> Having [perl and python] doesn't cost much, IMO.

this is true however, you only need a single deep-seeded flaw to
exploit an entire system when it comes to scripting. for further
reading, see bash.
--Gravis


On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Joel Roth <joelz@???> 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/
>
> 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