Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
[Late answer, but I just lacked the time to read all mails.] On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:52:13PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 14:45, Zenaan Harkness wrote: As per the recommendations from Bruce Perens' User Linux paper http://userlinux.com/white_paper.html, this thread is to discuss the ... * Desktop Suite - GNOME (as more-Windows-like as KDE is, GNOME definitely has greater momentum, with SUN and HP, and now Novell's acquisition of Ximian and SUSE and corresponding statements - really, there's no point fighting the tide on this one). I'm not sure I'd subscribe to this point of view, nor am I sure I even like it. We, as in Debian, do NOT go for a desktop suite just because it has momentum in the enterprise world. We never did. And as long as you call it enterprise DEBIAN there's still a large part of the debian spirit in this. Besides I won't even buy the situation as you paint it. I'm not sure what's the situation in your country but Germany certainly has been KDE territory ever since and I cannot see all those companies switching desktop suites. I for one have never been actively asked for Gnome, just for KDE so far. One final word, I strongly believe that the best thing free software has to offer is its freedom and that it is driven by the community. KDE still is mostly driven by a community not by companies, so why does this sponsoring momentum change anything? Note that I do not want to get into a technical discussion as I've used both over the years. Why can't we just let the customers decide? Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:38:38PM +0100, Javier Fernndez-Sanguino Pea wrote: Ummm... You are wrong here. Knoppix (or Knoppix-derived versions) provide three things: ... 4- a system to duplicate this live Cd into hard disk, making the necessary changes based on what was auto-detected. Interesting. Point 4 of 3. :-) Anyway, one should notice that Klaus Knopper himself did not write these install scripts. His goal hasn't been to install the CD. The scripts are all contributed by other people. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:07:14AM -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote: I've just learnt of Cubit from South Africa: http://www.cubit.co.za/ Is it free software? They don't seem to provide a link to the full text of their license, it sounds free according to their license summary but I also see the statement Cubit has only a very small yearly license fee and no purchase cost. You're right. I had another look and it doesn't seem to be free software. I don't know them, so I don't know if they can be talked into freeing it. Well, there's always Gnu Enterprise, although it's not from Africa: apt-cache search gnu enterprise Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 20:18, John Goerzen wrote: Debian Enterprise will have to support 64-bit platforms, which OpenOffice doesn't. ..yet. That will be fixed by 2.0 at the latest. Help is appreciated. Chris
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - flavors
Fabian Fagerholm, on 2003-12-04, 20:47, you wrote: The way Debian Enterprise has been described, it would provide you with this option. But you may also want to move apt-get install samba and the related session of tweaking samba's options to suit your network, to the install phase. Imagine having, for example, a Kerberos/LDAP system for authentication. Surely the option to install a file server with the basic configuration for that out of the box would be appealing? Sure, but configuration of the samba package should be the responsibility of this package. What the Debian Enterprise project should do is to work with the samba maintainer to achieve this and maybe provide some sort of special configuration package. This is what I meant when writing about meta-packages and having work done by a sub-project benefit the whole Debian system. Joerg -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - flavors
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Joerg Wendland wrote: Sure, but configuration of the samba package should be the responsibility of this package. What the Debian Enterprise project should do is to work with the samba maintainer to achieve this and maybe provide some sort of special configuration package. This is what I meant when writing about meta-packages and having work done by a sub-project benefit the whole Debian system. I would see chances for extra configuration if there are more than one package involved. From personal experience I know the example that Zope works fine together with apache. You can define rewriting rules for apache to the Zope server, use SSL through apache or do some caching. Those kind of inter package configuration might make some sense. Just a rough guess some samba ldap relations might be possible. Changing configurations of single packages should be solved via the BTS ... Kind regards Andreas. -- Sie schaffen eine Wüste und nennen es Frieden. -- Publius Cornelius Tacitus (55-120)
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 04:42, Andres Salomon wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:51 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: As per the recommendations from Bruce Perens' User Linux paper http://userlinux.com/white_paper.html, this thread is to discuss the applications within the bounded set of Debian Enterprise/ User Linux. I think discussing the favorite applications, at this point, is a bit premature. Debian Enterprise (DE) should be concentrating on the framework that will make flavors possible. There is much that remains to be done on the technical level (kernels, a distribution that is up-to-date enough that companies will _want_ to use it, an installer, etc). Deciding what applications to supply isn't of much use right now (especially given the rate of development of some; mozilla-firebird may be a good choice now, but what about when epiphany or another alternative becomes the better browser?). Remember the original goals that DE is attempting to solve. Current Debian-using companies must maintain their own package backports, kernels, and so on. Deciding what browser we will default to, while possibly helping in standardization, is a long ways off. In order for DE to become useful, we must cater to companies (not the other way around). Thus, we should build out the infrastructure enough so that DE, by itself, is installable and useable. At that point, we can start worrying about what flavors will contain what software. Good points. I wholly agree. regards zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 07:04, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:07, David Palmer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I note also that Adamantix developers, when a present priority project reaches completion, have expressed a willingness to commit in the process of assisting with Pax incorporation into the Debian kernel. Please point out where the Adamantix developers expressed a willingness to help in any way. Hello Russell, I searched the Debian-devel archive for the exchanges I read myself, but do you think that I could find them? No way! They must be there somewhere, but time is short, so I grabbed this off the Adamantix site. I think that it adequately displays Peter Bussers' attitude. But if you need more, when I have more time I wil conduct a more thorough search, and even ask Peter for verification if that is what is required. Hi! I got some replies to debian-devel Cc:-ed from people who said that they wanted to have a kernel-patch package for PaX. After that, I got the following message: - Forwarded message from Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a jfs(at)computer.org - From: Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a jfs(at)computer.org To: Peter Busser peter(at)adamantix.org Cc: debian-devel(at)lists.debian.org Subject: Re: exec-shield (maybe ITP kernel-patch-exec-shield) On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Peter Busser wrote:[...] Just so we move forward, I have packaged today a kernel-patch-package which seems to apply as expected with 'make-kpackage' based on the changes you have introduced to the kernel_2.4.21_2.4.21-5 package developed by Herbert Xu. I've sent the ITP (just in case somebody wants to comment or pre-test it) and will upload it soo to an upload queue. I guess that the rsbac userspace would need to be included in Debian too in order for this patch to be useful for Debian users at all, am I correct? I'm going to send also the paxtest package you developed in order for people to test PaX (and exec-shield's) functionality and decide for themselves. I will first write a manpage for it (as mandated per policy) though. Regards Javi - End forwarded message - I'm really happy to receive some positive reactions from Debian related people. And I am even more happy to see that Javi is willing to help getting this stuff in Debian. That does not mean that Adamantix will be obsolete soon, integrating it in Debian will take time. And there are conflicting interests here (exec-shield, SELinux and stackguard in the future) that might slow down or stop integration in Debian (fortunately RSBAC and SELinux can live together in 2.6). People will find ways around RSBAC, SSP, PaX and whatever is decided to add next. I suspect that the number of backdoor attempts will increase as soon as cracking systems becomes harder. Therefore the road to a really high security system is a long one. We are still at the beginning of that journey. Groetjes, Peter Busser[...]
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:49:20PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: If you think you can get every large enterprise worldwide to standardize on a single scripting language -- much less get even ONE to do that -- then you will surely be nominated for several nobel prizes. Rather, the most you'll get is dismissive comments on mailing lists for *thinking* it. Fame and glory happen when you actual *do* it. In any case, picking a language to standarize upon within a subproject seems sensible although forcing this on users is hardly the Debian Way or likely to be a very productive experience. It's unclear from the original message which one is being advocated here but I'll assume it's the former. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpZ35hkRz05v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:44, David Palmer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 07:04, Russell Coker wrote: Please point out where the Adamantix developers expressed a willingness to help in any way. That message was intentionally to you not the list. Now we will have another flame-war. I searched the Debian-devel archive for the exchanges I read myself, but do you think that I could find them? No way! They must be there somewhere, but time is short, so I grabbed this off the Adamantix site. I think that it adequately displays Peter Bussers' attitude. The web site does not seem to match Peter's actions. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 19:58, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:44, David Palmer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 07:04, Russell Coker wrote: Please point out where the Adamantix developers expressed a willingness to help in any way. That message was intentionally to you not the list. Now we will have another flame-war. I'm sorry, but I didn't even notice. I did note that the reply was addressed to you, but changed it without thinking, because I am always careful to reply to the list. I don't think of anything else because I never disguise anything I do unless I am up against an enemy, and I did not think that this was the scenario here. I searched the Debian-devel archive for the exchanges I read myself, but do you think that I could find them? No way! They must be there somewhere, but time is short, so I grabbed this off the Adamantix site. I think that it adequately displays Peter Bussers' attitude. I picked Peters' name off the site because it was the one I remembered from the debian-devel thread. Frankly I notice no disparity between what he expressed then and what he has expressed on the site. The web site does not seem to match Peter's actions. I will contact him and inquire about intention in order to establish what the situation is. I see absolutely no justification for a flamewar. May I enquire as to the issue(s) involved? Regards, David.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - flavors
Zenaan Harkness, on 2003-12-03, 14:58, you wrote: To give limits to Debian Enterprise/ User Linux we need to define some areas of focus. Flavours (and sub-flavours/ tasks/ yadda) is as good a place to start as any. So here are some proposed flavours: - Enterprise (base packages and more neutral config) - Enterprise Desktop - with sub-flavours of: - Secretary Desktop - Presentation Client (OO Presenter, multimedia, flash) - Developer Desktop (all build-depends of all flavours, as a start) - Enterprise Fileserver - Enterprise Webserver - Enterprise Auth Server - Enterprise Departmental Server (combines File, Web + Auth) - Enterprise Firewall - Enterprise SCM Server - Enterprise Router - Enterprise Thin Client All these are not that important for real enterprises (talking about large ones). What they need, is _one_ enterprise server. That is an operating system that has features like distributed file-systems, high-availability facilities, system health monitoring and CPU-hotplugging ;-) When such a system is available, then having a fileserver flavor is just a matter of typing apt-get install samba. So what I (and my clients) need is an operating system for the real big boxen. This is of course Debian but I expect of Debian Enterprise to bring me an install CD that will let me setup such a system just like I would setup my small desktop computer with a standard woody CD. Joerg -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - flavors
