Re: New Linux distribution - PSL

Majdi Abbas (majdi@puck.nether.net)
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:59:58 -0400 (EDT)


> No matter what distribution I download, I have to spend a fair amount
> of time customising and tweaking and (especially) patching and getting
> the latest binaries in order to do what I need to do. In the most
> recent case, that involved settings up a (fairly secure) non-routing
> gateway that would provide SMTP, POP, a squid proxy, and SMB access to
> the machines on our LAN. Its not a tall order - but it involves at
> least the download or squid and samba separately, and a lot of effort
> on the /etc directory to make the system look even vaguely like a
> locked door. Also, Slackware (for one) typically enables a bunch of
> (mostly unnecessary) daemons such as the sun RPC mapper (fine if you
> use the stuff - but who does these days? Maybe I'm just in a different
> environment).

Anyone running NFS, bootparams....

i.e. a good portion of the net :)

> What I'd really like to see is a secure minimal base system, which you
> install before any "distribution". The put the distribution on top,
> according to the machine's function. For example, a 'server'
> distribution
> would get samba and squid (okay, I'm biased ;p ), and a 'workstation'
> distribution may get some nice KDE stuff.

This is what packages are for.

> I'm also sick of the distributions getting as bloated as an NT
> installation -
> I use maybe 20% of the *essential do not attempt to remove* binaries
> regularly - and about 40% I never use ; sure they're there for
> historical
> reasons, and I can accept that as a good excuse for a Solaris or HP-UX
> system, but this IS the 90's and we are talking about a system which
> hopefully is progressive ... after all, if you need backwards
> compatibility to that extent, why not get a 'back-compat' package ...?

It has nothing to do with compatibility. Maybe *you* don't use
those utilities, but frequently the system does. Don't presume to be
any smarter than someone who's put a dist together, thinking that way
is dangerous.

> I think debian (or slackware or redhat or whatever) could be greatly
> improved if there existed a base, miminal, secure 'generic Linux'
> system - say just a kernel, X Server (not manager, etc), libraries and
> essential tools like a compiler and some scripting language (which
> naturally would have to be PERL [I'm biased here too]). The compiler
> of course would be optional ... but the idea being that there would
> exist a standard base which all distributions would work off. The
> specific package install method, binaries offered and interface would
> then be package dependant ... but there would be some sort of guarentee
> that all systems had certain binaries and certain tools/compilers/
> scripters that were common.

Why an X server? You'd need a bunch of them for various card
support, and without apps or a wm, what's the point? That's not
minimal at all.

Also, I don't get the impression that you have much experience
with slackware; it's one of the easiest dists to minimize an install on,
or replace pacakges with.

--Majdi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu