There is now a very simple way to make your own GNU/Linux distribution, called a “linux appliance,” at SUSE.
SUSE is a Linux Distribution produced by Novell. It is one of the earlier distributions to make a sustained and effective effort to put Linux on your desktop. Perhaps even on your grandmother’s desktop.
WEll, a few days ago, Novell launched a new thing called SUSE Studio, which allows you to develop your own “Linux Appliance.”
A Linux appliance is essentially a specialized distribution. The SUSE Studio is a web applicatoi that lets you name the ”
appliance,” specify software packages to include, and determine other details. There is the option of configuring key scripts such as those that run at startup.
You can install software or data not on the SUSE website by uploading it. For example, if you want to create a ‘web server’ application, you could upload the Apache configuration files and the HTML files for a starting version of a web site.
Then you make an image from which the ‘distro’ would be installed, just like any other Linux distribution.
The appliance can be tested on line via the web application.
So, OK, folks, here is the link to the studio. Now, let’s see who can come up with the coolest version of any of he following hypothetical distros:
1) ScienceSuse: A distro that includes the best science and science related apps. Gnumeric is the default spreadsheet, r-Cran is installed and ready to go, and so on.
2) AtheistLinux: A distro that includes a modified Linux Calendar that presents no religious holidays but that does include key events in science, skepticism, and atheism.
3) emacs.linux: This distro does not run an X server, uses emacs as the basic system and includes all the add ins such as the emacs calculator, PIM system, and so on.
OK, folks, lets get to work…
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
> There is now a very simple way to make your own GNU/Linux distribution, called a “linux appliance,” at SUSE.
It’s a pet peeve, but I prefer we not use “GNU/Linux” to refer to a generic Linux distro.
Richard Stallman (who I’ve met) certainly wants everyone to refer to a “Linux” distro as “GNU/Linux”. He says this gives the GNU developers proper credit for their work. To be sure, there’s a lot of code in a “Linux” distro that was created by the GNU/FSF folks. And they certainly deserve credit for that.
But a Linux distro is more than the GNU programs. I run Linux, and I hold an RHCE, but I rarely jump to the command line anymore. I spend most of my time in Mozilla’s Firefox, checking email and surfing the web. So if the GNU/FSF folks want to get credit, the Firefox team should get credit too: it’s GNU/Mozilla/Linux.
I also do a lot of “work” stuff under Linux, using OpenOffice (by Sun Microsystems.) OpenOffice is one of the most important programs to me under Linux, next to Firefox. So now we’re GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Linux.
And that’s just how I use Linux. I work with a lot of developers who write perl CGI’s for their day job. These guys live and breathe perl – for them, perl is the most important thing to them in a Linux system. Larry Wall is the father of perl … isn’t it now GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Wall/Linux?
If we’re going to give GNU/FSF a part in the “title” (to be “fair” to the GNU contributors) then shouldn’t we give everyone who has made a significant contribution to Linux a place in the “title”? Wouldn’t that be “fair”?
The problem quickly becomes: where do you draw the line?
IMO, “GNU/Linux” means gNewSense, which is actually put out by the GNU/FSF guys.
It’s a pet peeve, but I prefer we not use “GNU/Linux” to refer to a generic Linux distro.
I’ve never used it before. I was interested to see who got madder, people who want to use is vs. people who don’t want to use it.
I see the point you are making, but I don’t think there is an arbitrary line between basic system functionality and applicatois . The GNU toolkit is essential to the operation of the computer, since it includes so many basic things. The computer would not turn on to the point of running an X server without GNU commands. Or at least, I think that is true.
Having said that, I find GNU/Linux to be cumbersome. Also, Stallman wanted a system but never wrote the kernel. Linus wrote the kernel. The kernel is the system. The kernel plus stuff is a system that works, but still…
Hi Greg!
> The GNU toolkit is essential to the operation of the computer, since it includes so many basic things. The computer would not turn on to the point of running an X server without GNU commands. Or at least, I think that is true.
Good point. Equally important is that pretty much all Windows applications are compiled using the Microsoft compiler. That includes third-party apps like Firefox. The compiler is essential to the operation of the application, since it provides the basis of functionality. Without the compiler, the application cannot do anything, couldn’t even start up.
Using the “GNU/Linux” argument, what if Microsoft asked us to refer to “Firefox on Windows” as “Microsoft/Firefox”?
Does that make anyone else uncomfortable? đ
Adding to this, so much of the Web’s functionality depends on Adobe’s Flash plugin. How many links from your site point to YouTube, or MSNBC, or some other Flash-enabled video player? It’s clear that the Flash plugin, above other plugins, is the most essential.
I guess it’s “Microsoft/Adobe/Firefox” now.
Except the average Windows user doesn’t care about Microsoft’s compiler contribution to their Firefox experience. And average users just “assume” that Flash is there – they don’t think about Adobe at all.
So if we all had to start referring to “Firefox on Windows” as “Microsoft/Adobe/Firefox” instead, you’d really confuse a lot of average users.
So why “GNU/Linux”? Or why not “GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Wall/Linux”?
Using the “GNU/Linux” argument, what if Microsoft asked us to refer to “Firefox on Windows” as “Microsoft/Firefox”?
They would like to do this. The logic is roughly the same as insisting that IE is part of their operating system.
So why “GNU/Linux”? Or why not “GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Wall/Linux”?
How about gcc/bash/Linux, or Gblinux, pronounced “Gublinux”
> So, OK, folks,[…] Now, let’s see who can come up with the coolest version of any of he following hypothetical distros:
I’d like to pitch my own idea, lifted from a post on my FreeDOS blog: a FreeDOS/Linux distro.
Create a very lightweight Linux system that boots, run DOSEmu on virtual console #1, which immediately starts up and runs FreeDOS. The other virtual consoles provide an ability to run DOSEmu, which also can boot FreeDOS.
There should be a simple method to direct the Linux host system to â??shutdownâ? or â??rebootâ? from within the DOSEmu â?? but it could be as simple as: when DOSEmu exits on virtual console #1, present a quick menu to do a â??soft rebootâ? (restart DOSEmu) or â??hard rebootâ? or â??shutdownâ? (both affect the Linux host system.)
In this way, a certain level of abstraction or virtualization is realized. You can run separate instances of FreeDOS in the different virtual consoles, providing a kind of â??DOS multitaskingâ? (but really, itâ??s just instances.) An interesting step forward (and not too different from what some virtualization companies are proposing) but itâ??s missing the things necessary to bring DOS to the next level. (See my other posts.)
Still, itâ??s an interesting idea, and Iâ??d be very curious if anyone ever created such a thing. Any takers?
I tend to steer away from something that likes to call itself GNU/Linux and towards something that calls itself just Linux. A GNU/Linux to me suggests that it’s unfinished, pretty much unusable and requires a lot of hassle and work getting it to a state where it can do what normal operating systems (such as OS X) can do with ease. A Linux that simply calls itself a Linux is more likely to have high quality apps that aren’t encumbered with this open source nonsense ethos, and just allow itself to get on with providing what people actually want. The amount of times I’ve installed Ubuntu on my netbook only to have to remember that there’s a mild bout of hoops to jump through to get Skype onto it (for example). I’d like it to be there in the first place. This sort of pick’n’mix approach is ideal, provided it isn’t crippled by ideological noise.
The phrase “open source nonsense ethos” = ideological noise.
There are easier ways to make your own Linux Distribution than this. Remastersys takes 5 seconds to set up.
You mean to tell me there’s not already an Emacs-centric Linux distro?
I’d be more impressed by a port of Emacs Lisp that would run on a “bare metal” machine. It should be doable, with the provisio that the lisp wrappers to system functions (filesystem, network stack, etc) would have to wrap custom implementations instead.
There are implementations of Forth environments that boot straight from bare metal, so it should be doable.