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 15:20, Joerg Wendland wrote: When such a system is available, then having a fileserver flavor is just a matter of typing apt-get install samba. So what I (and my clients) need is an operating system for the real big boxen. This is of course Debian but I expect of Debian Enterprise to bring me an install CD that will let me setup such a system just like I would setup my small desktop computer with a standard woody CD. The way Debian Enterprise has been described, it would provide you with this option. But you may also want to move apt-get install samba and the related session of tweaking samba's options to suit your network, to the install phase. Imagine having, for example, a Kerberos/LDAP system for authentication. Surely the option to install a file server with the basic configuration for that out of the box would be appealing? So what you've described is only one aspect of (how I see) Debian Enterprise. -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, John Goerzen wrote: First of all. This is obviously not a Debian projects I see it clearly as Debian project and can't find the rationale why you sais that it is _obviousely_ not. (since it is not operating within the Debian framework.) Why. If I see this right Zenaan is planning the depandencies for the meta packages he wants to build. As long as there is no debian-enterprise list created he has no other chance than using debian-devel to discuss this topics. It was the same for Debian-Jr, Debian-Med, etc and nobody thought that this whould not fit into Debian framework. I don't see why this then necessitates over a dozen threads on debian-devel -- AND why it gets to call itself Debian. Moreover, I remain unconvinced that there is any need to split from the regular Debian framework, especially since it seems that all you're doing is removing choices. ... or rather giving suggestions, what might fit well into Enterprise framework as we did fro children in Debian-Jr. (Though I admit I killfiled the earlier threads on the topic because they were too unwieldy) Anyway: Perhaps this is the reason. On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:45:51PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: * Office Suite - OpenOffice (there's no other near as feature complete) And OpenOffice is the only one that runs on only two -- yes, two -- architectures that Debian supports. Which is a problem for Debian and not for Debian-Enterprise or any other Custom Debian Distribution. * Scripting Language - Python (no one will debate this one :) If you think you can get every large enterprise worldwide to standardize on a single scripting language -- much less get even ONE to do that -- then you will surely be nominated for several nobel prizes. :) This is the only part of your mail I do completely agree with. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On December 1, 2003 07:05 pm, Enrico Zini wrote: On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:33:57PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: - GNU ERP software project ?name? GNU Enterprise (gnue) http://www.gnue.org/ I've just learnt of Cubit from South Africa: http://www.cubit.co.za/ Is it free software? They don't seem to provide a link to the full text of their license, it sounds free according to their license summary but I also see the statement Cubit has only a very small yearly license fee and no purchase cost. -- Fraser Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wehave.net/ Georgetown, Ontario, Canada Debian GNU/Linux
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - policies
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:01:09 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: (Really should read ahead further ... here are more, and all laid out together) * DFSG Free Software only (I know this one will get debated, but this is the whole point of Debian Enterprise - if you want proprietary software, go buy Red Hat or SUSE/Novell). This goes without saying. If it's under the Debian name, it should comply w/ the various Debian policies. * Specifically targetting For-Profit entities (vs Debian-NP) Is this really a goal? While we're not specifically targeting non-profit entities, we're not going to exclude them, either; especially if they have infrastructure similar to a standard for-profit company. Non-profits need their oracle, too. ;) * 100% Debian (Social Contract, DFSG, policies + procedures) * LSB compliance I think LSB compliance is one of the most important things listed (aside from standard stuff like policy compliance). We want commercial software vendors to supply binaries that adhere to the LSB; whether distributed in deb, rpm, or tarball format. Furthermore, we want to convince commercial software vendors that working within the LSB is more important than working within Debian. A company may certify their software to work w/ DE (or a DE flavor); we should convince them to certify software to work w/ all LSB-compliant distributions. This allows companies to not limit themselves to DE, or a subset of DE flavors, but all of Debian (and other LSB-compliant distributions). * Official statement as to support of Freedesktop.org standards * Common Criteria (not until we're big enough) * OpenCOE (the COE folks had to wedge _apt_ into Red Hat to get it to work to their satisfaction) * we have a FIPS 140 certification for OpenSSL * Other standards ??
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 05:49, John Goerzen wrote: * Office Suite - OpenOffice (there's no other near as feature complete) And OpenOffice is the only one that runs on only two -- yes, two -- architectures that Debian supports. You missed two. OOo is available on i386, powerpc, sparc and s390. Chris
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - flavors
Zenaan Harkness said on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:58:18PM +1100: Flavours (and sub-flavours/ tasks/ yadda) is as good a place to start as any. So here are some proposed flavours: - Enterprise (base packages and more neutral config) - Enterprise Desktop - with sub-flavours of: - Secretary Desktop - Presentation Client (OO Presenter, multimedia, flash) - Developer Desktop (all build-depends of all flavours, as a start) - Enterprise Fileserver - Enterprise Webserver - Enterprise Auth Server - Enterprise Departmental Server (combines File, Web + Auth) - Enterprise Firewall - Enterprise SCM Server - Enterprise Router - Enterprise Thin Client Something to keep in mind that most of the above could be handled by exactly the same software loadout. For example: There is no difference between Desktop, Fileserver, Webserver, Auth Server loadouts that matters; you just turn off the services by default and let the customization process turn on the services that matter for that role. It doesn't matter if the webserver has openoffice installed; it's just a few bits on disk. It might be worth reading http://www.infrastructures.org/papers/bootstrap/bootstrap.html before getting flavour happy. M pgpduCDZGTL4W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:51 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: As per the recommendations from Bruce Perens' User Linux paper http://userlinux.com/white_paper.html, this thread is to discuss the applications within the bounded set of Debian Enterprise/ User Linux. I think discussing the favorite applications, at this point, is a bit premature. Debian Enterprise (DE) should be concentrating on the framework that will make flavors possible. There is much that remains to be done on the technical level (kernels, a distribution that is up-to-date enough that companies will _want_ to use it, an installer, etc). Deciding what applications to supply isn't of much use right now (especially given the rate of development of some; mozilla-firebird may be a good choice now, but what about when epiphany or another alternative becomes the better browser?). Remember the original goals that DE is attempting to solve. Current Debian-using companies must maintain their own package backports, kernels, and so on. Deciding what browser we will default to, while possibly helping in standardization, is a long ways off. In order for DE to become useful, we must cater to companies (not the other way around). Thus, we should build out the infrastructure enough so that DE, by itself, is installable and useable. At that point, we can start worrying about what flavors will contain what software. The bounded set will depend on the flavour. So first comes proposed flavours (and sub-flavours/ tasks/ yadda) - see previous email/ thread. Here are some initial (obviously debatable and incomplete) selections to start out the bounded-apps conversation: * Web Browser - Mozilla-Firebird I've used Mozilla, Galeon in its day, more recently Epiphany, and the last few months Moz-Firebird. It is simply the simplest (and in my opinion best) of the crop. * Web Server - Apache 2.0 (let's get with the times) * Open SSH Implementation - OpenSSH (much more active that gnu version) * Office Suite - OpenOffice (there's no other near as feature complete) * Scripting Language - Python (no one will debate this one :) - I have never used, only read (plenty) about Python, and I'm not personally too sure about this white space thing, but from what I hear about it (quite consistently) eventually feeling more natural than anything else, I am inclined to believe this really is the case. My experience with Java (after C/C++) was sort of like that, and if Python is more so, then I think it could be closest to the next VB replacement
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, John Goerzen wrote: I see it clearly as Debian project and can't find the rationale why you sais that it is _obviousely_ not. It's not hosted on Debian machines. Nobody designated it ats a project. It doesn't use our BTS, it doesn't use our mailing lists, etc. It seems they are aiming at having their own separate repository, packages, etc. Perhaps you noticed that a) currently some services of Debian are delayed so there was no chance to ask for this stuff since two weeks b) Zenaan is not yet a developer and might be unsure how to works this out (might need some help?) c) For instance there is DeMuDi which is busy to reintegrate their backport and thus there is no reason to push back people who start outside. Which is a problem for Debian and not for Debian-Enterprise or any other Custom Debian Distribution. That's silly. If your Custom Debian Distribution is Fast AlphaLinux, and you specifiy OpenOffice -- which doesn't work on that platform -- it's your problem too. Please read the relevant threads about the term Custom Debian Distribution. Debian Enterprise will have to support 64-bit platforms, which OpenOffice doesn't. I keep my opinion that it is Debian's problem or more precisely the problem of the maintainers of a package if not all architectures are supported by a certain software. _Debian_ want's to support 11 architectures, so it is a Debian problem. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 03:18, John Goerzen wrote: On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:58:12AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, John Goerzen wrote: First of all. This is obviously not a Debian projects I see it clearly as Debian project and can't find the rationale why you sais that it is _obviousely_ not. It's not hosted on Debian machines. Nobody designated it ats a project. It doesn't use our BTS, it doesn't use our mailing lists, etc. It seems they are aiming at having their own separate repository, packages, etc. Nothing is specified as yet. The only thing that has been specified are the formation of a couple of threads on devel for initial discussion. Given the recent and ongoing scenario, although separate repositories have not been specified, this might not be a bad thing. Libranet, a commercial Debian-based distro, feeds off Debian repositories, but is now creating their own to cater for their own user base in anticipation of possible future further disruptions. Dependent on capacity, I don't think that the Danzig boys would mind Debian users pointing to their facility in times of need. I am familiar with their attitude. I note also that Adamantix developers, when a present priority project reaches completion, have expressed a willingness to commit in the process of assisting with Pax incorporation into the Debian kernel. This mental attitude is more indicative of the open source mindset to my way of thinking, than the mindset coming from those few personalities here that are possessed by a parochial, insular mentality, that if it didn't exist, LSB would probably already be a reality without having the need for a separate organization to be founded to create it. Where would Microsoft be then? As it is, they're perfectly poised incorporate Linux:- http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1400161,00.asp Laughable? At a recent Comdex, a high percentage of visitors to the KDE booth were Microsoft employees, and they wanted to know everything about how it worked! I believe there was an attempt recently, nearly successful, at installing a backdoor into the kernel. How about the recent attack? Was anything successfully installed? The suggestion that it was just a game by a couple of script kiddies to prove that they could do it is an insult to anybodies' intelligence. Look around and you'll see other signs. And OpenOffice is the only one that runs on only two -- yes, two -- architectures that Debian supports. Which is a problem for Debian and not for Debian-Enterprise or any other Custom Debian Distribution. That's silly. If your Custom Debian Distribution is Fast AlphaLinux, and you specifiy OpenOffice -- which doesn't work on that platform -- it's your problem too. Debian Enterprise will have to support 64-bit platforms, which OpenOffice doesn't. The present Debian AMD 64Bit SMP project is Biarch supporting both 64 and 32 bit apps for this reason. Regards, David.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:58:12AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, John Goerzen wrote: First of all. This is obviously not a Debian projects I see it clearly as Debian project and can't find the rationale why you sais that it is _obviousely_ not. It's not hosted on Debian machines. Nobody designated it ats a project. It doesn't use our BTS, it doesn't use our mailing lists, etc. It seems they are aiming at having their own separate repository, packages, etc. And OpenOffice is the only one that runs on only two -- yes, two -- architectures that Debian supports. Which is a problem for Debian and not for Debian-Enterprise or any other Custom Debian Distribution. That's silly. If your Custom Debian Distribution is Fast AlphaLinux, and you specifiy OpenOffice -- which doesn't work on that platform -- it's your problem too. Debian Enterprise will have to support 64-bit platforms, which OpenOffice doesn't.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: ? It might help you registering a site under www.debian.org (once its services are up again. Cool. I'll check it out in a day or five :) If you are interested I could send you my CDD - talk stuff in private mail until people.d.o is up again. debian-enterprise, yet I think that technical goals will be more closely coincident than might at first be obvious :) Definitely. I think we could do several technical stuff which all CDDs could profit very much. But it has to be done in common... Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 22:36, Alexander Kitzberger wrote: we and a couple of other linux companies are also thinking this way, and we would like also to support a enterprise debian. Great stuff ... we are forming it now. As you probably well know by now, there's a web page started at: http://debian-enterprise.org/ We have the problem that debian has to compete to suse and red hat enperprise servers which are certified for oracle, etc. Yes, raising our profile as an Enterprise Operating System I think is going to be very useful and productive medium to long term (takes a while to actually do). And so we are starting. We like the idea in having also a enterprise debian to have a alternative, because we like using debian more that other distributions. :) So do many of us. Please inform me if you have any other new regarding this project. Keep an eye on this list - debian-devel, as a dedicated mailing list is on its way (hopefully soon). I also subscribe to debian-devel-announce, which might be useful. I talked to joey a few weeks ago about an ideas that goes into the same direction: This is a extract of my conversation with joey: -- Hello Joey, we and some other linux companies are thinking about some things for a while. And now the aquisition of suse make this more actual. We and the other companies would like to start a new sub-project under the debian project that may be called business debian or enterprise debian The aim of this project is to make a homepage (subdomain or subsection od the debian homepage) to present case studies and reference projects that service companies like us realized. --- Bruce Perens is raising funds for a project that will hopefully directly relate to debian-enterprise. Great to have you on board, Zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:05:29AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: - GNU ERP software project ?name? GNU Enterprise (gnue) http://www.gnue.org/ I've just learnt of Cubit from South Africa: http://www.cubit.co.za/ ...and of the Impi distribution from South Africa, Debian-based: Welcome to Impi Linux, South Africa's first business desktop Linux distribution. Impi Linux was created from the best software available in the open source world, to give South African users a stable, virus free and very cost effective business operating system. Impi Linux is not just an operating system, but comes bundled with every application that you need to run your business, Accounting, word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, email and much, much more. (from http://www.impi.org.za, more info in the About link) And also (from http://www.impi.org.za/support.html): Impi Linux is one of the first Linux distributions to be released with a 24/7 telephonic support centre. You could also join your Local Linux Users' Group such as GLUG or you can use an Internet search engine such as Google for Linux. Lastly (from http://www.impi.org.za/contact.html) General enquiries, press, marketing and sales: Ross Addis [EMAIL PROTECTED] (hint, hint, hint :) Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:24:58AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: I guess if you're a DD (I'm in the NM-process myself), you can creake official Debian wiki, etc? AFAIK, the official Debian wiki is http://wiki.debian.net and like most wikis, *anyone* can create a page. Please go ahead and do so. Create a new page linked from http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian and then work from there. When you get to a stage where you need a www.d.o page, you won't need to be a developer to get one of those either I don't believe. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpOcDU2OZqm3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 20:46, Enrico Zini wrote: On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:05:29AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: - GNU ERP software project ?name? GNU Enterprise (gnue) http://www.gnue.org/ I've just learnt of Cubit from South Africa: http://www.cubit.co.za/ ... ...and of the Impi distribution from South Africa, Debian-based: (from http://www.impi.org.za, more info in the About link) ... Lastly (from http://www.impi.org.za/contact.html) General enquiries, press, marketing and sales: Ross Addis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the references. Will add them to CDD WIKI and debian-enterprise web pages... cheers zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 21:41, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:24:58AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: I guess if you're a DD (I'm in the NM-process myself), you can creake official Debian wiki, etc? AFAIK, the official Debian wiki is http://wiki.debian.net and like most wikis, *anyone* can create a page. Please go ahead and do so. Cool stuff. Thanks for the pointers, Zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I think I have the structure to make this work. I'm writing now, should have something for you later today. Sorry, yeah. I should instead have said *their* company, not any one company. The company they buy their hardware and support from. In my mind, HP and IBM are paramount, since they also happen to be the only two major suppliers for the shop I work in :) For Germany Fujitsu-Siemens Computers (FSC) would be another target. Although they are officially supporting SuSE and RH only, they have been very helpful in porting their system management stuff (e. g. snmp agents) to Debian. by Töns -- There is no safe distance.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:05, Enrico Zini wrote: On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:33:57PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: - GNU ERP software project ?name? GNU Enterprise (gnue) http://www.gnue.org/ I've just learnt of Cubit from South Africa: http://www.cubit.co.za/ Thank you very much. Added to website. Zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
Hello Töns, we are trying to get the Siemens ServerView ported to debian. After I read your message. I think you may have contact to FSC? Or may be this software is already ported? Do you have some more information for me? Thank you in advance best regards Alex Toens Bueker schrieb: David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I think I have the structure to make this work. I'm writing now, should have something for you later today. Sorry, yeah. I should instead have said *their* company, not any one company. The company they buy their hardware and support from. In my mind, HP and IBM are paramount, since they also happen to be the only two major suppliers for the shop I work in :) For Germany Fujitsu-Siemens Computers (FSC) would be another target. Although they are officially supporting SuSE and RH only, they have been very helpful in porting their system management stuff (e. g. snmp agents) to Debian. by Töns
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
Hello, On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:53:19AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 07:31, David B Harris wrote: who run it, as is so often the case these days. I can't count the number of times I've heard horror stories from HP customers (and other vendors as well) about people being unable to RMA hardware because they're using fully agreed :-( BTW, what's RMA stand for? It stands for Return Material Authorization and means that you get a number to stick on your broken hardware you want to ship back to the vendor for repair. If you're running something not included when you bought it, or on a usually very short compatibility list, then most vendors I've encountered so far are _very_quick_ to tell you that you broke the hardware because you used non-approved software, and/or that you need to verify first if your hardware is also broken under their pre-installed crap, and file a bug stating the kind of breakage with their pre-installed software (usually). Best, --Toni++
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2003-12-01 19:12, Andres Salomon wrote: d-i enhancements might include installation types (similar to redhat's installer; select server, workstation, etc, and have packages selected for you), support for enterprise features directly in the installer We have these in Skolelinux, so you might want to take a look at that (see http://developer.skolelinux.no/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/skolelinux/src/ base-config-skolelinux) - -- Cheers, cobaco 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/zIc55ihPJ4ZiSrsRAkVvAJ9VhWKHs1tWOa23cBbu0v1SyqXTfACfd6SM Y+3UtqC75jemEkTxYzE8QPQ= =FgCt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:12:52PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: For packages, we may want to focus on apt-secure (http://monk.debian.net/apt-secure/); I'm not sure the status of it, [...] You could easily find out here: http://bugs.debian.org/203741 -- - mdz
[custom] Debian Enterprise - policies
(Please CC [EMAIL PROTECTED]) To throw them into the ring: * DFSG Free Software only (I know this one will get debated, but this is the whole point of Debian Enterprise - if you want proprietary software, go buy Red Hat or SUSE/Novell). * Specifically targetting For-Profit entities (vs Debian-NP) * 100% Debian (Social Contract, DFSG, policies + procedures) That should get the ball rolling... cheers zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
[custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
To give limits to Debian Enterprise/ User Linux we need to define some areas of focus. Flavours (and sub-flavours/ tasks/ yadda) is as good a place to start as any. So here are some proposed flavours: - Enterprise (base packages and more neutral config) - Enterprise Desktop - with sub-flavours of: - Secretary Desktop - Presentation Client (OO Presenter, multimedia, flash) - Developer Desktop (all build-depends of all flavours, as a start) - Enterprise Fileserver - Enterprise Webserver - Enterprise Auth Server - Enterprise Departmental Server (combines File, Web + Auth) - Enterprise Firewall - Enterprise SCM Server - Enterprise Router - Enterprise Thin Client cheers zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
[custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
