| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 23:33 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote: |
| 2 |
> I like your idea of having gentoo not being a distro, but moreso a |
| 3 |
> collection of tools. Mostly because gentoo's method of dealing with |
| 4 |
> problems (problems that binary distros tend to have, like keeping |
| 5 |
> software uptodate) are handled in a way thats just a tad more managable, |
| 6 |
> plus when multiple repo support gets added, its just another way that |
| 7 |
> gentoo can be customized and reflavored. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> +1 for that thinking |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I have to completely agree. I see Gentoo as what it is, according to |
| 12 |
our own web page. We are a meta-distribution. We are a collection of |
| 13 |
tools and services that can be customized to be what you want it to be. |
| 14 |
That does not imply limiting what we can and cannot do in any way. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If I wanted to make an arm-only source-based hardened distribution |
| 17 |
utilizing uclibc entirely, I could do so utilizing only the work that |
| 18 |
has been put into our portage tree. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The problem seems to be that there are certain people who want things to |
| 21 |
happen, but can't drum up the manpower to do so. Rather than work |
| 22 |
harder at drumming up support, they wish to instead create a system |
| 23 |
where our *volunteer* developers are *forced* to do what they want. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm sorry, but screw that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You guys are more than welcome to go apply at Red Hat or Novell. Hey, I |
| 28 |
hear SCO is still distributing Linux, too. They'll gladly give you the |
| 29 |
mission statements and "direction" that you so desire. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 33 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 34 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 35 |
Games - Developer |
| 36 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives