[PLUG] Distro concerns

[Tim]

> ... by reducing this complexity where possible.  That means, either:
> 
> 1) more distros that don't offer every piece of software under the
> sun, all packaged up with a wing-and-a-prayer that it might, sorta
> mostly work.

True, a narrower focus in a distro helps you provide both timeliness
and stability.  Of course then the community ends up becoming more
fragmented with loads of duplication of effort, with each package
being packaged hundreds of times with slight tweaks.  This leads to
your next point...


> 2) more distros that provide a stable, standards-compliant base that
> users can rely on while they add/install/tweak software they install
> from source or some standardized, simplified packaging.  Think
> somewhere between Slackware and Arch Linux.

Yup, this is what Debian is becoming.  Debian uses the Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard for directory layouts, categorizes software
carefully based on your ability to redistribute it, and makes adding
your own "special sauce" very easy.

For instance, if you want your own custom distro that focuses on, say,
audio/video software, you can have your users install a stable Debian
distribution and then just ask them to add one line to
/etc/apt/sources.list:

  deb http://custom-packages-server.example.com/ stable main

Now, if your custom packages (which can be tweaked versions of
Debian's distributed source packages that you compile) simply have a
version number greater than the default Debian packages for that
particular package, then yours overrides.  Since Debian stable doesn't
change very often, you only need to maintain more up-to-date versions
of the specific packages you're interested in.

Oh, and by the way, someone is already maintaining a more up to date
and all-inclusive audio/video repository for Debian:
  http://www.debian-multimedia.org/


So the key is to have the flexibility of adding your own up to date
packages without having to reinvent the wheel.  There's a reason
Ubuntu is still tracking Debian in a loose sense, rather than
branching off from it wholesale.


> Exactly.  Doesn't that beg the question, do people really want
> smaller, more focused distros, with well-tested and relatively
> up-to-date software?  Or do they want kitchen-sink distros with
> practically everything packaged, even if that means that stablility is
> only possible by using older software or currency is only possible by
> putting up with wonky apps and frequent updates?

Yeah, I think people tend to go for kitchen-sink distros so they only
need to learn the ins and outs of that one.  But if we had a platform
where a majority of the software management utilities (apt) were
standard and it was easier to share packages across distros with
proper dependency management, then people would be more willing to try
out distros focused on their particular application.

tim