Re: [LinuxSTEP-General] Re: GNUstep repository (was LinuxSTEP + Integration of apps)

[Mayuresh Kathe]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tim Harrison wrote:

> (pardon the cross post to the LinuxSTEP-General list -- I figured people
> might be interested there, as well)

:)

> Dennis Leeuw wrote:
>
> > The problem of LinuxSTEP vs SimplyGNUstep is the different approach.
>
> I don't see this as a problem.  I see it as just a different approach.

Exactly, two approaches running in parallel...
Something like two isolated machines, lets network them, load up
clustering software and let the mayhem begin ;)


> Then you've negated one of the major reasons for LinuxSTEP to exist, and
> hence, there's no point in proposing a merger.  If you want the
> traditional FHS structure, with GNUstep in /usr, then use SimplyGNUstep.
>   Or Debian.  Or Slackware.  For SuSE.  Or Red Hat.  However, that's
> contrary to what we're doing.

Thats the point which I love about the LinuxStep approach.
They are building up everything from ground up, laying a solid foundation
which would last longer than just a tightly integrated layer on top of a
rickety base...
Contrarily, I am mighty impressed with the energy exuded by the
SimplyGNUStep guy (Chad), he can certainly make a tremendous difference to
the speed of delivery for apps...


> That wasn't our initial problem.  Our initial problem was the FHS.  We
> didn't necessarily believe it was the best way to go.  So we took a
> different route.  Some people might disagree, or feel that we're not
> doing it "right".  That's fine.  Not everyone likes everything.

Personally, I find your approach absolutely perfect, slow and steady.
But at the same time, it would be worthwhile to take a look at SGStep,
he's almost delivered a usable system...

> As for the boot process, it's something I've been working on as well.
> Yes, it's a pain, but basically, you can do anything you want with
> bootup, once the kernel has passed control to init (which can be a
> binary of your own design).

Dunno if I am on the right track on this one, but could you check up on
the way things are done on Crux (http://www.crux.nu/)?
They've got a pretty smart startup setup...


> Why would one need all those CDs?  You can do a very basic live
> filesystem, include all the developer tools, and database stuff on one
> ISO.  Don't forget, the majority of the world is still on dialup, so
> downloading three ISOs is a pain for some.  Plus, inherently, three ISOs
>   is annoying.  Plunk it all onto one, and it's just simpler.  No
> swapping CDs when installing, also.

Cool...  :)

> I don't think one needs to centralise everything for a solution.
> GNUstep.net hasn't centralised all the applications, nor have any of the
> other GNUstep-specific application sites.  Most people release their
> projects on their own web sites, and just send out an email.  They tend
> not to want to go through the process of signing into someone else's
> server, through another web interface, and uploading their latest
> versions there, or to any number of other sites.

Thats one reason why most OSS projects are messy to handle.
But, if you take a look at the way KDE has laid itself out, its
impressive...
A single repository approach has a lot of advantages over disparate code
offerings...
A better idea would be to mirror the repository with heartbeat monitor,
kind of ;)


> > the ISO downloads and some spare time and dedication.
> > So the first question that pops up is where do we get the money to
> > install a server with enough bandwidth.
>
> Where I work, bandwidth is not a limitation.  Nor is having a box (or a
> ew boxen) in the data centre a problem.

Voila, one more problem solved...  :)
(atleast for starters)


> > And the second question is, are there enough people willing to invest
> > time to pull this off.
>
> I think you missed the first question.  Are the LinuxSTEP and
> SimplyGNUstep camps willing to/able to merge.

Why not, I think till now, only the LinuxStep camp guys have been talking,
haven't seen much input from Chad and gang at SimplyGNUStep...


> In my opinion, the goals of the individual projects are potentially too
> far apart.  There would have to be a fundamental shift from both camps
> for a merger to occur.

Not too far apart, just a bit different...
I'll say something like the difference between BSDs and Linux :)

Lets give it our best shot at integrating both camps into one.
There's tremendous strength in unity :)

Warm Regards,

~Mayuresh