Porteus changing distro

[Ahau]

if you had use a different distro(for porteus base), what would you choose?

For a live and modular, publicly distributed OS like porteus, I would probably go with debian due to stability and package availability; there's also a mixed-bag from a dev's standpoint with respect to how they split up source packages into several binary packages. This would help you keep a system small without having to custom compile as many things as we do, but it means keeping track of more bits and pieces (i.e. in order to compile against some packages you have to install the 'dev' package, and in order to get a particular plugin working for gvfs or gimp you have to install a separate package).

If I were looking for a traditional system for my own use, I would probably dual boot something relatively stable and user friendly like Debian or Arch with a custom LFS/BLFS install. While messing with ARM stuff last year I tried my hand at cross-compiling linux from scratch for ARM on an x86 system. While I didn't quite succeed (and I was able to borrow some tools from alienbob to finally get around some roadblocks), I found that my effort tought me a TON about the system, how it works, what packages and tools depend on each other, etc., and it was fascinating. After that exercise, bootstrapping LFS without the cross-compiling challenges should be a snap while also teaching me more. I would not use LFS for a live system setup that I wanted to make available to others.

[biotec]

Please stick to slackware: it is light, it is highly configurable, and slackware is probably the oldest distribution in circulation, yet actively maintained and always up to date. Porteus is having a good degree of compatibility with other slackware-based distributions, but is very well designed to have fully functional easy to install systems. I use it in my courses where it is important to have something light that I can run in any computer fro an usb or under virtualbox. Maybe slackware and its derivatives is not for the masses, but porteus is a well designed functional distribution that has found its niche; another debian-based distributions would sureley get lost in the pletora of average distributions.

Thanks to all maintainers and contributors, keep going !

[fi5ban]

Well we have opened Pandora's box here haven't we!

Although I am not a long time Linux user 4 years now maybe, I must have went through about 100 CDs and DVDs experimenting and testing the different distros Ubuntu,OpenSuse,Fedora, and different derivatives all great and all want to be everything to everyone with ease of use and 2 to 4 gig or more of code with them.

Then one day the skies open, the sun shined, and the gods smiled upon me and placed Porteus before me!!!
Light weight,portable,modular,and bloody lighting fast. if I remember correctly I might have wet myself a little that day (seriously I donated $$$ that to me speaks )

I totally understand the thinking behind the question to allow Porteus to offer more.
Like was said earlier there are just a few basic bases (debian,arch,slackware,genoo,suse) the rest a spin off of those or spin offs of the spin offs.

That being said I have been happy so far with the slackware base my vote is for ???????

I will end with this > as long as what makes Porteus Porteus can remain the same (modular,light weight,fast,portable,etc...)(maybe improve on the ease of creating modules) then what offers
everyone most choices of modules and customization is the way to go .

Just an observation didn't see FreeBSD as a choice ??

[nixlower0]

I voted for Ubuntu (LTS). Also I like much more Mint based on Ubuntu LTS. Anyway, no matter which distro will be chosen, I like all OSs based on Linux kernel.

[brokenman]

if I remember correctly I might have wet myself a little that day

ROFL. That just made my day!

[ralcocer]

I dont have problems with Slackware being the base as it ia rock solid, in my case when I need something that is more up to date or is not in the repositories, I just use the RPM's from Red Hat, Fedora, Debian or any other and then just run it most of the time the dependencies are solved. Porteus is a great Distro, however why just instead of a full release just post updates to packages and a script to replace it and uninstall it if something goes wrong, that way when a new release is build you have all the essential modules up to date, MHO.

Keep up the good work.

[jimwg]

Greetings!

I'm a non-techie so I wouldn't know the more arcane technical pro-cons or pet favoritisms here, but I think for a newbie/average/general user-person, they'd be most interested in having max software variety that can be easily and painlessly accessed and installed, kind of like how Itunes and Mac software is. Puppy kind of dips into this ease of wide software availability and installment concept very nicely. If it came down to waiting to make a supermarket easy to access vs a here-now quickie convenience store I'd vote on waiting on the supermarket to attract the widest possible users and popularity and developers. As I gleaned off the web, I think the public perception will be whether you're creating a platform for the masses or a "geek machine" (Salon Magazine's term, as well as Job's).

Either path, keep up the great work!

Jim in NYC

[francois]

What would a porteus-debian distribution looked like? Would it loose it spirit? Would we turn for apt-get and synaptic as package manager devices? Would we let down xzm modules? Would it still be bleeding edge in terms of recent graphic and wifi drivers?

[beny]

slackware what else....sound weird, that a lot of user try to adds other distro packages manager to porteus and, this poll

[stifiling]

How come Arch isn't considered? Debian for sure, i know, sometimes installs unnecessary dependecies. Which then of course...unnecessarliy takes up space. Not that HD space is even really a big deal in recent years but, a few small deals = a big one...

[tome]

For me bigger Porteus disadvantage than little repository is standard release development model which requires probably much work (new version) than rolling-release (part-rolling or opt-rolling). Therefore Arch or Gentoo could be probably better choice. I think that rolling-release does not contrast with portability (maybe contrasts partial with modular system) but requires new innovative idea (like Slax and Porteus idea before). And my question, if Ubuntu (Debian) was be chosen how should work system updates - they would be disabled, existed in large changes folder, or another way like more smaller base modules?- no same problem with Slackware but updates are similar to rolling-releases or browser updates.

I think that Arch has the biggest repository of useful, valuable, practical and new (beta) apps (+AUR). Next, nice Ubuntu pros are e.g: Ubuntu touch phone and Wubi (grub) installer for windows bootloaders (new entry).

Another way is to base Porteus on more than one distro like Puppies based on Slackware, Ubuntu etc. - it could be even unstable Porteus release if many users would change base distro.

Desktop Environments made and customized by Porteus are much better than default DE in other distros. I feel very well with Slackware now, and think that would not be better with other base distro (but I don't know enough how much is it Slackware and how much is it Porteus).

[wread]

We are fighting the war on six fronts: KDE4, LXDE, XFACE, MATE, Razor, Kiosk.....

[simargl]

How come Arch isn't considered?

Yes, that is good idea! And what else might be good idea is switch to new linux-live kit from Slax 7, then add save file option from alphaOS, perfect pacman compatibility and makesb script for automatic bundle creation also from alphaOS. In that case I could switch to that potential new Porteus and close alphaOS - since it would not be needed then...

[jimwg]

How come Arch isn't considered?

Yes, that is good idea! And what else might be good idea is switch to new linux-live kit from Slax 7, then add save file option from alphaOS, perfect pacman compatibility and makesb script for automatic bundle creation also from alphaOS. In that case I could switch to that potential new Porteus and close alphaOS - since it would not be needed then...

Is this a best of both worlds thing? Would this permit easily (almost auto) installed and wide software variety and help reduce wear and tear on flash drives like Puppy does? Don't forget the 32bit world; it's a wallet-strapped depression out there!

Jim in NYC

[fanthom]

What would a porteus-debian distribution looked like?
if you mean appearance then probably the same

Would it loose it spirit?
hard to answer as i'm not sure what you mean by 'spirit'

Would we turn for apt-get and synaptic as package manager devices?
yes

Would we let down xzm modules?
no. there would be the same deb2xzm script we have now

Would it still be bleeding edge in terms of recent graphic and wifi drivers?
kernel for sure but xorg could be older (depends if we would go with debian stable or testing)

How come Arch isn't considered?
this question was answered already:
http://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php? ... 056#p21489

I think that rolling-release does not contrast with portability (maybe contrasts partial with modular system)
that's the point - rolling-release is not welcome in modular system as you cant upgrade libs/apps in core modules without repacking xzms which is not an option. rolling-release would cause doubled libs and old one would still showing in the system unless one is saving changes (so whiteouts can do their job). as we know many people prefer 'always fresh'.
short answer - no go for rolling-release.

requires new innovative idea (like Slax and Porteus idea before)
please share if you have something

if Ubuntu (Debian) was be chosen how should work system updates - they would be disabled, existed in large changes folder, or another way like more smaller base modules?
new package would be downloaded and converted to xzm -> old one would be deactivated and removed -> new one would be moved to /porteus/modules (or extramod=) and then activated

switch to new linux-live kit from Slax 7
i'm not very familiar so please let me know what can new linux-live kit offer which we do not have already

add save file option from alphaOS
how is that savefile different from our current one? please give me the reasons not just 'because we can'.