New Community-Run RPM-based Distribution 71
KainX writes "As an alternative to the Red Hat-controlled Fedora project, the community-led cAos Foundation decided to create a fully community-built, community-controlled, RPM-based distribution whose foundation would be a self-hosting, self-sufficient core with a 3-5 year support lifetime. The first stable, production-worthy core has now been officially released! Download an ISO from a mirror and try it out."
I wonder how it will compare to... (Score:1, Interesting)
3-5 year lifecycle? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:3-5 year lifecycle? (Score:1)
By stating that cAos actually has a life longer then 6 months, we are commiting to its long term viability as a solution.
And the point of this is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the point of this is? (Score:1)
Re:And the point of this is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the point of this is? (Score:1)
We could argue all day about why it won, but it wouldn't change the fact that it won.
And LSB distros only need to provide a way to install RPMs, not use it as the primary package managment for the actual system. (RTFFootnote on the link you give)
I'm quite aware of that. But there is little, if any, reason for a modern distribution to choose a different package format and have to manage a compatibility layer for LSB compliance.
RPM has a
Red Hat and Debian clone race! (Score:1)
Who will win?
Does the world really need this? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Does the world really need this? (Score:2)
Re:Does the world really need this? (Score:1)
Three, read this: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=149694&
Four, what makes DEB's "just work" is policy, not technology. An RPM-based distribution with as anal a policy as Debian's would "just work" too.
Re:Does the world really need this? (Score:2)
Riiight. Go have fun installing a Red Hat RPM on Mandrake or vice-versa. Or just dependency hell Red Hat puts you in with it's own packages. The package system shouldn't allow per-file dependencies, it just causes dependency hell.
Other Debian-based distros are generally fairly anal about staying compatible with Debian. There isn't a lot in any Debian-based
Re:Does the world really need this? (Score:2)
Re:Does the world really need this? (Score:1)
I have, quite often. Your lack of packaging experience is showing here.
The problem with installing Mandrake RPM's on a RedHat system is twofold: One, they use different versions of glibc, gcc, binutils, etc. So even if you *could* install those RPM's, they would not run. You'd get runtime failures from the dynamic loader. Two, distributions don't always name their packages (and thus, their dependencies) the same. But this is a
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think there are so many RPM based distros out there today? Because Fedora is free? So is Debian, isn't it? Maybe it's(sic) the packaging is better than DEB.
Why are all the RPM based distros shipping with their own cobbled version of apt-get?
How is RPM based apt-get cobbled? Please explain.
Why didn't Gentoo use RPM?
Gentoo didn't use DEB, either. Your point?
Slackware still isn't RPM based and they are doing well enough thank you.
Slackware was around long before RPM. Again, your point?
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
If the .deb packaging was inferior why is this the selection of linspire/lindows, unbuntu? They seem rather successful distros right now.
Why is RPM picking up a packaging model from .deb? Isn't copying the highest form of flattery?
Gentoo didn't use DEB. My point isn't a pro-debian packaging system but that the newer distros of the last several years have all been non-RPM based systems.
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:1)
If RPM is inferior, why is it the selection of Fedora and SuSE/Novell? They seem rather successful distros right now.
Why is RPM picking up a packaging model from
They did no such thing. Depsolvers like apt and yum are completely SEPARATE from package managers like rpm and dpkg.
the newer distros of the last several
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:1)
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:1)
Developers don't usually package DEB's not because they're already packaged, but because third-party DEB's are largely useless.
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think it has a damn thing to do with developers deciding "RPM is better". It has a lot more to do with how popular RPM is. More people run Redhat than Debian, or DEB-based distros, and the people who run Debian (mostly) are more likely to figure out how to add an RPM than Redhat users are to add a DEB.
Millions of Win32 developers around the world aren't developing for Windows because it's
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
Dependency Hell?
I spent almost a year running SuSE. Trying to get RPM's to install, even from their own website was pretty fucking frustrating. Talking to other friends who have used deb and rpm they agree on the observations.
