[lug] More Light Needed

rm at fabula.de rm at fabula.de
Tue Jan 22 06:27:24 MST 2002

On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 11:34:35AM +0000, James Alan Brown wrote:
> Thanks Guys for the initial response to my 
> questions:
> Maybe a bit more light is needed here?
> Over the last 4 years or so I have installed/used 
> many different types of Linux distributions 
> Slackware, Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE and Debian.
> I settled on SuSE as it seemed in many ways 
> to be the easiest one to mod out the many 
> unwanted nasties.  
> IMHO none of them are really what I am looking 
> for in their present forms. 

Off course not, you are probably not the average 
user they target. As a matter of fact, probably noone
is. Pick the one that's closest to your wishes and
modify it so it fits your needs. 

> All seem to me to 
> be trying to do the "Bill Gates" thing 
> example: AOL Time Warner/ Red Hat 
> Empire build. 

??? Sorry, but i disagree here. I know some employees 
from most of the major distros in person, an i think
your claim is pure xxxx (nasty word omitted here).
Actually, many of them spent a substantial part of there
after-work time in mailing lists helping users. If AOL
really wants to buy RedHat you can't blame RedHat for
that, or. And of course there's Debian. What do you
think their world domination plot is? 

> Just take a good look at all the Networking/
> Training Service prices that Red Hat/SuSE/
> Others seem to want to screw out of you!  

Hmm, they provide a service and charge you for it.
Not more than others charge for other services. And it's
up to you to take that offer or get your knowlege from
somewhere else - many of the distros employees do help
users in mailing lists. The members of this list enjoyed
valuable input from Kevin (the 'K' in the KRUD distro).
And dare i mention that some of the core developers of
the Linux Kernel (and some important software packages)
are actually payed by the evil empire of SuSE and RedHat.

> Thats their real and only main interest in Linux.
> I wish to produce full stop?
> An easy way, via a boot CD, of a pure Linux 
> base install that in many ways is like the 
> old MS DOS system but containing the C compiler 
> and header includes and Bash shell for the end 
> user to install freely whatever He/She wishes 
> via un-doctored tar source files.

You might want to rethink this aproach:
_building_ a Linux system is the really easy part
(thank's to tools like automake/autoconf). The hard
and nasty bit is keeping it up-to-date. 
Keeping track of what is installed and where the relevant
files are can become a major pain on a production system.
I personally tend to compile my core applications from
source on important boxes, but i _do_ use the Debian
source packages to do so. I get the original tarball and
a patchfile together with information on what changes where
made to adapt the software for a debian system. I'm glad
to be able to rely on a package system to track dependencies-
sepecially considering that not all authors of software will
give you clear hints on their applications build and runtime
dependencies. I've better ways to spend my time than stracing
down dllopen calls and searching the web for info on what 
this libflubber.so actually is and where i can get hold of it.

> I guess what I am saying is that I want to make 
> a Linux distribution without added junk or 
> withheld info that gives the end user total 
> freedom to do their own thing. 

I never felt restricted by my distro. What do you mean 
by 'withheld info' ? I get all the files from the original
tarball (and often extra documentation) in Debian.

> Stability?
> I have looked hard at RPM's V pure tar source 
> from the stability point of view and have 
> found that most RPM's are bodged up to 
> hide/cover up errors within that particular 
> distributions idea of a Linux Standard Base 
> System. (opt/kde2 v /usr/local/kde2)

What has the location of files to do with stability?

> My experience to-date has shown me that 
> compiling up first the kernel to your systems 
> hardware,  Xfree 86, and compiling up KDE2 
> from pure source tar files will produce one 
> hell of a stable system.

Har, and how often do you upgrade those boxes?
This sentence implies that using precompiled binaries
affects a programs stability. If true (as you can tell 
i'm not really conviced) that would put Linux in a bad

BTW, as a side note (since you seem to offer custom
systems): i tend to stick to distros esp. for boxes
i setup for customers. That's the only reasonable way 
i see to prevent to restrict their freedom of choosing
someone else to maintain their systems. How can you 
assure that your customers will find their way arround
your idea of a file system layout without having to
ask you? First rule of system administration: make yourself


> I am looking for pointers Guys? 
> Web addresses for info and any good advise/ideas.
> Regards,
> James at jabcomp.force9.co.uk
> http://www.jabcomp.force9.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug

More information about the LUG mailing list