[KLUG Members] Can anyone say...Boogies?

[Bruce Smith]

> >IMO, it should NOT be made into a distro.  It should be a set of
> >packages that can be installed on the user's distro of choice.
> 
> What was done for Boogies amounted to a distribution, since it included 
> the kernel, base libraries and so forth. Another way of saying this is 
> that it stood alone, and didn't need any other software to be installed.

I don't disagree that it was like a distro the way it was installed.
We got a client working, and cloned the system to a bunch of other PC's
from a master CDROM.

I'm saying that if we were to distribute this, it should NOT be
distributed as a distro.

> Now, was this the right thing to do at the time? 

It was the easiest way to get Boogies up and running at the time.
Being the easiest to get going is not necessarily the best way to do
things in the long run.  It made updates to a new release of the
underlying distro (Redhat) a real pain (as ONE example).

> Frankly, I feel that a good case can be made for either method of packaging
> the software. A full distribution would probably be easier to install, and
> it would be free of compatibility problems, since the underlying OS would
> ship with the packages and would be installed with it, and the distributor
> would ensure that thngs are compatible. A set of packages is more portable,
> and gives more choice to the local maintainer and operator; they are freer
> to integrate the cybercafe stuff with whateve they want to do. This presumes 
> a level of skill with the locally installed OS, but that's fine too. If we
> had a lot of demand for this, we'd probably do well to listen to what the
> customers are willing and able to do, and package accordingly. 

If "we" (KLUG) were to distribute this software, a complete distro is
the WRONG way to do it, mainly because it takes a _LOT_ of work to
maintain a distro, "we" don't have the manpower, and our time could be
better spent by focusing on the cybercafe software.

And that is the main reason (IMO) that we don't see a ton of new
distro's popping geared to a single application.  Other reasons include
legalities of basing your distro on a commercial distro with trademarks.

I recently installed one _large_ open source application on a major
distro.  This application consists of over 60 RPM's, and was
surprisingly easy to install on top of the distro.

It was nice to be able to pick my distro since I want to customize the
box and run other applications on the same box.  (this large application
shall go unnamed for now so Adam doesn't start bugging me to do a
presentation, and I don't know enough about the software to do it yet :)
 
> >> The effort could be repeated, with todays software... Boogies was done with
> >> Red Hat 6.0/6.1 as I recall. Several QT 1.4 apps were written for that pro-
> >> ject.
> >And/or TK/TCL apps.
> I know of no Tk/Tcl apps that were written and deployed for Boogies. If it were
> done today, there's no reason not to use TK/Tcl or other development tools for
> the work.

I remember writing some TK/TCL applications, one emailed comments to 
the boogies maintainers, another being a logoff button (I think).
Maybe they were replaced in later days by qt apps, I don't know.

 - BS