[ale] New Twiki topic LinuxInGASchools

[Mike Panetta]

On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 08:41, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > From: Mike Panetta [mailto:ahuitzot at mindspring.com]

[snipped comments dure to misunderstandings...]

> > No kidding?  Did you not read the first sentence of my post at all?  I
> > am saying that we NEED TO DESIGN a distribution for this purpose.
> 
> OK, you're right, I missed that part - sorry.  :(

Thankyou :)

> 
> Now that I know the topic of discussion ;), I'll put in my plug here for
> Gentoo as the base install.  We could design a script that d/l and installs
> all packages necessary for an LTSP Server, providing for flags as to whether
> to include the DHCP server or not (maybe there is already a DHCP server on
> the network that must be used), whether to include Samba (default should be
> yes), etc etc.  Gentoo is *ideally* suited for this kind of thing and, imho,
> this functionality (specialized Server Installs), due to the nature of the
> Package Management system, is the next natural step for Gentoo.

I have not looked at Gentoo that much.  But from what you say below it
sounds like a cool distro.  

> 
> > And I am at least half agreeing with you.  Its not an LTSP
> > problem, and its not a KDE problem IN GENERAL.  I am trying
> > to change the direction of the discussion from NIT PICKING
> > on KDE, to a constructive one on how to solve problems like
> > the ones you guys were "discussing".
> 
> What I meant, and I think what I said initially, was not that it was a KDE
> problem *per se*, but that it was a KDE CONFIGURATION ISSUE.  I certainly
> did not mean 'bug', nor do I think anyone could have gotten that idea from
> my comments.

I know :).  Thats why I braught up the distro thing, so the config
issues could be handled there.

> 
> > If you can't handle that, or you do not care to actually
> > try to rationally and constructivly discuss this topic,
> > then I am sorry.  I hope someone else on this list will
> > take up the discussion with me instead.
> 
> Again, I apologize for missing the intent of your initial response, and I
> will ignore any further comments that were a result of my comments that were
> based on a missed intention.

Thats ok :)


> mistake, opting instead to argue a bunch of irrelevancies.  If you are
> getting the idea that I am an LTSP nut, you are correct... ;)

Thats fine, everyone is a nut at some point ;)  Esp me...

> 
> I would love to discuss the creation of a custom LTSP installation concept,
> but again, it is silly to reinvent the wheel.  Gentoo is *perfect* for this.
> All that needs to be done is to script the ebuild (if I could, I already
> would have - I offered (a measley, I know) $50 to someone to write just a
> rudimentary ebuild, but got only one response, and he cannot do it right now
> (busy with other stuff).

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that we would create our own distro from
scratch, but we would base it on some other pre-existing one.

I saw your post to the list about that...  Had I seen it earlier I
probably would have emailed you, but I figured someone had got to ya
first, and I know nothing about Gentoo...

> 
> > I want a distro that is like Redhat is to desktop installs.
> > It fits most peoples uses most of the time right out of the
> > box.  We need a distro that is not targeted to single user
> > desktop installs, but to multi user server installs based
> > around the idea that LTSP will be used to serve up
> > applications to SCHOOL personel and students.  IE I want a
> > School system (or even school) specific distribution of
> > Linux that does what we want out of the box.
> 
> www.k12ltsp.org already does, but it is Redhat based.  I hate Redhat (or,
> more specifically, RPM).  Gentoo is the wave of the future, and is the only
> distro I will support as the base for an LTSP distro.  If you want to use
> Redhat, fine, but I have no interest in that.  RPM sux.

Hmm.  That may be intresting to look at.  BTW, if you hate RPM because
of some of the problems that occur (ocasionally) in a redhat distro due
to dependancies and conflict resolution, don't blame it on RPM.  Do
blame it on RedHat.... Some of the older redhat versions had some really
broken RPM's that created some really messed up dependancy issues due to
the way the packages were dependant on each other.  I had many problems
due to this kind of thing.  In general I think packages are a cool
thing, and I like the way both RPM and (what I know of) deb works.  Its
just the implimentation that sucks :P


> > as what I propose is to create a distribution that installs
> > LTSP and KDE/GNOME/WhateverGUIyoulike for you.  Our own
> > "Linux for the Ga school system", or "Gwinett County School
> > Linux", or "Brookwood High School Linux install for LTSP
> > servers" distribution.  But you won't understnd that because
> > I bet you won't even read this far :P
> 
> You're on - $100.  Pay up!  ;)

Heh ;)

> 
> I like the idea, and although I am not a hacker, I would be willing to
> invest some money, time, and hardware toward the goal - again, as long as we
> agree to use Gentoo.

I really do not care what dist its based on, just so long as it works. 
I need to take a look at gentoo to see how they do things I guess.   
That way I can figure out what would need to be done to create a distro
based on their work.

