another long one ( introducing "MetaLinux" )

Jesse Tie Ten Quee highos at
Thu Jul 5 10:31:01 PDT 2001


On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 05:43:00PM +0800, corey at wrote:
> OK - I finally got tired trying to defend/promote my personal 
> preference/vision for the design and implementation of ALFS,
> and so yesterday afternoon desided to simply summarize what
> my own project would look like, should I choose to bail out on
> attempting to contribute to ALFS and instead create a similar
> "competing" project. I'm going to present it here first to all
> of you on ALFS for two reasons - 1: so you can finally perhaps
> see succinctly and summarily the full view of what I believe to 
> be a valid and logical approach to a system for defining and
> automating a completely customized linux system; and 2: to lay
> that view down on the line and published somewhere soon as possible
> so that there can be no issues concerning the implementation of 
> ideas later down the road. Also, I sure wouldn't mind any feedback
> you all may have.

You couldn't be the first to start a competing ALFS implementation, i
can't even count the number of ones i've seen come and go since this
project started ;)

>   Primarly concerned with creating a Schema/DTD for use in
>   any implemented backend - ALFS is not interested in how
>   any backend shall work or how it interprets/takes action
>   from the XML. 

Well, that isn't quite true.

Your taking that was said to the extreme, eg giving the backend total
control, instead of just control enough to make simple choices that wont
affect how your package is installed.

>   Wants a fairly simple XML specification for the profile
>   authors.

Well, right now it's going to be "simple" mostly because i want to start
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and move from there.. got to start
somwhere ;)

(i don't mind adding all the "jazz" as i like to say, but right now we
have _nothing_ and i don't want to start off with base+jazz in one...
one thing at a time)

>   Intends quite the opposite in its XML spec -- there will be
>   *no* abstraction, all directives are explicit. The XML will
>   wrap *structure* around the directives, not *abstraction*.
>   Meaning the backend(s) will *always* act reliably and 
>   predictably - control is in the hands of the individual
>   profile author - not the hands of the backend writers.
What's the point of writting it in XML then? if your just going to be
exec()'s command's all the time? just curios really :)
> To summarize, in terms of a kernel analogy - it looks as though 
> ALFS would be a "micro-kernel", while MetaLinux is more of a
> "monolithic" kernel. Not to say either of the two projects
> are definitively "better" or "worse" -- just merely different
> approaches.


> ALFS already has plenty of steam behind it, an online presence,
> recognition and a even a smallish community. MetaLinux is brand
> new and currently consists of one developer, so it's entirely
> possible that it just simply doesn't ever get off the ground -
> but I guess we'll see. 

Like i first said in this email.. i can't even count how many ALFS-like
projects have started but never really when't anywhere because of this

> Whatever the case - choice is good, right?  (c8=


Anyways... development of MetaLinux should not continue on this list (i
hate saying this) but ALFS is ALFS, i would suggest you get a sf list
for the project, and post a message saying the list is open for anyone
that want to subscribe, either way.

Jesse Tie Ten Quee - highos at highos dot com
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list