Posted by: Joe Klemmer
on December 16, 2003 10:02 AM
I've asked this a few times before but, since I haven't gotten an answer yet, I'll ask again.
Why create UserLinux?
I read the whitepaper and have skimmed though some of the reports and PRs and such but I just can't find an answer. There already exists distributions and companies that are already providing everything that UL is proposing. I have always been in favor of the more distro idea (idealy there would be a distro for every person on the planet) but I can't see making a distro that has nothing significently unique to it.
If someone started a project to rebuild TurboLinux from scratch with the intent of having it be an exact replica of TurboLinux without using any of the work already done by TurboLinux it wouldn't be a good idea. We already have everything that UL will be in place right now.
One example would be RHEL -> Whitebox/cAos -> Fedora (there are others, I pick this only as an example). Between these one could get everything any business would need or want and they are already supported and exist in a useable format. They are here now, not at some unknown time down the road. There's nothing I have found in UL that makes it different from the above. If there is a difference and I'm just missing it I'd love to know about it.
As I said, I'm not against having more distros. I just don't see what UL will bring that isn't already here now.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Still asking "Why?"
Posted by: Joe Klemmer on December 16, 2003 10:02 AMWhy create UserLinux?
I read the whitepaper and have skimmed though some of the reports and PRs and such but I just can't find an answer. There already exists distributions and companies that are already providing everything that UL is proposing. I have always been in favor of the more distro idea (idealy there would be a distro for every person on the planet) but I can't see making a distro that has nothing significently unique to it.
If someone started a project to rebuild TurboLinux from scratch with the intent of having it be an exact replica of TurboLinux without using any of the work already done by TurboLinux it wouldn't be a good idea. We already have everything that UL will be in place right now.
One example would be RHEL -> Whitebox/cAos -> Fedora (there are others, I pick this only as an example). Between these one could get everything any business would need or want and they are already supported and exist in a useable format. They are here now, not at some unknown time down the road. There's nothing I have found in UL that makes it different from the above. If there is a difference and I'm just missing it I'd love to know about it.
As I said, I'm not against having more distros. I just don't see what UL will bring that isn't already here now.
#