As per the recommendations from Bruce Perens' User Linux paper http://userlinux.com/white_paper.html, this thread is to discuss the applications within the bounded set of Debian Enterprise/ User Linux. The bounded set will depend on the flavour. So first comes proposed flavours (and sub-flavours/ tasks/ yadda) - see previous email/ thread. Here are some initial (obviously debatable and incomplete) selections to start out the bounded-apps conversation: * Web Browser - Mozilla-Firebird I've used Mozilla, Galeon in its day, more recently Epiphany, and the last few months Moz-Firebird. It is simply the simplest (and in my opinion best) of the crop. * Web Server - Apache 2.0 (let's get with the times) * Open SSH Implementation - OpenSSH (much more active that gnu version) * Office Suite - OpenOffice (there's no other near as feature complete) * Scripting Language - Python (no one will debate this one :) - I have never used, only read (plenty) about Python, and I'm not personally too sure about this white space thing, but from what I hear about it (quite consistently) eventually feeling more natural than anything else, I am inclined to believe this really is the case. My experience with Java (after C/C++) was sort of like that, and if Python is more so, then I think it could be closest to the next VB replacement. Some client of some service provider may however commission completion of VB clone, or VB# or whatever. - MONO (go-mono.org/net/com?) is from the sound of it may be a year away, but perhaps that's a reasonable time frame, if we were to go with .NET/MONO for scripting. - Java - I think this is the only other reasonable alternative, and should perhaps be the first choice (due to being as entrenched as it is in middleware/ corporate) - there are a few Free Software implementations, including one fully integrated with GCC toolchain (which I think is just too sweet) - namely gcj. * Mail Server - Postfix (scales more than exim, not as restrictive to admiinister as qmail). * Package format (had you going there - obviously DEBs!) Please add to the list as per your personal exprience dictates. Thanks Zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 14:45, Zenaan Harkness wrote: As per the recommendations from Bruce Perens' User Linux paper http://userlinux.com/white_paper.html, this thread is to discuss the applications within the bounded set of Debian Enterprise/ User Linux. The bounded set will depend on the flavour. So first comes proposed flavours (and sub-flavours/ tasks/ yadda) - see previous email/ thread. Here are some initial (obviously debatable and incomplete) selections to start out the bounded-apps conversation: * Web Browser ... * Desktop Suite - GNOME (as more-Windows-like as KDE is, GNOME definitely has greater momentum, with SUN and HP, and now Novell's acquisition of Ximian and SUSE and corresponding statements - really, there's no point fighting the tide on this one). * DB lib, LDAP lib, etc - as a consequence of the GNOME choice, the simple choice for these becomes does GNOME already provide a relatively feature complete/ stable implementation (and if so, that's the standard we go with). * Documentation format/ standards - Docbook XML (and for the toolchain - I'm waiting for a reponse to an RFInformation on debian-sgml, which I intend to subsequently cross-post/ discuss on docbook and docbook-apps) -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - policies
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 14:32, Zenaan Harkness wrote: (Please CC [EMAIL PROTECTED]) To throw them into the ring: * DFSG Free Software only (I know this one will get debated, but this is the whole point of Debian Enterprise - if you want proprietary software, go buy Red Hat or SUSE/Novell). * Specifically targetting For-Profit entities (vs Debian-NP) * 100% Debian (Social Contract, DFSG, policies + procedures) * LSB compliance * Official statement as to support of Freedesktop.org standards * Other standards ?? -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - policies
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 14:52, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 14:32, Zenaan Harkness wrote: (Please CC [EMAIL PROTECTED]) To throw them into the ring: * DFSG Free Software only (I know this one will get debated, but this is the whole point of Debian Enterprise - if you want proprietary software, go buy Red Hat or SUSE/Novell). * Specifically targetting For-Profit entities (vs Debian-NP) * 100% Debian (Social Contract, DFSG, policies + procedures) * LSB compliance * Official statement as to support of Freedesktop.org standards * Other standards ?? Of course, the various security standards (C levels and the like - there's are running posts on -devel at the moment if I remember rightly, thanks to some thoughtful individual). cheers zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - flavors
(re-titled to - flavors) To give limits to Debian Enterprise/ User Linux we need to define some areas of focus. Flavours (and sub-flavours/ tasks/ yadda) is as good a place to start as any. So here are some proposed flavours: - Enterprise (base packages and more neutral config) - Enterprise Desktop - with sub-flavours of: - Secretary Desktop - Presentation Client (OO Presenter, multimedia, flash) - Developer Desktop (all build-depends of all flavours, as a start) - Enterprise Fileserver - Enterprise Webserver - Enterprise Auth Server - Enterprise Departmental Server (combines File, Web + Auth) - Enterprise Firewall - Enterprise SCM Server - Enterprise Router - Enterprise Thin Client cheers zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - policies
(Really should read ahead further ... here are more, and all laid out together) * DFSG Free Software only (I know this one will get debated, but this is the whole point of Debian Enterprise - if you want proprietary software, go buy Red Hat or SUSE/Novell). * Specifically targetting For-Profit entities (vs Debian-NP) * 100% Debian (Social Contract, DFSG, policies + procedures) * LSB compliance * Official statement as to support of Freedesktop.org standards * Common Criteria (not until we're big enough) * OpenCOE (the COE folks had to wedge _apt_ into Red Hat to get it to work to their satisfaction) * we have a FIPS 140 certification for OpenSSL * Other standards ?? -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/ * PGP Key: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~zenaan/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
First of all. This is obviously not a Debian project (since it is not operating within the Debian framework.) I don't see why this then necessitates over a dozen threads on debian-devel -- AND why it gets to call itself Debian. Moreover, I remain unconvinced that there is any need to split from the regular Debian framework, especially since it seems that all you're doing is removing choices. (Though I admit I killfiled the earlier threads on the topic because they were too unwieldy) Anyway: On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:45:51PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: * Office Suite - OpenOffice (there's no other near as feature complete) And OpenOffice is the only one that runs on only two -- yes, two -- architectures that Debian supports. * Scripting Language - Python (no one will debate this one :) If you think you can get every large enterprise worldwide to standardize on a single scripting language -- much less get even ONE to do that -- then you will surely be nominated for several nobel prizes. -- John
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:49:20 -0600 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all. This is obviously not a Debian project (since it is not operating within the Debian framework.) I don't see why this then necessitates over a dozen threads on debian-devel -- AND why it gets to call itself Debian. Amen, brother.
Re: [custom] Re: Custom Debian Distributions (was: Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?))
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:36:37PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: This is right but under the terms we defined in Oslo also your first example belongs to this group. The problem is that there was no official announcement where Custom Debian was *defined*. These sorts of terms are generally best defined by use, rather than proclamation, though. le weekend, anyone? I'm happy to use other terms, as long as they cover all the different possibilities we want to describe. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Re: [custom] Re: Custom Debian Distributions (was: Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?))
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:55:36AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: Could you please define precisely flavours and derivative distros? Damn, I thought I'd already done that. Since I evidently didn't, I'm going to spell things out in as much boring detail as I can. If I don't end up insulting your intelligence, my apologies. :) I see no problems in documenting that the name Custom Debian includes Flavours and Derivative Distros, and then define what they are. Okay, IMO there are two techniques worth distinguishing that both aim to achieve the same goal. That goal is to put a CD (or DVD, or mirror) in the hands of a user, who can use that CD to get a running, dpkg-based system that does a particular thing s/he wants, and nothing else. If s/he wants to setup a multimedia box that records TV programs and acts as an mp3/ogg jukebox, that's the only sort of software s/he sees -- no web proxies, no intrusion detection tools, no compilers, no documentation on setting up RAID arrays and hot-failover. If s/he wants to setup a fileserver for a small business, s/he might see Samba and Appletalk and NFS, but there won't be any games or scientific analysis tools available. The issue isn't so much one of removing those tools entirely -- ideally, they'll just be an apt-get away anyway -- but of putting the things that are actually wanted on the first CD (or at least the first few CDs), and making the installation and configuration process as quick and easy as possible. I think Customized Debian is a good name for that sort of thing -- it's Debian, but it's customised for particular usage scenarios. If the usage scenario is common enough, then that's a real win: one person can do the customisation, and hundreds or thousands can reap the benefits. On the other end, I feel that if you see Flavours and Derivative Distros as subsets of Custom Debians, then we might have different concepts in mind. Now, there are different possible approaches to this. The most flexible is to create a Debian derivative -- that is, to take Debian, pull out the bits you like from it, upgrade some things, downgrade others, recompile some of the stuff that doesn't work quite right, improve a few things, and add some completely new stuff. That's great, and it's been demonstrated to work quite well. The problems are straightforward: if you're writing your own stuff, you have to manage your own security updates. If you're forked from Debian, then Debian might make some changes that break compatability with your stuff, and you might have to think a bit to integrate the changes. You'll need to find someone to host your images. You can't leverage most of the Debian infrastructure (BTS, autobuilders in particular, probably). But there are plenty of benefits too: you don't have to worry about non-i386 if you don't want. You can set your own policies and not have to answer to anyone, or convince anyone they're good. You can set your own schedule. If you've got software that Debian can't distribute (it costs money per copy or it's internal-use-only, eg), you have to go this way, to some extent. So that's what I call a Debian derivative. It's obviously a customised Debian, but it's customised by taking Debian and adding stuff to it. While that's by far the most effective way of customising Debian, it's not the only conceivable way. The other conceivable way to customise Debian is just to look at all the packages, and rm the ones you don't care about. If that gives you want you want, you overcome a bunch of the more annoying shortcomings above: you don't have to do your own security updates, you don't have to arrange your own hosting, new upstream releases will be packaged for you without you having to lift a finger, it'll normally work on all supported architectures without any effort, and you can file bugs in the BTS without anyone caring that you didn't install from an *official* Debian CD. That's what I'm calling a flavour of Debian. A different analogy which makes a little more pedagogical sense is to consider it a shade of Debian -- making the analogy with colours and prisms instead of taste. Debian, the universal operating system, beams white light at you all day long, and you put a prism or a filter in its way to get just the shade of Debian that you want. We do this already by choosing which packages we want on individual systems and setting them up, which is fine; but what we really want is to be able get a pre-fab filter from the store, and just plonk it in, so we don't have to bother ourselves all the time. We can do that to some extent at the moment -- with sections and tasks and fai classes eg. Which is okay, but it's *far* beneath the level of coolness provided by Knoppix. And as well, if we get flavours to work almost as well as Knoppix (creating a livecd that autodetects hardware and sets you up in a Linux environment with KDE and Gnome and whatever else, by telling it nothing more than which bits of Debian you want on that
Re: [custom] Re: Custom Debian Distributions (was: Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?))
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:55:36AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: Could you please define precisely flavours and derivative distros? Damn, I thought I'd already done that. The problem is that we want to get those Custom Debian Distributions which where formerly known as Debian Internal Projects which are Debian-Jr, Debian-Med, Debian-Edu, Debian-Np, Debian-Lex and others (see my talk once people.d.o is up again) under one common thing. These Custom Distributions use the technique of metapackages and have common goals and try to develop common technologies. It would be easy to mention these under one common term for an easy reference. In Oslo was a decision to name it Custom Debian Distribution and if we try to speak with each other we have to agree about some terms. This thread shows that there is not yet an agreement and this sucks because we have to explain over and over again what we are talking about. For instance we have defined a term Package Pools and everybody now knows what we are talking about ... Kind regards Andreas.
