is that you think you can gain by combining various bash
    >> commands, you can achieve much more, a lot faster and with less
    >> knowledge by writing a program in a visual basic environment. Or
    >> whatever they call their basic now.

    >
    > But writing a program in a visual basic environment is using the command
    > line. As I said earlier I usually prefer the command line because it can
    > be scripted. Writing a script in bash or in Visual Basic is just
    > changing the shell.


    A gui is a shell as well. Programming in windows involves using an
    Integrated Development Environment which is part of the gui.

    > I remember a post on a forum of someone that, for some reason, want to
    > convert hundreds images files from one format to another one in
    > WindowsXP. Some GUI programs present by default in XP that could do the
    > conversion could not be used to do the task. The only solution was to
    > seek a program that have that capability. Of course you could have a GUI
    > program that provide this functionality from the beginning but you will
    > never forecast all the things someone could want to do. With a CUI
    > program; you could have written a very easy script that do the task (I
    > have in fact a lot of small programs written like this).


    And you could have used an MSDOS program to do the work from within
    windows. Thats why windows includes a CLI. But these needs are few
    and far between.

    > Now there are functionality that are better usable with a GUI and it is
    > usually good to have both.


    No doubt about that.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  19. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Two Ravens wrote:

    >
    > Would not a specialised version of LFS or even BLFS look good on ones
    > resumé? Is that not what the OP is seeking to do?


    Ah, but a Linux distro goes even beyond BLFS; it requires installation
    routines, support forums, a project manager, etc...

    Regards

    Paulo

  20. Re: Linux Distribution and Installer

    Michael Black wrote:

    > But then if he's "basing" it on an existing distribution, where does
    > the innovatin come in?
    >
    > I could take Slackware, and cut it down, take out the things I don't
    > want/need, and then issue it as a distribution. But that's hardly
    > creating a new distribution.
    >
    > Unless one is making considerable changes, there is no work to creating
    > a "new distribution" from an existing one. I think most of the "based
    > own distributions", at least the ones we can all name, have travelled
    > considerably from their base distribution.
    >
    > Michael


    It is also my thinking that what the OP would be creating wouldn't be a new
    distro, but rather a customized slack or deb. And come to think of it how
    can we really differentiate all those distros that list up on distrowatch
    for instance?... There was a time when we'd tell them from each other by
    the package management format they used: we had RPM based distros, DEB
    based distros and our beloved TGZ based distros. We could count 10 distros
    at most. Today we have a hundred (give or take) distros still classifiable
    by their package management system but with a specific user community or
    niche in mind. The only different thing I remember seeing these last years
    was SOL-Linux that wanted to rewrite all the init scripts in a XML based
    format IIRC.
    All this to say that I think the OP is looking, no so much for a new Linux
    distro, but to a huge project to create and lead, which will have a new
    distro as the result.
    Sylvain pointed out that giving a solid contribution to an existing distro
    is also a good form of enhancing a resumé. I agree, but then again, adding
    leadership to the technical competence makes it look even better, IMO...
    ....And we all know the girls look first to the guy who's singing,
    right?...

    Regards

    Paulo

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast