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

[Robert G. Brown]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:57:41 -0500, Bruce Smith <bruce@armintl.com> wrote:

>> >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.
OK

>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).
It sure wasn't modular!
But that was the way we did it... one HUGE tar file.
The only way to update that was to update the MASTER image, make a new
CD, run around and re-install...

However, this is a matter of execution, not principle. 

>> 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.
It's a big "IF" in any case, since I see no demand for this software.
Now, if someone wanted the timekeeping software, that could be packaged
up nicely, in any of a number of formats (tgz, deb , rpm and so forth).
 
>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.
There's another one, a number of them aren't public.

>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.
You're presuming an rm-based system. when i see something like "A series
of packages, on the customers systems", I beleive at least some people
would want to install "our" cybercafe stuff on their Debian, or Slackware,
or Gentoo system. Otherwise, there's not much advantage to shipping open
sets of packages (as far as the customer is concerned).

One ideal would be to start with blank hardware, and give the cybercafe 
owner or maintainer distro-level disks... and... presto! instant cyber-
cafe! This is precluded with packaes on top of existing system. As for 
difficulty and available manpower, I think we simply have a basic divergence
of views here. I beleive that we have a lot of talented people, and 
people who are willing to learn. If the demand is there, and we can make 
these opportunities available, people will come forward, one way or another.
That's been my experience in over 15 years of actively organizing a number
of volunteer efforts, including KLUG.

>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.  
OK, but you're still presuming RPM.

>(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 :)
Smart move! :)

>>>>The effort could be repeated, with todays software... Boogies was done wi
th
>>>>Red Hat 6.0/6.1 as I recall. Several QT 1.4 apps were written for that pr
o-
>>>> ject.
>>>And/or TK/TCL apps.
>>I know of no Tk/Tcl apps that were written and deployed for Boogies. If it w
ere
>> done today, there's no reason not to use TK/Tcl or other development tools f
or
>> 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.
No QT apps replaced everything, but I think you're righti (and I stand
corrected), the comment mailer made it out into the the production 
environment, but the other didn't (It was tied  to prepaid accounts, 
which were never established).

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---