[debian enterprise] sub-project planning
I have discussed the idea of a Debian Enterprise sub-project with various people, and have concluded that it's a worthy goal. I have listed the technical reasons/goals for this sub-project below. Initial preparation for Debian Enterprise will take place within Debian itself, with the following short-term goals being: 1. Discussion and work on an enterprise kernel. This will be one of the first things I tackle, hopefully w/ input on the requested debian-enterprise mailing list (#222359). The goals for this kernel will be inclusion of non-experimental features needed by enterprise-level users utilizing Debian in a server environment. Others have suggested simply using a Red Hat kernel; however, Red Hat tends to include experimental features, which are a bit too bleeding edge. I would like to see things like: A. Clustering (eg, LVS) B. Resizable filesystems (device-mapper, ext3online, etc) C. Security (pax or exec-shield; pax is preferable, but will require modifications) D. UML's skas host patch, and so on. Obviously, suggestions are encouraged, but please hold off until the debian-enterprise list is created. If the list cannot be created in a timely manner (w/ developer accounts currently locked, this may be an issue), I'll host it on a Voxel machine. 2. Given last week's security issues, attention needs to be paid to package signatures, as well as authentication methods. For packages, we may want to focus on apt-secure (http://monk.debian.net/apt-secure/); I'm not sure the status of it, but it will be something that can be discussed. Of course, this has much interest outside of this sub-project; the sub-project will merely help it (and its integration) along. As far as authentication methods, we may want to focus on ways to allow out-of-the-box OPIE, SRP, or other ways of PAM authentication. This might be handled w/ a meta-package, for example. Again, this needs more discussion. 3. Debian Installer enhancements, and work on getting packages moved into testing. Obviously, these things are useful for all Debian users, so development on these may or may not be focused on debian-enterprise. d-i enhancements might include installation types (similar to redhat's installer; select server, workstation, etc, and have packages selected for you), support for enterprise features directly in the installer (choosing certain features may automatically pull in the debian-enterprise kernel), and so on. The previous debian-enterprise thread brought up things like debix and fai, which would be very interesting for this sub-project as well. These are shorter term goals. Longer term goals include possible creation of another branch, security updates on this branch, etc. I'm leaning towards testing snapshots, utilitizing snapshot.debian.net for package storage (along w/ security updates for these packages). The goal of this branch will be shorter release cycles (a new release every 2-3 months), longer security updates (end-of-life after 2 years, for example; 6-8 releases), and focus on only server architectures (m68k bugs won't, for example, keep a package out of the distribution; enterprise users don't really care about m68k). I have discussed this sub-project extensively at Voxel, and we are willing to commit to seeing this idea through - in a manner that allows the Debian community to benefit from resources that we put into it. We are willing to provide developmental resources (Voxel is more than willing to pay me to head up this sub-project), hardware, legal resources, bandwidth, and hosting, with development happening under the Debian moniker. We are also researching the possibility of 24/7 commercial support for enterprise clients, as that is a large part of what companies want (both for technical support, as well as someone to blame when something goes wrong). I would like to stress that while Voxel does have commercial motivations for getting involved, the entire sub-project will comply fully with the Debian Social Contract, and will not stray far from the Debian's official distribution; switching to normal Debian should be a simple process of using $APT_FRONTEND to download a group of different packages. I believe this is the cleanest way to accomplish this (as opposed to forking). Comments and suggestions are welcome, but I'm not really interested in another Debian already is a server distro flamewar. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
Seems like now is a good time to start a new thread. Including [custom] tag too... On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 22:36, Alexander Kitzberger wrote: Hello, we and a couple of other linux companies are also thinking this way, and we would like also to support a enterprise debian. We have the problem that debian has to compete to suse and red hat enperprise servers which are certified for oracle, etc. We like the idea in having also a enterprise debian to have a alternative, because we like using debian more that other distributions. Please inform me if you have any other new regarding this project. I have started a web site at http://debian-enterprise.org/ with various ideas. I shall cut and paste into email below for comment. I talked to joey a few weeks ago about an ideas that goes into the same direction: This is a extract of my conversation with joey: -- Hello Joey, we and some other linux companies are thinking about some things for a while. And now the aquisition of suse make this more actual. We and the other companies would like to start a new sub-project under the debian project that may be called business debian or enterprise debian The aim of this project is to make a homepage (subdomain or subsection od the debian homepage) to present case studies and reference projects that service companies like us realized. --- To get the discussion under way, here are the ideas I have collated over the last few weeks: Current Ideas List SCOPE - enterprise: company, business, organisation ? - for-profit | non-profit ? - target users: enterprise system administrators - clustering ? - ISPs ? - government bodies ? - free software only scope - security scope - hardware spec scope - do we support 386s?, 486s? - deployment scope, eg installations of - thin terminals - pc as - router, bridge - firewalls - workstations - servers - eg. DB, SAMBA, mail, http[s], ftp[s] - secure by default installation? TARGET USERBASE - administrators who want to become proficient and knowledgable - administrators who are already proficient and knowledgable SECURITY GOALS - what's optional, what's standard REALISATION OF GOALS - meta/ task packages - Debian FLAVOURS (to be implemented, but proposed some time back) - website, support forum?, lists, irc, wiki - documentation - tutorials ? - base packages (all Debian required, since we are debian sub, plus ssh, evms, kernel-linux-deb-ent, ???) - debconf package configurations (with enterprise defaults) - custom CD, live CD (debix/ knoppix installer discussions on -devel) - secure live CD? DOCUMENTATION - one-page (where possible, absolute max of one page) install (apt-get) and config guides: the goal being to provide instant recipie/ solution for the busy (or just learning, or having to deliver RIGHT NOW) sys admin. !! - integration with LDP - write a manual (debian admin guide additional chapters) and have it printed and distributed in bookstores COLLABORATION - GNU ERP software project ?name? - I think working with the RHE Fedora project might be important 1st step - red hat stuff - eg. open carpet (ala red carpet)? LEVERAGE - base our initial kernels on the RHE kernels... Regards Zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:12:52 -0500 Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have discussed this sub-project extensively at Voxel, and we are willing to commit to seeing this idea through - in a manner that allows the Debian community to benefit from resources that we put into it. We are willing to provide developmental resources (Voxel is more than willing to pay me to head up this sub-project), hardware, legal resources, bandwidth, and hosting, with development happening under the Debian moniker. We are also researching the possibility of 24/7 commercial support for enterprise clients, as that is a large part of what companies want (both for technical support, as well as someone to blame when something goes wrong). Up until this portion of the email, I was thinking, oh yeah, this sounds good, and get a big company involved too - like HP or IBM. Any thoughts on that? Anybody from HP or IBM here want to weigh in? P.S.: I'm willing to put work into the debix/FAI-type stuff.
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:12, Andres Salomon wrote: I have discussed the idea of a Debian Enterprise sub-project with various people, and have concluded that it's a worthy goal. I have listed the technical reasons/goals for this sub-project below. Great to hear. I started a web page at http://debian-enterprise.org/. Initial preparation for Debian Enterprise will take place within Debian itself, with the following short-term goals being: I guess if you're a DD (I'm in the NM-process myself), you can creake official Debian wiki, etc? 1. Discussion and work on an enterprise kernel. This will be one of the first things I tackle, hopefully w/ input on the requested debian-enterprise mailing list (#222359). The goals for this kernel will be inclusion of non-experimental features needed by enterprise-level users utilizing Debian in a server environment. Others have suggested simply using a Red Hat kernel; however, Red Hat tends to include experimental features, which are a bit too bleeding edge. I would like to see things like: A. Clustering (eg, LVS) B. Resizable filesystems (device-mapper, ext3online, etc) C. Security (pax or exec-shield; pax is preferable, but will require modifications) D. UML's skas host patch, and so on. Obviously, suggestions are encouraged, but please hold off until the debian-enterprise list is created. If the list cannot be created in a timely manner (w/ developer accounts currently locked, this may be an issue), I'll host it on a Voxel machine. Good place to start. 2. Given last week's security issues, attention needs to be paid to package signatures, as well as authentication methods. For packages, we may want to focus on apt-secure (http://monk.debian.net/apt-secure/); I'm not sure the status of it, but it will be something that can be discussed. Of course, this has much interest outside of this sub-project; the sub-project will merely help it (and its integration) along. As far as authentication methods, we may want to focus on ways to allow out-of-the-box OPIE, SRP, or other ways of PAM authentication. This might be handled w/ a meta-package, for example. Again, this needs more discussion. I'd put security a top priority - hopefully suggestion C or something similar will get implemented soon - see related thread revival of signed debs. 3. Debian Installer enhancements, and work on getting packages moved into testing. Obviously, these things are useful for all Debian users, ... thread brought up things like debix and fai, which would be very interesting for this sub-project as well. agreed These are shorter term goals. Longer term goals include possible creation of another branch, security updates on this branch, etc. I'm leaning towards testing snapshots, utilitizing snapshot.debian.net for package storage (along w/ security updates for these packages). The goal of this branch will be shorter release cycles (a new release every 2-3 months), longer security updates (end-of-life after 2 years, for example; 6-8 releases), and focus on only server architectures (m68k bugs won't, for example, keep a package out of the distribution; enterprise users don't really care about m68k). This is an excellent idea. I haven't previously heard of something that could as easily get around the release timetable problems. Choosing a (limited) set of architectures will definitely provide a greater likelihood of meeting release timetables. I have discussed this sub-project extensively at Voxel, and we are willing to commit to seeing this idea through - in a manner that allows the Debian community to benefit from resources that we put into it. We are willing to provide developmental resources (Voxel is more than willing to pay me to head up this sub-project), hardware, legal resources, bandwidth, and hosting, with development happening under the Debian moniker. We are also researching the possibility of 24/7 commercial support for enterprise clients, as that is a large part of what companies want (both for technical support, as well as someone to blame when something goes wrong). Awesome stuff. The great thing about Free Software is that anyone, from the competant individual to the multinationals, can get involved providing service where service is wanted, and in the process contribute back to the community. I would like to stress that while Voxel does have commercial motivations for getting involved, And as I put on the web page, a goal of debian-enterprise (should be, IMHO) to explicitly support *for-profit* organisations. Let's make no bones about it - the goal is to make as much profit as possible, such that we might Do Good Things (TM). the entire sub-project will comply fully with the Debian Social Contract, and will not stray far from the Debian's official distribution; switching to normal Debian should be a simple agreed - seems like we are thinking very similarly
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:46, David B Harris wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:12:52 -0500 Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have discussed this sub-project extensively at Voxel, and we are willing to commit to seeing this idea through - in a manner that allows the Debian community to benefit from resources that we put into it. We are willing to provide developmental resources (Voxel is more than willing to pay me to head up this sub-project), hardware, legal resources, bandwidth, and hosting, with development happening under the Debian moniker. We are also researching the possibility of 24/7 commercial support for enterprise clients, as that is a large part of what companies want (both for technical support, as well as someone to blame when something goes wrong). Up until this portion of the email, I was thinking, oh yeah, this sounds good, and get a big company involved too - like HP or IBM. Any thoughts on that? Anybody from HP or IBM here want to weigh in? My primary thought wrt making money from Free Software - make as much as we possibly can - at least that's my goal, so that I can provide for myself and my family, and (in the future) work on more Free Software projects. P.S.: I'm willing to put work into the debix/FAI-type stuff. Heh-heh! Good to hear. regards zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:24:58AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Great to hear. I started a web page at http://debian-enterprise.org/. Aren't we still waiting for clarification on the use of Debian in domain names, etc? As highlighted by the Adamantix name changed? And as I put on the web page, a goal of debian-enterprise (should be, IMHO) to explicitly support *for-profit* organisations. Let's make no bones about it - the goal is to make as much profit as possible, such that we might Do Good Things (TM). I'm agreeing with the ideas of the project, especially availability software and security. As a related topic I've been working on bootable Debian, some simple bootable CD-ROM's for different purposes, a simple Mail server offering POP3/IMAP/SMTP and Spam filtering in a box and a complete Webserver on a CD for example. These sound similar to your turnkey server installaionst you mention. Steve -- # Debian Security Audit Project http://www.steve.org.uk/Debian/
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
Zennan, Thanks. I can't get to your site at the moment. I have just closed out some customer work that has been taking up 100% of my time, and am today writing a manifesto that I will post at userlinux.com . I will read the debian-devel postings and, hopefully, your site before I do that. I am still negotiating with the large industry group that approached me about this project. When the price tag is north of $1M, it takes time. If that works out, they would fund 3-5 engineers full-time, plus myself and an admin to work on the aspects of this project that are important to their industry group. And only their industry group. Thus, there is room for participation of a number of vendors and/or industry groups, as well as direct participation by all of the various entities that would participate in Debian. Note there is also a gnUserlinux.org, but RMS objects to that name - he feels that people will percieve it as an official FSF project if the GNU comes first. This came as something of a surprise. Thanks Bruce Zenaan Harkness wrote: This is a brief followup to my earlier queries regarding debian-enterprise sub project - the new term being Custom Debian Distribution. Well, I am slowly building a website for debian-enterprise. This is something I am personally somewhat passionate about and realised eventually that I am therefore the person for the job. Here is the website: http://debian-enterprise.org/ At the moment any related discussions are being held on debian-devel. Regards Zenaan
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Seems like now is a good time to start a new thread. Including [custom] tag too... :) I have started a web site at http://debian-enterprise.org/ Did you apt-get install subproject-howto ? It might help you registering a site under www.debian.org (once its services are up again. (BTW, the site seems to be unavailable currently ...) This is a extract of my conversation with joey: Just for the record, we have two Joeys: Joey Hess and Martin 'Joey' Schulze :) REALISATION OF GOALS - meta/ task packages - Debian FLAVOURS (to be implemented, but proposed some time back) As I said: At least other people who use the meta package approach inside Debian use the term Custom Debian Distribution ... - website, support forum?, lists, irc, wiki See above. In general I like your approach. You might have a look at http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-jr/ or http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med/ and the according wml files in CVS (once this service is up again) Kind regards Andreas. -- Sie schaffen eine Wüste und nennen es Frieden. -- Publius Cornelius Tacitus (55-120)
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: I guess if you're a DD (I'm in the NM-process myself), you can creake official Debian wiki, etc? If I'm not completely wrong you do not need to be a DD to get CVS access to wml pages. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:45:35 -0800 Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am still negotiating with the large industry group that approached me about this project. When the price tag is north of $1M, it takes time. If that works out, they would fund 3-5 engineers full-time, plus myself and an admin to work on the aspects of this project that are important to their industry group. And only their industry group. Thus, there is room for participation of a number of vendors and/or industry groups, as well as direct participation by all of the various entities that would participate in Debian. Are you still on good terms with some people at HP? I don't even think we need funding, per se. I wouldn't mind getting paid well for the work I do, but that's a rarity. (Why does money always need to get involved?) What I'd really like to see is a company providing input, serving as a central point for customer contact, and above all, actually *supporting* the use of the end-product. ie: not being hostile to users who run it, as is so often the case these days. I can't count the number of times I've heard horror stories from HP customers (and other vendors as well) about people being unable to RMA hardware because they're using a decent software bundle that they're familiar with and can maintain, as opposed to whatever outdated and bastardised crap was included with the hardware. Okay, that sort of turned into a rant :) I do apologise, but I'd desperately like to help dispell the stigma that's associated with anything non-Red Hat.
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:27:12 +1100 Zenaan Harkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any thoughts on that? Anybody from HP or IBM here want to weigh in? My primary thought wrt making money from Free Software - make as much as we possibly can - at least that's my goal, so that I can provide for myself and my family, and (in the future) work on more Free Software projects. My goals are only to provide something that and end-user can use without having their vendor tell them they're on their own, no RMAs, no hardware support, nothing.
Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 06:42, Steve Kemp wrote: On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:24:58AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: And as I put on the web page, a goal of debian-enterprise (should be, IMHO) to explicitly support *for-profit* organisations. Let's make no bones about it - the goal is to make as much profit as possible, such that we might Do Good Things (TM). I'm agreeing with the ideas of the project, especially availability software and security. As a related topic I've been working on bootable Debian, some simple bootable CD-ROM's for different purposes, a simple Mail server offering POP3/IMAP/SMTP and Spam filtering in a box and a complete Webserver on a CD for example. These sound similar to your turnkey server installaionst you mention. The two concepts (flavours/ custom distros of debian, and [custom] bootable/ live Debian CDs) have been discussed quite a bit recently on -devel - see the various threads. There seems to be a common desire to, where it makes sense at all, make the tools part of Debian proper, such that these concepts can be readily deployed, and Debian the richer for its users. Seems there are many lines of thought all pretty well aligned at the moment :) Inspiring stuff. Regards Zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:43:21AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: - GNU ERP software project ?name? GNU Enterprise (gnue) http://www.gnue.org/ -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgppwhG5wx4GS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 07:08, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: I have started a web site at http://debian-enterprise.org/ Did you apt-get install subproject-howto I did actually - after your last such recommendation. Double thanks. ? It might help you registering a site under www.debian.org (once its services are up again. Cool. I'll check it out in a day or five :) REALISATION OF GOALS - meta/ task packages - Debian FLAVOURS (to be implemented, but proposed some time back) As I said: At least other people who use the meta package approach inside Debian use the term Custom Debian Distribution ... Sorry, I should have updated that line. I have decided upon the term Custom Debian Distribution for all my own references. (Note that most other references in [my personal + debian-enterprise] web pages, the email Subject: and my sig, all refer to Custom Debian Distribution. Definitely it's a nice term to use.) - website, support forum?, lists, irc, wiki See above. ta In general I like your approach. You might have a look at http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-jr/ or http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med/ and the according wml files in CVS (once this service is up again) I have spent a little time on those websites, as well as http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-np/ (non profit) (always more to do though). In fact, Debian Non Profit is a nice counterpoint to debian-enterprise, yet I think that technical goals will be more closely coincident than might at first be obvious :) Gotta love free software community-based model. regards zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:31:29PM -0500, David B Harris wrote: (Why does money always need to get involved?) I think people start burnin' cars and shit if they don't have something to do all day. Okay, that sort of turned into a rant :) I do apologise, but I'd desperately like to help dispell the stigma that's associated with anything non-Red Hat. I'm actually surprised more companies aren't trying to leverage the power of 1000 self-organized free developers. I wonder if there would be a backlash if a Lindows did $1 billion revenue...
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 06:45, Bruce Perens wrote: Note there is also a gnUserlinux.org, but RMS objects to that name - he feels that people will percieve it as an official FSF project if the GNU comes first. This came as something of a surprise. :) I'd be betting you're not the only one. However, knowing he very clearly defines what is and what is not part of/ aligned with his philosophy on Free Software, I'd be pretty sure there must be something about the gnUserLinux.org site that falls outside what he can endorse. That or he doesn't want the FSF to (or the FSF simply can't, perhaps according to its charter) officially endorse anything that it does not have an official agreement with. Apologies to whomever I might be simply restating the obvious. cheers zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
David B Harris wrote: (I don't know if you're subscribed to debian-devel@lists.debian.org, so I am resending this mail here. It's best to copy me on things you want me to read. Also note that mail that doesn't have my address in the To: or Cc: field won't go to my main inbox and is usually discarded unread. Are you still on good terms with some people at HP? Yes. Has anyone discussed this with Bdale? I wouldn't mind getting paid well for the work I do, but that's a rarity. (Why does money always need to get involved?) I've been successful at 1. feeding my family 2. keeping my ethics 3. working full-time on Free Software and its issues I wish everyone could be. It's not easy, and the means I have arrived at wouldn't work for very many people. I admire those who don't have to consider money while fulfilling all three of the above goals. What I'd really like to see is a company providing input, serving as a central point for customer contact, and above all, actually *supporting* the use of the end-product. ie: not being hostile to users who run it, as is so often the case these days. Yes, but let me add something. I think we will have failed if there is only one company doing this. No lock-ins, no lack of choices, please. That's one of the things wrong with RH/Fedora. And I think I have the structure to make this work. I'm writing now, should have something for you later today. Thanks Bruce
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 07:31, David B Harris wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:45:35 -0800 Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am still negotiating with the large industry group that approached me about this project. When the price tag is north of $1M, it takes time. If that works out, they would fund 3-5 engineers full-time, plus myself and an admin to work on the aspects of this project that are important to their industry group. And only their industry group. Thus, there is room for participation of a number of vendors and/or industry groups, as well as direct participation by all of the various entities that would participate in Debian. Are you still on good terms with some people at HP? I don't even think we need funding, per se. I wouldn't mind getting paid well for the work I do, but that's a rarity. (Why does money always need to get involved?) To the level you are prepared to contribute, with or without funding, a big thanks! And a double thanks when you do so without funding. That said, if _any_ of us can get funding for what we do, we absolutely, unequivocally should, in my opinion. I see no reason for money not to enter discussions, if it is along the lines of here's a possibility one or more of us can get paid for at least some of the work we do. I see such conversations as particularly valuable (multiple meanings). What I'd really like to see is a company providing input, serving as a central point for customer contact, and above all, actually *supporting* the use of the end-product. ie: not being hostile to users Service companies are the foundation of a truly *free* free market economy. Much closer to true competition and therefore optimal [resource use|price to consumers|efficiency of production]. Either go start such a beast, or support those that already provide such service, if you are so inclined to either. who run it, as is so often the case these days. I can't count the number of times I've heard horror stories from HP customers (and other vendors as well) about people being unable to RMA hardware because they're using BTW, what's RMA stand for? a decent software bundle that they're familiar with and can maintain, as opposed to whatever outdated and bastardised crap was included with the hardware. Hopefully things will improve. And the more money we can get as developers within the community, the better. Okay, that sort of turned into a rant :) I do apologise, but I'd desperately like to help dispell the stigma that's associated with anything non-Red Hat. I haven't personally come across such stigma at all. In fact my experience is that Debian is somewhat esteemed, *technically*. I think it has been perceived, though, that to be pure and free, one must not be tainted by consideration of money. But that's complete bunk. That's some poor-me's communistic dream. Take away motivation from people and you end up with not only an expectation that all should be provided for without lifting a finger, but poverty-conscious sorry states of living that are a complete crock. Now _I'm_ really ranting (and seriously, nothing personal in the slightest). Self-responsibility; intelligence; ability. If you've got it, make good use of it, and Do Good Things (TM). cheers zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 06:45, Bruce Perens wrote: Thanks. I can't get to your site at the moment. My ISP has been intermittent over the last week - obviously having server troubles. Usually fine though. Also if you were trying my personal domain: http://soulsound.net/, that might still be propagating through the DNS servers. http://debian-enterprise.org/ should work though. Hopefully the ISPs servers are up again soon. I have just closed out some customer work that has been taking up 100% of my time, and am today writing a manifesto that I will post at userlinux.com . Please CC us - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am still negotiating with the large industry group that approached me about this project. When the price tag is north of $1M, it takes time. If that works out, they would fund 3-5 engineers full-time, plus myself and an admin to work on the aspects of this project that are important to their industry group. And only their industry group. Good luck. Sounds like your usually inspiring win-wins. Thus, there is room for participation of a number of vendors and/or industry groups, as well as direct participation by all of the various entities that would participate in Debian. Of course. Good point to clarify too. Regards Zenaan -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:33:57PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: - GNU ERP software project ?name? GNU Enterprise (gnue) http://www.gnue.org/ I've just learnt of Cubit from South Africa: http://www.cubit.co.za/ Ciao, Enrico
Re: Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:53:02 -0800 Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you still on good terms with some people at HP? Yes. Has anyone discussed this with Bdale? He hasn't participated in the thread yet. I wouldn't mind getting paid well for the work I do, but that's a rarity. (Why does money always need to get involved?) snip I admire those who don't have to consider money while fulfilling all three of the above goals. I meant more specifically, when corporate involvement is discussed :) There's lots of other things companies can do without writing cheques. What I'd really like to see is a company providing input, serving as a central point for customer contact, and above all, actually *supporting* the use of the end-product. ie: not being hostile to users who run it, as is so often the case these days. Yes, but let me add something. I think we will have failed if there is only one company doing this. No lock-ins, no lack of choices, please. That's one of the things wrong with RH/Fedora. And I think I have the structure to make this work. I'm writing now, should have something for you later today. Sorry, yeah. I should instead have said *their* company, not any one company. The company they buy their hardware and support from. In my mind, HP and IBM are paramount, since they also happen to be the only two major suppliers for the shop I work in :)
