Subject Re: [IB-Architect] Open Question to IB Developers
Author dcalford
Hi Paul,

In many ways I agree with your appraisal of developers, but, it is not developers
alone we are dealing with.

Many of us are (sorry to admit it) corporate types who also want to have a fire and
forget solution.
This is why interbase has become so dear to many of us. It is complex enough to
handle most tasks, yet is easy to maintain (have it sit in a corner and forget it).

Linux, is the same way, once you have it working, you sorta forget about it until
the hardware fails.

BUT, the distributions are not linux. In fact, alot of the stability and security
of Linux is questioned by all the add-ons to what is origionally a clean system.

What I am proposing is a very striped down version of Linux, so the distribution
would be the current stable kernel, a limited series of kernel patches (reiser FS is
such an example) and the tools to configure/customize the kernel if needed.

This would include one text editor, one shell, etc.
No X, no games, no apatche etc.

Then there would be a separite install program that installs Networking. Since it
only deals with Networking, it can ask a series of specific networking questions
(such as mascarading etc) and set it up.

Since each different aspect of the system is in it's own install, and each install
would have it's own maintainer, you can think of each install as being a

So, instead of worrying about keeping hundreds of different apps in sync, and
creating a single install process that handles them all, each portion would be a
separite project, smaller and easier to maintain.

The other concept is that when you want a program such as apatche, very often you
need to download multiple different files from different locations. A begginer (or
even a average user) does not know if they need them all until they hunt down the
latest Howto (and prays that it is up to date) or downloads everything in site just
to find out that the install needs some obscure patch from another unrelated site
(what, doesn't everybody use that patch??). My concept is everything in one big
file that installs only those things that the user accepts. One file to download.
One version on the file.
When you download 'newapp' you get everything you need for 'newapp' even the obscure
side patches and libs, just in case your system does not have them.

Linux, made simpler in this way makes it easier for us all, and simpler to
maintain. Linux by it's nature can always get more complex.
It can appeal to both worlds.

best regards


Paul Reeves wrote:

> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving
> more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
> rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: