On Tue, 14 May 2002 20:05:17 +1000 Keith Antoine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 14 May 2002 11:50, Collins wrote: > > On Tue, 14 May 2002 11:38:34 +1000 Keith Antoine > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Monday 13 May 2002 14:02, Tony Alfrey wrote: > > > > On Sunday 12 May 2002 08:01 pm,dep wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > a modern distribution based on 2.4, with > > > > > everything simply updated to newer stuff. > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Isn't that what 3.1 was supposed to be? > > > > > > It was! but did not turn out that way. > > > > My crumbly bain cells seem to remember that I liked 3.1 Beta > > pretty well, but about that time I discovered several other > > distros that worked equally well, so I never bellied up to the bar > > for 3.1 released version. > > Well I did and was more than disappointed. As far as i was concerned > it was no where near as friendly as LTP itself, also it was ancient > in the suuplied programs. I had to get to and update a great deal > just to ge a decent compile on the latest kernel. Kde was far behind > etc. nuff said. >
One of the biggest problems I had with Caldera, and one of the biggest problems anyone attempting a new distro must face is the problem of updates. linux is not a static product, and all its components are subject to continual revision. Caldera never managed to offer very much in the way of RPMs for its particular setup, whereas RedHat has always offered RPMs for everything under the sun. This being the case, it would seem to me that the most productive choice would be to develop a stable clone of RedHat rather than any of Caldera's offerings. (Here come the flames!) Otherwise, someone has got to do the grunt work of providing RPMs for the new distro on a continual basis. On a side note, distros like gentoo and LFS provide a standard way of doing source installs. debian and slackware have their own binary install packages, but neither have the depth of offerings that RedHat does. Another approach would be to develop a standard approach to generating SRPMS for any given package. This would end up resembling the gentoo or LFS approach but using the "beloved" RPM as the package tool. In short, "it's the maintenance, stupid" will turn out to be the toughest nut to crack. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area - WWTLRD? gentoo(since 01/01/01) 2.4.19+(ext3) xfce-sylpheed-mozilla _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