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On 2 Dec 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: - debconf package configurations (with enterprise defaults) To me this is still the largest hurdle, having to work around packages that don't yet use debconf, and not easily being able to take a debconf snapshot and apply it to another host. Being able to do a Noninteractive install of every package in Debian, pre-seeding debconf, or even a separate Debian registry if debconf isn't meant to work like this, so you could replicate a system 100% accurately. Even being able to apply a new debconf/registry profile and then asking all packages to reconfigure, that would be impressive. Then it's just a matter of customising anything not handled completely by debconf with, if you will, flavour-postinst etc. in a metapackage or udeb or flavour/class definition. Flavours could consist only of Debian packages from the archive, plus this freely shared metapackage. Perhaps this could even replace the task system eventually, including postinst commands etc. All of the value adding that flavours can provide will be in that last stage, modifying the default configuration, adding pretty interfaces or whatever.. Maybe the terms I've used are incorrect, I'm only vaguely familiar with metapackages/udeb etc. but you get the idea. Flavours simply become a wrapper or d-i hook performed after package installation, to utilise and remain 100% Debian. Perhaps the flavour definition is hosted in the archive and policy compliant, perhaps not. Building live CDs and non-interactive installs are relatively straightforward, but will remain a hack and a maintainer nightmare until the infrastructure enables and supports them imho. Niall YoungChime Communications Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]Level 6, 263 Adelaide Terrace Ph: (+61) 08 9213 1330 / 0408 192 797 Perth, Western Australia 6000 Are you a parent who would like to involve your kids in an iiNsanity event? -- Jodie Evans, Mar 2003
Re: [custom] Re: Custom Debian Distributions (was: Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?))
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: Since I evidently didn't, I'm going to spell things out in as much boring detail as I can. If I don't end up insulting your intelligence, my apologies. :) You have clarified the situation nicely. So, using my definitions, the following conclusions are (IMO) true: * all flavours are policy compliant Basically sorting the stable archive and modifying the the current installation scheme to suit. Technically easy. The task and exclude lists in debian-cd and a few meta packages, or modify the override-*-extra files. Been there, done that. * some derived distros might be policy compliant The final test being that the installation is completely apt compatable with a Debian mirror? * you can't always create a flavour to do what you want Yes * you can always create a derived distro to do what you want Yes * improving our mechanisms for supporting flavours helps derived distros and their users And makes Debian more diverse and so more universal. * we can improve our support for flavours by co-opting many of the techniques pioneered by derived distros People who produce derived distros tend to think outside the square and so can add a new dimention to Debian. * a derived distro can be an internal Debian project, but won't ever be /as/ internal as a flavour But always remain on friendly terms with those working outside Debian. * distributing customised Debian distros is not only the way of the future, it's the way of the present! Sure is, and Debian is by far the best distro for this purpose. Phil. -- Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand +64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488 2875Mobile 025 267 9420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sell GNU/Linux GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Re: [custom] Re: Custom Debian Distributions (was: Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?))
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:48:20PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: For instance we have defined a term Package Pools and everybody now knows what we are talking about ... Of course, not everyone used the term Package pools for the same thing originally. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 pgpZVHcxAQbI1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - a Custom Debian Distribution
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 13:42, Niall Young wrote: On 2 Dec 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: - debconf package configurations (with enterprise defaults) To me this is still the largest hurdle, having to work around packages that don't yet use debconf, AIUI, policy will not change should to must until enough packages already support debconf - otherwise you break too many packages with RC bugs and testing goes dormant for centuries (well, too long anyway). Solution: if it's important to you, get in and start finding packages which could use debconf, and email the maintainers for discussion, and/ or supply patches if you have time and knowledge. install of every package in Debian, pre-seeding debconf, or even a separate Debian registry if debconf isn't meant to work like this, so you could replicate a system 100% accurately. Even being able to apply a new debconf/registry profile and then asking all packages to reconfigure, that would be impressive. There are many potentially nice features. It is happening and their is interest - FAI, debix, debian-enterprise and other Custom Debian Distributions (aka subprojects, metadistros and flavours) - basically various groups would like such facilities, so it's a shared feature wish. Then it's just a matter of customising anything not handled completely by debconf with, if you will, flavour-postinst etc. in a metapackage or udeb or flavour/class definition. Flavours could consist only of Debian packages from the archive, plus this freely shared metapackage. Perhaps this could even replace the task system eventually, including postinst exactly - lost of cool stuff commands etc. All of the value adding that flavours can provide will be in that last stage, modifying the default configuration, adding pretty interfaces or whatever.. Maybe the terms I've used are incorrect, I'm only vaguely familiar with metapackages/udeb etc. but you get the idea. Flavours simply become a wrapper or d-i hook performed after package installation, to utilise and remain 100% Debian. Perhaps the flavour definition is hosted in the archive and policy compliant, perhaps not. plenty of ideas, good stuff. Do you code and have time and have interest to contribute? Building live CDs and non-interactive installs are relatively straightforward, but will remain a hack and a maintainer nightmare until the infrastructure enables and supports them imho. Perhaps it really is getting to a good time to start a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list (custom debian distributions) for all such topics ?? cheers zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: [custom] Re: Custom Debian Distributions (was: Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?))
Debian-Jr, Debian-Med, Debian-Edu, Debian-Np, Debian-Lex Is there a single place where all official Custom Debian Distributions (CDDs - even a reasonable TLA), aka internal projects, are listed? These Custom Distributions use the technique of metapackages and have common goals and try to develop common technologies. Should have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list then... It would be easy to mention these under one common term for an easy yes, that would be good reference. In Oslo was a decision to name it Custom Debian Distribution and if we try to speak with each other we have to agree about some terms. This thread shows that there is not yet an agreement and this sucks because we have to explain over and over again what we are talking about. Actually, it feels to me like we've come to a rough concensus on Custom Debian Distribution. There is agreement a single term is a good thing, perhaps with sub-definitions. No one (unless I missed it) has proposed a better name that hasn't had problems pointed out. I think. For instance we have defined a term Package Pools and everybody now knows what we are talking about ... Exactly. It comes down to people using it. How would one go about creating a common location for pointers to all of these CDDs? Then, it's up to the projects to start using the term. A list would I think be very good for making cdd discussions stand out at this point - there seems to be enough traffic. But perhaps I'm wrong, I don't know. cheers zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andres Salomon wrote: After reading Andreas Tille's link on sub-projects, I'm leaning more towards that. I have little doubt that a separate distribution (done correctly) would fly; look at the success of Knoppix, for example. However, my goals are more in line w/ the goals of a sub-project. I do not have doubt that separate dirtibutions could fly. I just wonder if the effort to make it right is worth doing it instead of spending half of the effort to make it right inside Debian. Just note that Klaus Knopper was *very* interested about my idea to integrate Knoppix stuff into Debian. He recognized that this could save him time even if the first step of sane inclusion is quite hard. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 20:33, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andres Salomon wrote: Suggestions are most welcome. Feel free to ask about details if something is not clear about the slides or any other things are missing. IMHO a debian-enterprise is very much missing and would be a great enhancement. Thorough agreement. I believe a debian-enterprise sub-project would serve very well to gather support from various companies that utilize Debian. At the software company I used to work at we had various local packages, mostly site-specific, but as manager I would have readily given approval to make all applicable work available to debian(-enterprise subproject). Having a focal point is a great thing. Wishlists, mailing lists, and like minded people all come together to build small pieces of the communal puzzle. Also, definitely debian-enterprise, not debian-user subproject. Plenty of user stuff already (-multimedia, -jr, -med, etc). Perhaps, for anyone wondering whether separate or sub project is the way - check out DeMuDi (external distro) which is now kind of morphing into debian-multimedia sub project. Is there enough concensus to start a list - anyone with the resource access and experience to create a webpage for the subproject? I will join the list as soon as it's available. Bruce Perens mentioned in an interview recently (not so recent I can remember the link though sorry) that he feels the time is ripe for just such a sub project. My feeling was that there are potentially some large corporates who would back such a move (HP?, SUN? - I don't know, but we can guess). cheers zen
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 05:17, Andres Salomon wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:51:43 -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: If the sub-project approach would mean that the new packages and enhancements would be folded into Debian, then I think that is definitely preferable. I do not think that basing it on testing is the best approach; in my experience, enterprises prefer a longer (stable) release cycle than testing's daily churn. Normally I'd agree; however, one of the issues I'm trying to resolve is the need for numerous backports. However, I do believe the subproject/kernel is a good start. I would prefer to see it based around testing snapshots, not necessarily testing itself. Is it possible to create task or meta packages that depend on specific versions - eg. a bunch of versions as at a specific snapshot date of testing?? ta zen
Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?)
