Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald)
Subject: SLS: now available (for testers)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sanjuan.uvic.ca
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, CANADA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 21:52:16 GMT
Ok, SLS is now available at tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/linux/SLS.
But since it totals about 17 Meg or so, I caution all but
the most zealous against obtaining it. Basically just
testers please.
The reason I am posting and not mailing just the testers, is
that I am away on maternity, my machine has been toasted for
me so that I have no mail access. Good timing eh? So just
post test results please, since I can not receive your mail
right now.
If all goes ok, after a week or so, other FTP sites could
pick it up. It should be pretty apparent by then what the
collective opinion is.
BTW: If there are any comments about other software that should
be added, please let me know. I insist upon keeping it to 15 disks
for now, but there is still some room left (not much though).
But, if you just want to bitch about how it should contain
the source tree, or should have all the alpha kernels and
tcpip alpha, etc, please consider using 386BSD. The goal of SLS
is to maintain a balance between small and featureful, with
an emphasis on the former.
Peter.
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: SLS: now available (for testers)
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:48:05 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com
In article <1992Aug15.215216.18073@sol.UVic.CA>, pmacdona@sanjuan
(Peter MacDonald) writes:
| BTW: If there are any comments about other software that should
| be added, please let me know. I insist upon keeping it to 15 disks
| for now, but there is still some room left (not much though).
| But, if you just want to bitch about how it should contain
| the source tree, or should have all the alpha kernels and
| tcpip alpha, etc, please consider using 386BSD. The goal of SLS
| is to maintain a balance between small and featureful, with
| an emphasis on the former.
I'm sorry you consider it bitching, but I /do/ think that the source
tree should be included, because the GPL requires that it be made
available. That's why I'm not distributing disks myself.
I would suggest that you break this into sections, like SCO (only not at
$1500/section) of install, base utils, extended utils, X, games, gcc,
and source.
I was not upset when you stated your prices, although lots of others
seemed to be. You are entitled by the GPL to charge whatever the market
will bear. I /am/ upset that you seem to be violating the GPL in your
distribution, and I hope others will be, too. You are welcome to
consider this a "bitch about how it should contain the source tree"
should you desire. I consider it "let's all play by the rules."
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald)
Subject: Re: SLS: now available (for testers)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sanjuan.uvic.ca
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. CANADA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 02:36:34 GMT
In article <1992Aug15.224805.26718@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com
(bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.215216.18073@sol.UVic.CA>, pmacdona@sanjuan
(Peter MacDonald) writes:
>
>| BTW: If there are any comments about other software that should
>| be added, please let me know. I insist upon keeping it to 15 disks
>| for now, but there is still some room left (not much though).
>| But, if you just want to bitch about how it should contain
>| the source tree, or should have all the alpha kernels and
>| tcpip alpha, etc, please consider using 386BSD. The goal of SLS
>| is to maintain a balance between small and featureful, with
>| an emphasis on the former.
>
>I'm sorry you consider it bitching, but I /do/ think that the source
>tree should be included, because the GPL requires that it be made
>available. That's why I'm not distributing disks myself.
According to this, everyone who posts a binary, without the full source,
is guilty. That includes GCC and X11.
>
>I would suggest that you break this into sections, like SCO (only not at
>$1500/section) of install, base utils, extended utils, X, games, gcc,
>and source.
Be my guest.
>
>I was not upset when you stated your prices, although lots of others
>seemed to be. You are entitled by the GPL to charge whatever the market
>will bear. I /am/ upset that you seem to be violating the GPL in your
>distribution, and I hope others will be, too. You are welcome to
>consider this a "bitch about how it should contain the source tree"
>should you desire. I consider it "let's all play by the rules."
>
Perhaps my use of the word "bitch" was inappropriate. I sometimes
get a little fatigued at how often people confuse criticism with
contributing.
Please go back and (re)read my first SLS posting. In it I clearly
state that Softlanding will make C source available as per GPL, but that
they discouraged it. However, I expect few to want it because it would
be horrendously large.
You also seem to have erroneously assumed that I have such a source
tree in my possession. If so, it is incorrect. SLS is a composite
of binaries that were posted (MCC, MJ, X11, and many miscellaneous) plus a
a pile I compiled. As I told Ted, Softlanding will not, I repeat NOT
charge for any software/scripts/configurations it develops. It charges
only for copy service. If you find the stated price unacceptable,
then please excercise your free market right to go elsewhere.
To be clear, I have not, and will not, volunteer to set up a
centrally administered source tree for Linux. Although I am not denying
that there may be some merit to it, I just don't have the time (do you?).
Instead, I did something that wasn't all that difficult (collect binaries,
integrate and write a few scripts), but that can potentially benefit
a large # of people by saving them the hassle of building their own system.
Plus hopefully, traffic on the newsgroup due to misconfigured systems, may
be reduced.
But all of this I said in my first SLS post. Please go back and read it,
particularly the goals section.
If you want the source tree so bad, I suggest you either go to 386BSD or
you do it yourself. I am a little taken aback, however, at your trying
to use the GPL to bully me into doing it. I haven't the time. But
I weighed what I could do, that would, in my opinion, benefit the
Linux community maximally. I didn't really expect everyone would agree
with that.
BTW: The Softlanding Distribution has one primary goal. To remedy the
fact that Linux is not visible outside of electronic networks. The hope
is to generate enough revenue to support advertising. If it makes money
beyond that, then the owner of Softlanding (no, it is not me), will be
pleased. But I doubt personally that there will be enough demand to do that.
>--
>bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
> I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
|