On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:05:32AM -0500, Gravis wrote: > > My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in > > a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd > > is. You can't get rid of them
Having them don't cost much, IMO. A lot of the Debian infrastructure is written in perl. In Gobo Linux, the system administration software is written in shell. Utility for administrating Nix are written in Nix language. > this is actually something i'm looking into fixing. my preference > would be to make a standard POSIX base to build upon. the LSB is a > bad joke. As a basis for building Linux distributions? You may look into Automated Linux from Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/alfs/ cheers > --Gravis > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:49 PM, T.J. Duchene <t.j.duch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 18:11 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > > >> > >> With all respect, T.J., those are merely programming languages--shell, C > >> and C++ are also "hard to extract"--but none are trying to dictate > >> policy. > > > > I would not consider C in that group, as the system actually requires > > the C library for the OS to function on the most basic level, not to > > mention that the kernel, Perl and Python are actually written in C. > > > > My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in > > a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd > > is. You can't get rid of them, without pulling a DIY. Linux as a > > platform does not require them to function. > > > > What makes it relevant to the conversation is that it is all about > > attitude. They are enthusiastically endorsed by communities that refuse > > to acknowledge that either can be as much of a hindrance as a help in > > many cases. For example, Python as a programming language is designed > > specifically to dictate how you do things, i.e. Zen of Python: "There > > should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." > > > > Sometimes Linux can be its own worst enemy. > > > > > >> Other tools we're familiar with also dictate policy at some level such > >> as dpkg and apt, however, the authors of those tools don't start > >> throwing around the term "haters" whenever someone sets out to compile > >> from source outside of their policy. Do you see the difference? > > > > There is some truth to that, but you can revisit that virtually anywhere > > there are fanboys/fangirls. The fact that few authors like LP can use > > the term "haters" to divert attention from the real issues, and then get > > a free pass just shows how easily the issue has polarized others and how > > easily the "sheeple" are manipulated into going along. > > > > t.j. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dng mailing list > > Dng@lists.dyne.org > > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng -- Joel Roth _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