Am Di, den 18.11.2003 schrieb Andreas Tille um 08:48: Just note that Klaus Knopper was *very* interested about my idea to integrate Knoppix stuff into Debian. He recognized that this could save him time even if the first step of sane inclusion is quite hard. The idea to integrate Knoppix stuff back to Debian also occured to me. I am glad to hear that Klaus likes the idea too. Have you put any further thought into the question how to accomplish that? At the d-i debcamp in Oldenburg I met a guy who also does Knoppix development work. He too seemed to be interested in the idea so I am CC'ing him. Sebastian -- PGP-Key: http://www.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de/~sebastian.ley/public.key Fingerprint: A46A 753F AEDC 2C01 BE6E F6DB 97E0 3309 9FD6 E3E6 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:10:07 +1100 Zenaan Harkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 05:17, Andres Salomon wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:51:43 -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: If the sub-project approach would mean that the new packages and enhancements would be folded into Debian, then I think that is definitely preferable. I do not think that basing it on testing is the best approach; in my experience, enterprises prefer a longer (stable) release cycle than testing's daily churn. Normally I'd agree; however, one of the issues I'm trying to resolve is the need for numerous backports. However, I do believe the subproject/kernel is a good start. I would prefer to see it based around testing snapshots, not necessarily testing itself. Is it possible to create task or meta packages that depend on specific versions - eg. a bunch of versions as at a specific snapshot date of testing?? I think that will give problems. If this package gets into testing then the packages which it depends on can't get any new versions into testing. If it's not in testing there's no guaranty that it's dependencies will be in the archive (precisely because new versions of package get into testing). grtjs Tim
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Is it possible to create task or meta packages that depend on specific versions - eg. a bunch of versions as at a specific snapshot date of testing?? No - except if there are different verisons of one package in Debian (see recent plans to package different PostgreSQL versions). BTW, I see no relevance for depending from certain versions *if* you use just stable as it should be done in an enterprise. Any backports are out of control of Debian and the meta packages inside Debian. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Is there enough concensus to start a list - anyone with the resource access and experience to create a webpage for the subproject? I will join the list as soon as it's available. apt-get install subproject-howto Bruce Perens mentioned in an interview recently (not so recent I can remember the link though sorry) that he feels the time is ripe for just such a sub project. My feeling was that there are potentially some large corporates who would back such a move (HP?, SUN? - I don't know, but we can guess). I had several talks about Custom Debian Distributions and I'm mentioning this from the first one ... Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Integrate Knoppix in Debian (was: Re: Debian Enterprise?)
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Sebastian Ley wrote: The idea to integrate Knoppix stuff back to Debian also occured to me. I am glad to hear that Klaus likes the idea too. Have you put any further thought into the question how to accomplish that? The only thing I did besides talking about it was creating a project on Alioth: http://alioth.debian.org/projects/debian-knoppix/ I hae to admit that I'm overloaded with Debian-Med work and will not be able to do any real work on this topic. Feel free to join the Alioth project! At the d-i debcamp in Oldenburg I met a guy who also does Knoppix development work. He too seemed to be interested in the idea so I am CC'ing him. I learned to know Fabian at LinuxTag and in fact hid did much more work on this field then me after I tried to explain him my ideas. He kind of applied this idea for PowerPC. Unfortunately I was not able to contact him since the Alioth project was started. Kind regards Andreas.
Debian Enterprise?
Over the past week, my boss and I have had discussions about the niche left by RedHat, and the possibility of working on a distribution/sub-project aimed at enterprise folks. The plan is to target those RedHat users and companies who are unwilling (or unable) to pay for RedHat Enterprise Linux, but need HA features. Our company falls into this category, but made the RedHat-Debian switch earlier on. Currently, we're forced to maintain our own kernels, compile apache/php from source, and use a few backports to woody. What we really need is: * a kernel that supports things like IPVS (Linux Virtual Server), UML (the skas host patch), 64-bit smbfs support, and various other things. RedHat's kernel had a slew of 2.6 backports, as well as HA stuff thrown in there. We need something like that (only less extreme; RH liked their experimental kernel features a bit too much). * Updated server-related packages; for example, we definitely need a php4 package newer than 4.1.2, and preferably built against apache2. I can think of a few ways to offer the above. The first is a standalone distribution, based on debian but with various enhancements (not a novel idea, by any means). We could either base this on testing, doing snapshot releases every 3-6 months, and offering security fixes, or on stable w/ various backports. We would probably have a stripped-down installer based on d-i, w/ the stock kernel being similar to redhat's kernel. Another way would be to have a debian sub-project; this would have a kernel that includes extra (enterprise) features (kernel-image-2.4.22-enterprise-1-686smp), amongst other things. I'd also like to see enhancements to d-i, work done to ease things like php into testing, and (if based around testing) security updates for testing. If folks are at all interested in this sort of thing, please let me know. Our long-term goals for this are to hire a developer or two (part or full time) to help maintain this project, as long as it's something we (and our clients) can use and support. Suggestions are most welcome.
Re: Debian Enterprise?
Hi Andres, *, Andres Salomon, on 2003-11-17, 01:45, you wrote: If folks are at all interested in this sort of thing, please let me know. I am. We (the company I am employed with) are running Debian installations in Enterprise environments with focus on HA (failover, replication und such). Our long-term goals for this are to hire a developer or two (part or full time) to help maintain this project, as long as it's something we (and our clients) can use and support. I would like to participate in a sub-project. And if you like you are free to buy development services from us, of course ;-) Joerg -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 pgpa9dwCbwXdf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andres Salomon wrote: Another way would be to have a debian sub-project; this would have a kernel that includes extra (enterprise) features I would strongly recommend this. The keyword ist Customized Debian Distribution. Recently I gave a talk at LinuxDays Luxemburg (a slight update from my talk at DebConf Oslo). I wished I would find the time to write a complete article about the slides which are available at: http://people.debian.org/~tille/debian-med/talks/200311_lux_cust/index_en.html Suggestions are most welcome. Feel free to ask about details if something is not clear about the slides or any other things are missing. IMHO a debian-enterprise is very much missing and would be a great enhancement. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:45:05AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: I can think of a few ways to offer the above. The first is a standalone distribution, based on debian but with various enhancements (not a novel idea, by any means). We could either base this on testing, doing snapshot releases every 3-6 months, and offering security fixes, or on stable w/ various backports. We would probably have a stripped-down installer based on d-i, w/ the stock kernel being similar to redhat's kernel. Another way would be to have a debian sub-project; this would have a kernel that includes extra (enterprise) features (kernel-image-2.4.22-enterprise-1-686smp), amongst other things. I'd also like to see enhancements to d-i, work done to ease things like php into testing, and (if based around testing) security updates for testing. If the sub-project approach would mean that the new packages and enhancements would be folded into Debian, then I think that is definitely preferable. I do not think that basing it on testing is the best approach; in my experience, enterprises prefer a longer (stable) release cycle than testing's daily churn. -- - mdz
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:51:43 -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:45:05AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: I can think of a few ways to offer the above. The first is a standalone distribution, based on debian but with various enhancements (not a novel idea, by any means). We could either base this on testing, doing snapshot releases every 3-6 months, and offering security fixes, or on stable w/ various backports. We would probably have a stripped-down installer based on d-i, w/ the stock kernel being similar to redhat's kernel. Another way would be to have a debian sub-project; this would have a kernel that includes extra (enterprise) features (kernel-image-2.4.22-enterprise-1-686smp), amongst other things. I'd also like to see enhancements to d-i, work done to ease things like php into testing, and (if based around testing) security updates for testing. If the sub-project approach would mean that the new packages and enhancements would be folded into Debian, then I think that is definitely preferable. I do not think that basing it on testing is the best approach; in my experience, enterprises prefer a longer (stable) release cycle than testing's daily churn. Normally I'd agree; however, one of the issues I'm trying to resolve is the need for numerous backports. However, I do believe the subproject/kernel is a good start. I would prefer to see it based around testing snapshots, not necessarily testing itself.
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:45:05AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: Over the past week, my boss and I have had discussions about the niche left by RedHat, and the possibility of working on a distribution/sub-project aimed at enterprise folks. The plan is to target those RedHat users and companies who are unwilling (or unable) to pay for RedHat Enterprise Linux, but need HA features. Our company falls into this category, but made the RedHat-Debian switch earlier on. Check out the Beowulf list archives @ www.beowulf.org for October/November where just these sorts of discussions have been happening. I've been trying to advocate a switch to Debian from RH for a lot of the high powered folk who run major clusters. I'm not sure that a separate distribution would fly - Progeny would have carried on otherwise. Bruce Perens' proposed ??UserLinux?? would possibly be a candidate here. Nor am I sure that a sub-project is ideal. A customised kernel or two and potentially a meta-package might be enough. It doesn't make sense to fork unless you _really_ need to fork. A distribution based on woody + backports would be OK now, with a distribution based on the new stable once we release :) Pace Knoppix and Lindows, basing a distribution on testing may be more than a little difficult. Talking to Libranet and merging your Enterprise stuff there might be another option. In the longer term, I'm slightly sceptical about how many Debian-based distributions can survive outside Debian - but then I've had 9 1/2 years of 20/20 hindsight :) Just my 0.02 Euro / 0.03 US$ Andy
Re: Debian Enterprise?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:55:36 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:45:05AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: Over the past week, my boss and I have had discussions about the niche left by RedHat, and the possibility of working on a distribution/sub-project aimed at enterprise folks. The plan is to target those RedHat users and companies who are unwilling (or unable) to pay for RedHat Enterprise Linux, but need HA features. Our company falls into this category, but made the RedHat-Debian switch earlier on. Check out the Beowulf list archives @ www.beowulf.org for October/November where just these sorts of discussions have been happening. I've been trying to advocate a switch to Debian from RH for a lot of the high powered folk who run major clusters. I'm not sure that a separate distribution would fly - Progeny would have carried on otherwise. Bruce Perens' proposed ??UserLinux?? would possibly be a candidate here. Nor am I sure that a sub-project is ideal. A customised kernel or two and potentially a meta-package might be enough. After reading Andreas Tille's link on sub-projects, I'm leaning more towards that. I have little doubt that a separate distribution (done correctly) would fly; look at the success of Knoppix, for example. However, my goals are more in line w/ the goals of a sub-project. It doesn't make sense to fork unless you _really_ need to fork. A distribution based on woody + backports would be OK now, with a distribution based on the new stable once we release :) Pace Knoppix and Lindows, basing a distribution on testing may be more than a little difficult. Talking to Libranet and merging your Enterprise stuff there might be another option. In the longer term, I'm slightly sceptical about how many Debian-based distributions can survive outside Debian - but then I've had 9 1/2 years of 20/20 hindsight :) Most Debian-based distributions are aimed at desktop users; this market is fairly crowded, especially when you take into account the distributions outside of Debian that focus on the same thing. On the enterprise level, however, there are few distributions that focus on just that segment. There are even fewer that offer their distribution for free (as in beer). RedHat was one of the few, and with their exit from that market, a large opportunity opens up. I do agree that there's little need to fork, so long as the sub-project structure is flexible enough. I need to do more research on that. Just my 0.02 Euro / 0.03 US$ Andy