It's just not as good. Try it yourself. Here's something I've done a few times over the years, see if you can do that same thing. Take a debian distribution and upgrade it from Stable to Unstable (the whole thing) and then downgrade it back to Stable (the whole thing). Mine sti
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:1)
Please don't post ridiculous unfounded statements about technology you don't comprehend. If you want to discuss RPM from a technical point of view, do so, but don't just make untrue statements with neither evidence nor explanation attached.
Why are all the RPM based distros shipping with their own cobbled version of apt-get? Maybe it's the packaging concept is better than RPM.
We do not use apt. You really should try
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:1)
Claiming what? Actually the cAos Foundation has been very quitely doing their thing for about 2 years now. There is no hype about it, and the mentality is that we are doing this because this is what we need. If someone else can get value from it, then great! Appearantly you have the wrong idea about the developers of the cAos Foundation. I for one can tell you that we are
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
Apples and Oranges comparison.
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
You can install apt and synaptic on RPM based distributions, and use them safely so long as the packages are built for that distribution. A lot of Red Hat users go here [slashdot.org] at some time or another. You can also install RPM's on a DEB based
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
Debian is more popular compared to Fedora probably more because Fedora is new, while Debian has been around for 10+ years.
Re:Yet Another RPM Distro (Score:2)
Crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort it out!
Re:Crap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod this up.
These distros are the fragmentation of Linux that mirrors the fragmentation of Unix in the 1900's.
Sure, variety is good. It's essential. But resources can get spread pretty thin too. It's a trade off that we have to manage.
Re:Crap! (Score:1)
The fragmentation of UNIX in the 1900's? Gosh, the history of UNIX is longer and more fascinating than I'd ever imagined! We're not in Kansas anymore.
Re:Crap! (Score:2)
Pay us. Otherwise, I'll keep working on the distro I like best, thanks.
Re:Crap! (Score:1)
OMG, get a new name (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it suck that middle managers make decisions around these things without strong rationale? Yes.
Is that the way things work? Yes.
Re:OMG, get a new name (Score:1)
Re:OMG, get a new name (Score:1)
I'm pretty amazed... (Score:5, Interesting)
They're claiming that they're going to support a 3-5 year support lifecycle. That is unheard of for a community-based distribution! I would love to see these guys do well, and hope they really can stick to their support lifecycle.
I always enjoy hearing about new community-based distributions. It will be a bit strange having an RPM-based distribution out there, but now we have YUM that provides the required functionality that RPM lacks, such as automatic dependency resolution, ala portage or apt.
Re:I'm pretty amazed... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are missing the point.
The question a lot of the initial posts are centered on is, "Why would you start yet another distro based on an already proven sub-standard packaging system?". It doesn't make any sense unless you plan on using the Chewbakka Defense.
I would be a heck of a lot more
Re:I'm pretty amazed... (Score:2)
I'm actually in agreement with you. The current packaging systems out there all have their issues. Being most familiar with portage (obviously), I see lots of places where its design could be improved.
I was mostly commenting on how RPM will be used, along with a very long support cycle. Most of the community distributions are Debian-based in some form or another, with the major exception of Gentoo. A universal packaging system would definitely improve Linux' market share and would open Linux up to a w
Re:I'm pretty amazed... (Score:2)
My experiences with portage have been poor. They have a not-so-user friendly method of resolving new packages, especially the config files. This is my opinion based on comparisons with Debian packages.
About the only thing that Gentoo is really lacking in, for me, is the superb manner in which Debian manages new configuration options and their configuration scripts. In Debian, you have to make a conscious effort to over write a config file. I did this way too many times with Gentoo entirely by accident.
Re:I'm pretty amazed... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a general rule the strength or weakness of the distributions packages has less to do with the package file format, and more to do with the tender loving care devoted to each package in terms of specifing all of it'd dependencies, what it obsoletes, what functionality it provides.
There are some packages that are a pain in the ass in RPM format (RedHat's BIND/named packages jump to mind). Not having used a .deb based distro I long term, I don't know of any historically badly packaged applications from Debian.
As a general rule, I haven't had any serious problems with RPM's in years. They work just as well as any others. I use almost exclusively from RedHat (I do use a handful from freshrpms and Dag). They work just fine. Especially since I started using yum, it's generally a command line to update my system. So stop using the "Chewbakka Offense", and actually be specific. I've seen you make several posts that just assume that it's mathematically proven that RPM's are incapable of caputing the esscense of package management. I'm unaware of it's deficiencies.
Kirby
Re:I'm pretty amazed... (Score:2)
It would be nice to see a convergence between
I think the main confusion alot of folks have is confusin
Re:I'm pretty amazed... (Score:1)
As a general rule the strength or weakness of the distributions packages has less to do with the package file format, and more to do with the tender loving care devoted to each package in terms of specifing all of it'd dependencies, what it obsoletes, what functionality it provides.
I second that. I've been using PLD Linux [pld-linux.org] for a while now. It's RPM-based, but it takes RPM to a whole new level. The package management tool, poldek, is nothing short of amazing: Regexp searches, trivial package installation,
Re:I'm pretty amazed... (Score:1)
There are a few features here and there that one has and the other lacks (e.g., "Suggests" in dpkg and file-based dependencies in RPM), but the end result is analogous. DEB's are just ar archives; RPM's are c
CentOS better then cAos (Score:1)
Re:CentOS better then cAos (Score:1)
Re:CentOS better then cAos (Score:1)
Why RPM Based? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why RPM Based? (Score:1)
Our choice to use RPM was a major factor that drove us to build a new distro. Religion aside, people use RPM, and many developers and organizations have standardized on them. Yet there was no RPM based solutions managed by the community itself.
Re:Why RPM Based? (Score:2)
I can't think of any distribution "managed by the community itself". Redhat controls Fedora, the Gentoo devs are the gatekeepers for the portage tree, and Debian has a lengthy sponsorship process for DD's. I expect the configuration management of packages, such as synchronizing upgrades when a core dependency changes incompatibly, to be handled by experts, not foisted off on "the community".
What exactly do you mean by "managed by
Re:Why RPM Based? (Score:1)
Re:Why RPM Based? (Score:2)
Hey mister category theory, if I started a distribution that had a thousand users, and I was one of them, but only I had commit access, would it still be a community distribution?
I know they'd take exception to it, as would probably every single linux distributor. Even SuSE could probably claim being "community based" for simply including third party packages. I'm simply asking for an exp
Re:Why RPM Based? (Score:1)
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but since I *know* you wouldn't resort to ad hominem arguments on a site like Slashdot, I'll take it as a compliment.
if I started a distribution that had a thousand users, and I was one of them, but only I had commit access, would it still be a community distribution?
This statement makes it very clear that you know nothing about cAos and have made no effort whatsoever to investigate before prejudging. So I will leave you to your
Re:Why RPM Based? (Score:2)
Your co-worker threw dictionary definitions at me. Real fabulous communication skills. I was merely skeptical before -- now I'm prejudiced. Good luck and godspeed.
Re:Why RPM Based? (Score:1)
I see your point and you bring up a good question. Here is how I (and Webster) define that statement:
Managed: To have under control and direction; to conduct; to guide; to administer; to treat; to handle.
Community: Common possession or enjoyment; participation; as, a community of goods. (2) A body of people having common rights, privileges, or interests... (3) Society at large; a commonwealth or state; a body politic; the public, or people in g
Autopackage is an incredibly bad idea (Score:2)
Re:Autopackage is an incredibly bad idea (Score:2)
Re:Autopackage is an incredibly bad idea (Score:2)
Site runs on Java (Score:2)
Re:Site runs on Java (Score:1)
RIFE is not a CMS but a framework to build all kinds of things, in this case a site.
It's as free as free gets, and it can also be used with open/free JVM's or compiled with GCJ.
Kickstart ? (Score:2)
Re:Kickstart ? (Score:1)
With that said, Cinch is just an simple installer. If you require a system provisioning tool (which I think is what you are asking about), I would recommend SystemImager and/or Warewulf (while it is generally a cluster tool, it is very capable of provisioning thousands of systems in parallel). Both come with cAos-2.
Lastly, Cinch is actually driven by a
Another way? (Score:1)
I would just love a 'upgrade addon' that properly installs and configures the LAMP enviroment, say; or any number of different types of applicatins (gnuCash, OpenOffice.org with the proper