On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:18:59PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> 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/

And interesting to find that the LFS "books"
exist in regular and systemd flavors.

http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/alfs/wiki/SupportedBooks

The jalfs software hasn't been undated changed since 2009, however
the LFS books are current.

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

--
Joel Roth