Dalton,

For the most part I am in agreement with you. Linux distros are not built with
InterBase deployment in mind (yet). And I, too, spend an inordinate amount of
time trying to work out which bits really are crap and which bits are just plain
redundant. The installers are getting better but the granularity of installs is
not quite there (for me at least.) It is difficult to decide just what is needed
for a server install (no gui) and wading through the options when trying to do a
developer install (non-kernel) is a real headache.

I think an InterBase distro would be useful but maintaining it may be a bit of a
problem. Of course if the demand is there (ie people paying for pressed CDs)
then it would be worthwhile. However it may just be too much effort to keep it
up to date. (Although that work ought to be fairly limited - security patches
would probably see the biggest turnover of code.)

An alternative may be a simple script that is run after a standard Red Hat or
SuSE install. It just rips out the fluff and leaves the essentials.

And I must add one note of dissention. I believe Linux is popular because it is
complicated. Developers are leaving windows because it has become too easy and
developers never took to the Macintosh for the same reason. (I speak fairly
generally - there are lots of exceptions.) Ultimately there is just not enough
to twiddle with in Windows and Linux represents the new challenge. Coming at the
same time as the demonisation of Microsoft it is probably a truism to say that
if Linux didn't exist someone would have invented it. Ultimately Linux is a
developer thing and when that stops being true (ie it becomes really mainstream)
then developers will move to something else.


Paul

--
Paul Reeves
Fleet River Software