> 
> > Would you not be upset if you baught a distribution of linux
> > that was supposed to be targetd to multi user graphical
> > environment server applications, and then configured the
> > window manager to allow any user to shut down the system? ;)
> >
> > See what I mean?
> 
> Sure I do - but do you see what *I* meant - seeing as I was arguing this
> from the standpopint that someone thought that LTSP was a Linux Distro, or
> *should* be?
> 
I probably should have :)

> As a simple add-on app, it simply cannot, by itself, take everything into
> consideration.  If, however, as I now understand you to be saying,
> pre-configured LTSP is included with a Distro, then yes, certain default
> settings can and most definitely should be ensured.

Yup.

> 
> > My point is that we should make things easier on ourselves
> > by reducing things down to the target application at hand,
> > A SCHOOL SYSTEM APPLICATION SERVER. Not a Single user
> > machine, not a shell server on an ISP, not a DNS server,
> > not a "fillin your favourite app, or apps" machine, just
> > a SCHOOL SYSTEM APPLICATION SERVER.
> 
> Well, the good thing about using Gentoo is you could create different Server
> Profiles relatively easily - ie, 'SSK-3' (School Server K thru 3rd Grade),
> 'SS3-7', 'SS8-12', 'Biz-Banks', etc etc.  All you'd have to do is write some
> scripts that would install the proper ebuilds, and possible customize the
> config

This is where Gentoo starts to sound really cool.  Are there any docs on
the web that describe how to set this kind of thing up?

> 
> > Everything is configuareble at install time.  Install
> > debian... At least thats the impression I got when I
> > installed it.  Its very annoying that way, I spent more
> > time configuring krap then I did installing it.  This
> > is why I like redhat more then debian.  I have to
> > configure less after install.  Its a distro that is
> > targetd to Single user systems, so it can guess how I
> > want my sendmail configured and it guesses pretty
> > well in my book.
> 
> Which (the fact that it is targeted to Single User Systems) is a good reason
> *not* to use Redhat for this kind of Server.  The fact that it uses RPM is
> another.

I was actually proposing we change the configs in the RPM's so that it
would not be a SUS anymore, I just did not state it outright.  But thats
ok, as it looks like Gentoo may be an easier (if not better) solution.

> 
> > If you do not think there is any other logical way to
> > look at THIS SPECIFIC problem, then I think you do not
> > know how to reduce problems down to the bare essentials.
> 
> Well, since my comment was aimed at Servers in general, I'll have to agree
> with you.
> 
> :)

Ahh :)


> 
> > Would you not love it if it were possible to install "app
> > server X distribution" and only have to install apps after
> > you were done installing, instead of making sure the
> > window managers config files did not create a security
> > hole, configure bind so that it acted as a caching name
> > server for the apps, set up what network cards you had
> > installed, create routing scripts to set up the network,
> > blah blah...  You get the idea.
> 
> Sure I do, and again, although I'm not a hacker, wouldn't a post-install
> script that copied pre-designed config files for each Server Daemon /
> Application that was installed work just as well on a vanilla system (like
> Debian or Gentoo)?  For example, If Sendmail is installed (ugh - much rather
> use QMail or Postfix), copy the included config file to the correct
> location, renaming the vanilla/default config file in the process.

Sure I guess.  But I am a purist in this respect.  I like the config to
stay with the package.  Even of we have to rename the package from say
"sendmail" to "sendmail-ourconfig" or whatever.  Obviously we would have
to come up with more creative names... :)  At the company I worked for
we had a standard that said the packages we changed things in (whether
it be just the config file, or whatever) be renamed from
package-version-release.rpm to
package-version-companyinitialscompanyrelease.rpm  This way they were
easy to distinguish from the origional non modified packages.  Something
similar could be done here.

> 
> Granted, it would be some work, but in the long run, it would be worth it.
> A Gentoo system is much faster and more stable than a Redhat system.

Yes it would be worth the work, esp since doing the work and not doing
it could mean the difference between full buyin to the idea, and noone
wanting it at all.  Atleast IMHO :)

As for the Gentoo comment, I would guess that would be true if
everything were compiled explicitly for the particular CPU you were
running :)  On RedHat everything is compiled for an i386...  RPM allows
for CPU specific builds, but in general RedHat does not seem to use that
feature (our companies distro did though, and everything that was
important to be fast I had built for several different CPU's).

The cool thing about RPM (I do not know how gentoo works in this regard,
so I cannot comment) is I can say rpm -ba
--target=i386,i486,i586,i686,athlon and after a bit I will have packages
built for all the CPU's I listed, each in their own arch directory.  Of
course the RPM spec file must be written to take advantage of this
feature... But thats not too hard to do :)

> 
> Anyway, again, sorry for taking out my frustrations with Jeff on you...

Ill forgive you this time :P

> 
> Charles
> 

Mike


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.