Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> ,On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Franco Lanza <nextime@???
> <mailto:nextime@nexlab.it>> wrote:
>

>     English isn't my primary language and i'm not so proficient with it

>
>
> You do better than you think. I am a native speaker.

+1
>
>
> Maybe its wishful thinking but my native English language translation
> of the above would be something like, "the distro will have the
> absolute minimum set of dependencies, the minimal set of "Priority:
> required" packages, to increase end user freedom, reliability,
> predictability, convenience, and security."
>
> (where end user is defined as actual end users like devs, admins,
> embedded device owners, not exclusively defined as imaginary gnome
> desktop users who don't exist)

Might also want to emphasize "software devs," as opposed to packagers
(it still strikes me as fundamentally wrong to call Debian package
maintainers "developers").

>
> This takes into account that a user can do whatever they want after
> the core is installed. A sane thing for a user to decide to install
> might be emacs but thats not going to be a Priority: required
> package. An insane thing for a user to decide to install might be
> systemd, which also isn't going to be a Priority: required package.
> Neither are actually needed for a machine to do its job.
>
> I like a minimal dependency set because udev and systemd are useless
> on my servers or desktops so not having them installed means less
> drama, less bugs and a tighter security perimeter (can't pown my
> server using a udev/systemd zero day if I don't have them installed, LOL).

It might be worth being very clear about the core set of system services
that are included, and defining metapackages and traditional defaults
for core services - starting with, say, init, syslog, maybe udev. And
then making sure that the installer exposes those choices, at least in
allowing pre-seeding.

Miles Fidelman




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra