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.duchene@???> 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@???
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

--
Joel Roth