Re: Distribution plans.
Marcus Brinkmann wrote some excellent comments... I'll just add my own
brief notes.
>>>>> Michael Bacarella writes:
MB> Is the idea to follow the Linux model (many distributions) or
MB> something more like the FreeBSD model (one distribution)?
I'm aiming for both. There are some relatively simple technology
changes we can make to the Debian packaging tools that will allow
people to create several different distributions drawn from the same
pool of Debian packages. This will allow us to share our work
whenever possible (even with Debian GNU/Linux developers), without the
need for labour-intensive forks.
MB> To achieve the level of diversity that Linux has, "Value Adding"
MB> could be highly encouraged. "GNU HURD for Mission Critical
MB> Servers" would be offered by someone other than GNU because it's
MB> more of a niche package as well as "GNU HURD for the Desktop!" or
MB> whatever.
I follow your thinking, but the Hurd is designed to be scalable to all
these platforms (simply by making changes to the implementation of the
underlying microkernel, which is currently GNU Mach).
The difference between `Mission Critical' and `Desktop' OSes is purely
a marketing ploy designed by people who want to sell the same product
at a higher price to corporate customers. It's a ploy that takes
advantage of the fact that most consumers don't bother to understand
what they're buying before they sign the bill.
Things like GNOME are proving that it is reasonable to have your
Mission Critical OS be the same one as your Desktop OS. GNU will
go even further in this direction, by saying that it is also possible
to have your R&D OS be the same as your Desktop and Mission Critical
OS.
MB> It is much too early to be discussing something like this but we
MB> should probably give thought to this soon before it starts to
MB> "fragment" like Linux did.
When you use the word `Linux' in this context, I can't tell if you
mean the GNU/Linux OS, or the Linux kernel. Depending on how
optimistic you are, it can be argued that neither of these projects
have `fragmented' in any sense of the word.
If there are variants, it is because there are clear benefits and
disadvantages to each variant. The end goal for all people is still
basically to merge each variant with its parent, producing a more
stable system.
*BSD, on the other hand is what I would call `fragmented'. I don't
see it anybody actually trying to unite those projects, and the
benefits and disadvantages to each project are very, very vague (and
mostly political).
MB> Oh, also. I'm pretty sure we want to discourage proprietary
MB> software running on the HURD (ie, linking to HURD's
MB> libraries). Will the HURD be 100% GPL or will some parts of it be
MB> Lesser GPL?
The Hurd is GPLed. However, the Hurd's libraries are only useful for
developing your own kernel servers; most programs only depend on
glibc, which is LGPLed.
--
Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
Reply to: