InceptionOS, a Linux distribution aimed at full LSB compliance, but not based on an existing Linux distribution, is currently looking for people to participate in the creation of a new distribution. If you’re interested, read on. The InceptionOS Project has openings for coders to create an installation interface and setup tool.
The InceptionOS Project has openings for coders to create an installation interface and setup tool. The initial instance should be based on an ncurses interface, with the possibility of later including X11.
InceptionOS also needs testers and source hackers who are not intimidated by installing an entire distribution from scratch, without an interface. InceptionOS is looking to convert its current Red Hat RPM packaging to Debian format. Packagers should be familiar with Debian’s DEB package format if interested in performing the conversion.
The InceptionOS Project aims to become the first distribution to boast full LSB compliance, and according to our own (unofficial) testing, we’re already 95% compliant.
A valid Sourceforge ID is required prior to application in order to be considered for the Project. If you do not have one, sign up at SourceForge.net for a free account and ID.
To browse the existing packages, contact Kelledin with a request for the FTP address at which they are located.
Also needed and greatly appreciated are any donations of server hardware, web space, and related resources for the project. Please contact Michael with offers.
For consideration for the InceptionOS Project, please contact Michael at firstname.lastname@example.org (coders, testers, hackers, hardware donations) or Kelledin at email@example.com (packagers, FTP requests) with a brief explanation of experience and desired tasks.
For more information, visit the InceptionOS Project web site at:
Why are they using .DEB? I love it to death, and I hate RPMs, but I thought that the LSB said you were supposed to use RPMs?
Surely, a new distribution to confuse new Linux converts even more, just what we needed…
No, seriously, I don’t believe in the above, but the Good Point ™ of having different distros is that each and every distro has something special to offer, so you can get exactly what you are looking for, but still use Linux…
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to make one (or all) of the bigger, mainstream distros LSB-compliant? Like SuSE, Red Hat, and/or Mandrake?
If this distro’s only ‘special thing’ is LSB compliance, I really doubt it will become succesful…
But what do I know…
I never understand this – what is there to hate? An RPM is essentially a text file with tarred source and binaries. Pretty simple stuff.
“United we stand, divided we fall”
Yet another Linux distribution. If we could integrate the number of GNU/Linux distros from it’s hundreds to about seven, GNU/Linux will stand more united today than it is.
Why the hell is RPM the de facto LSB standard? That’s just annoying considering there are better package managers in existence, like Gentoo’s portage and Debian’s apt.
Three words: no dependancy resolution.
Distributions should be aiming at POSIX compliance not LSB. POSIX compliance makes it easier to port UNIX apps to Linux.
>no dependancy resolution.
Does this still hold true? urpmi in Mandrake can do it quite well.
Linux standardization can only be good. But it may be that LSB is mostly just a commercial thing, designed to promote the sell of a few commercial distributions.
Don’t people need to pay in oder to get their distro tested and listed as 100% LSB compliant? Now, how could voluntary non-commercial projects (like Debian) do that? Someone mentioned that even Mandrake restricted their application for LSB certificate to their ProSuite edition, while ignored other editions.
DEB and RPM are the same regarding the dependency resolution. What makes debian better than RPM distributions is APT.
If you look for an APT like for RPMs you can find APT (ported by Conectiva), URPMI (Mandrake) and YUM (created by Duke University). All of these three can have multiple repositories.
Dependency resolution WAS a problem, but not any more.
RPMS are annoying when your trying to update an application. Unlike debian or gentoo you don’t have to worry about that, especially with the nifty apt-get tool. Gentoo and its portage is wonderful. It is also stays up to date. If your looking for bleeding edge and stability, IMO head for gentoo. RPMS are like floppies. you fill in the rest.
[here come the flames]
Actually, we are using RPMs, but also want to be able to install DEBs as well. We have been working on this distro since last year. We need a new web server as the one we were being hosted on was hacked — some idiot hard a very loose password on one of the accounts hosted on the same server as ours, and so far they have no put our site back up yet.
We need someone to help Kelledin with the installer, we are going to be using the one that comes with Mandrake Linux and help creating the ISO.
No, we can say we are LSB compliant, but we cannot say we are LSB certified, that is what takes money.
http://www.inceptionos.or doesn’t exist
So where is the site now?
This does not happen if you use URPMI like Mandrake or a APT-GET like feature.
I agree with what someone else said, is much more productive and wise to have POSIX compliance.
Maybe, it could give a lot of headache to port applications, I dont know, but surely its something Im looking for (compliance, not headache) and could be really a nice distro.
I use Slackware just because it resemble a bit more BSDs than others linux distros.
I like alot BSDs (specially FreeBSD), but I want some applications and tools that people are not porting to it.
You never used URPMI have you ? Using URPMI with sources from people like TexStar makes all this a no brainer in MDK.
let’s see the revolution for some time, then i’ll tru it on my comp.
i did have a look at what LSB compliance entails… and it all looked fine … until they mentioned RPMs. i suggest the LSB would be more authoritative and more accepted if it dropped the insistence on RPMS. just leave it out. specifying where binaries of a certain type should go is enough.
Im gonna back up what that other guy said. RPMs are the EXACT same as DEBs or any other package. Open them up one time. All it is is a tarballed binary and an install script. And their install scripts are usually identical.
What makes the systems different are their tools. APT-GET is a great tool. And its been ported for RPMs.
Personally, I like Pacman (archlinux.org). It doesnt make such a big deal about packages, it uses the tar.gz format. But its just as powerful as RPMs or DEBs.
I don’t agree with you. dpkg is a well designed package tool and can update your entire system with ease, with more features than rpm.
My personal experience with rpms for entire system update was quite frustrating (don’t tell me that I don’t know how to use rpms in command line, I know how to do it!) while dpkg with apt does the job smooth and nicely.
Try to look at
For a comparison and see for yourself. Note that I’m not trying to shame rpm, (no flames tough), only saying that .deb standart is just technicaly better.
Like I said, its all about the tools. Personally, I think the DEB tools are better than RPM tools. But If someone really wanted to, they could make a dpkg like system for RPMs, hell they could probobly just port it.
Whilst the porting of apt-get has brought some advantages (e.g. support for “recommends” and “suggests” rather than just “depends”) the real benefit that Debian has, which *cannot* be ported, is the quality of the packages in the tree. It’s not just the tools used, it’s the focus on quality and integration. See http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ and http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ for two examples of what I’m talking about. AFAIK, no other distro has anything similar.
I’m not quite sure what the point of this distro is, or what it would have to offer that others don’t. “LSB Compliance” isn’t really a sufficient answer – what tangible benefits will this give me if I use it over, say, Debian?
Additionally, I know for a fact that quite a few of the major distros are moving towards LSB compliance anyway – though they may not make it their number 1 priority as this distro has, I suspect that they’ll get there before this distribution is anywhere near fleshed out, thus rendering it obsolete and useless before it’s even got off the ground.
Recently playing with some config files (.bash_profile) to place some evironment variables for java and tomcat, i got to thinking .. would it make sense to have a daemon for this ?
You could dynamically change the values with out re-logging on and also have one centeral place for all these types of things.
Is there anything like this allready ? i`ll have a look later (this is a quick thought post) but to me it sounds rather nice unless it has security implications.
You might even be able to place some sort of sym/hard-link in place of allready available files and preserve existing apps, hmmmm any thoughts on something like this ?
Well there’s no need to relogin when you change these variables or the .bash* files….
Just source ~/.bashrc or whatever. tada!
As for one central place.. Isn’t there a /etc/profile ??
Lucas, I’m not knocking your preference in deb at all.
but you can update an entire system with rpm as well. The real difference in my experience is that deb package maintainers are stricter in the dependency trees than indivdual rpm package maintainers.
up2date, apt-get for rpm and red carpet works aswell as apt-get(deb).
anyone that has performed a system upgrade with the redhat distro from say…rh7.3 to rh8.0. quickly realizes that the upgrade is mostly rpm based upgrade system.
I have run into many of the same issues when upgrading/installing software not maintained in a repository tree in both RPM and DEB.
although I myself prefer deb I don’t have a disliking for RPM nor wish to see it die.
I did like reading that link you posted but I’m confused about one thing:
that table says rpm does not allow binary programs.
when I always thought that rpm did in fact allow binary.
I maybe missunderstandingthe tables contexts. maybe someone here can clear this up.
Also, with bash you can do
etc for any environment variables you want to change on the fly. These don’t persist between sessions, though, like editing your .bashrc.
Mostly I’ve seen wrapper .sh scripts that setup the environment a program needs… check your /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin, you may be suprised at the number of text files in there (they won’t necessary end in .sh, check the mozilla bootstrap script for instance).
“Wouldn’t it be a better idea to make one (or all) of the bigger, mainstream distros LSB-compliant? Like SuSE, Red Hat, and/or Mandrake?”
Hehe… well, LSB *is* SuSE. The distros who joined for LSB agreed to build upon the SuSE-code.
I’m pretty sure the recommendation in the LSB is about the package format, not the package tool RPM. Don’t confuse the two. The package format is as good as any and it’s the most commonly used, so this just makes sense.
Also in response to system upgrades, nobody is forcing you to handle system upgrades with RPM. In fact, you might use your own super duper packaging format for the entire distribution, as long as you make it possible to easily install third party RPM packages. In fact, I’m always wondering why distributions don’t start to differentiate between “the system” and “the applications”, as both certainly have different requirements.
well, LSB *is* SuSE. The distros who joined for LSB agreed to build upon the SuSE-code.
You are confusing this with United Linux.
LSB also recommended RPMs compatiblity, but in no way made it compulsary. Especially to be used as the main package manager.
I’ll third the POSIX support vote.
It seems most Linux people are largely uninterested or downright hate anything at all related to the business world. There are standards in existence that a number of pretty intelligent people created. Why does the Linux community enjoy ignoring these?
When it comes to beating Microsoft, the Linux community is all over open standards. But when it comes to interoperating with other Unix systems, the Linux community doesn’t seem to care.
I’ve felt for a long time that the Linux community was all about gaining power, rather pushing the technological envelope or helping the world’s computer industry. More and more this seems be true.
Michael Lauzon mentioned that a goal is to use the Mandrake installer. How about creating a debian based distro with the mandrake installer.
I am not knowledgeable in how different package types work but why have it also rpm compatible? Will it be compatible with all the rpm types; mdk-rpm, rh-rpm, suse-rpm.
I think I would have difficulty using a mandrake-rpm in RH9 since they decide to store things in different locations.
Just my thoughts.
If your like me and just got sick of the whole deb vs rpm thing just switch to FreeBSD. Your life will be easier.
FreeBSD definately is much easier, sysinstall anyone?
In the LSB the only requirement is to “support RPM”, that doesn’t mean that they can’t use another package format for their distribution. Debian, for example, is fully LSB compliant even though its default packaging format is DEB.
Well, surelly it is great to have something new, but there is already a nice project that is one of the most compatible Linux distros, besides Debian, and that is Slackware Linux. Instead of reinventing the wheel and putting together a Linux distro out of different pieces, like using the Mandrake Installer, wich in the end means hacking together something, you people could help another project. We don’t need one more hacked together distro, the last desaster I saw was Yoper, wich promissed allot, delivered nothing, and in the end they tried to rip off the users by selling it for an overprize. Surely, even its free its no good because you will end up wasting your time. Linux distro != compile -> test -> pack and then again and again… Linux distro means: Develop a distribution with a specific target, develop parts of it, like installer, packaging system and config tools atleast, and when it is sufficient big, with many followers (and I don’t mean something like RedHat , the distro with the most clue-less followers, no, I mean something like Debian or Slackware), the distribution development will be much easier.
In the end, Good Luck, and GodSpeed!!!
I think you should write to Red Hat about donations, I’m sure they will gladelly help, or even hmm…SuSE, oh yeah, they will definitivelly help…
Just a tought…
Well, the name sounds like IncestOS…but really, to me it looks like abortion:)
-=[ No offence, but the whole thing kills me:)]=-
Regarding posts earlier, from what i can tell all the major rpm based distro’s are lsb compliant here’s the link to the list on the opengroup site.
//When it comes to beating Microsoft, the Linux community is all over open standards. But when it comes to interoperating with other Unix systems, the Linux community doesn’t seem to care.
I’ve felt for a long time that the Linux community was all about gaining power, rather pushing the technological envelope or helping the world’s computer industry. More and more this seems be true.//
I can’t see anyone really believing this. First of all I never heard anyone complain about the different Unixes being compatible with each other. Sure there is POSIX but you can’t just grab solaris binaries and use them on AIX. Unix is fractured in a similar way that Linux is except that there are more Linux distros because you don’t have to license it to build another distro. There isn’t a problem with having a lot of distros either. It’s the law of supply and demand, if the distro sucks then most people won’t use it so who cares? It will have little impact on most Linux users.
You don’t really have an argument as to how Linux is becoming more powerful at the expenese of the industry and technology in general. You don’t support this claim at all. I think homogeneity might make Linux more powerful, not the other way around. Linux is what it is because of the users, not the corporations and not for the sake of technology. It is a product of the users. Besides, “pushing the technological envelope” and standards do not go hand in hand. To remain within the standards is to commit to being behind the technological curve when changes do come about. This is the nature of standards.
InceptionOS should look at FreeBSD/Gentoo-like port systems. Please, do not use archaic binary package managers like APT, RPM or other of that nonsense.
Even that I agree about it has not to do with “I don’t care about others open source OSs”, I still think that the Linux community must take the route of POSIX compliance.
It has not to do (OK, almost not) with direct executable code, but with “keep it compatible by source code compile” if nothing in same architecture (OK, no war, I know it doesnt work well in UNIX universe too, but is a lot straighter) and COULD be “give me the object” if the same. If you try to port one application from BSDs to Linux and vice-versa you mostly are going to have a big headache, thats why I use Slackware and FreeBSD.
If you don’t know what Im talking about just look for IBM JVM, it has a port to Linux but zero for BSDs. And dont tell me “Hey, you can use Linux compatible mode”, it’s far from ideal for alot of reasons.
Still, what I need is a Linux with STRONG POSIX compliance and, if possible, that people from Linux and BSDs to talk about how to improve interoperability – this is what can make a real killer open source OSs.
Yes, package quality is the main difference with deb/apt-get. However, with the Fedora project, this should not become such an issue. The aim of the fedora project is to provide high quality third party packages for Redhat. I think ultimately, this could get us Redhat users a well-mirrored repository with quality packages to rival Debian. So far, I think its is coming out good. It will take time to come up to the “all existing packages” like Debian, but after seeing what they did after a few months of not checking, they have really grown. They have all the base packages in Redhat, plus a few like Blender etc.
You can also use Yum on the repository, in addition to apt. Whichever tickles your fancy.
I admit having a QC procedure helps Debian, but this should be fixed soon for Redhat. I like that they also include the updates for Redhat from Redhat.com, so no more need for up2date and RHN. This should also ease the strain on Redhat anyway.
“I admit having a QC procedure helps Debian, but this should be fixed soon for Redhat.”
I like what they’re trying to do, but I think your assessment is overly optimistic, seeing as they really are in the most basic nascent stage of development. For instance, the QA Checklist (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/QAChecklist) in no way rival’s Debian’s Developer’s Reference or Policy Manual by any stretch of the imagination.
Additionally, Debian has each package being looked after by (at least) one designated maintainer, but it doesn’t look like Fedora has adopted this approach. Thus, I reckon there’ll be a burgeoning number of RPMS, being submitted at a faster rate than the QA team can handle them. Plus, there’s this little tidbit on http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy – “TODO: Define who “trusted QA” people are. So, it looks like they’re going to be channelling even more responsibility into the hands of fewer people. I’m not sure that their current system will scale too well.
Nevertheless, good luck to them. Hopefully they’ll overcome these problems in the near future. That said, if you really want a quality package repository such as they’re trying to build, why wait? Debian’s already got one.
I’ve only skimmed the comments past first first 20, but I don’t see anyone who ask outright asked:
What the hell is the point of InceptionOS?
I mean, if you were going to write in to OS News and have a story posted looking for help, you’d think you would *describe* your distro; what is its goal? In what niche does InceptionOS want to reside? Why would someone use InceptionOS instead of the other options available and relatively mature now?
These are things you should look at when going at a distro, or any software project. It’s a perfectly valid answer to say “because I want to learn about creating a distro,” or “because I want something perfect for me,” etc. But having no goal will result in the untimely death of the project.
When its a matter of getting other people to help you out with their time, code, money and hardware, you don’t stand much of a chance being vague. Tell people about what your vision is.
Is this really news? In one looks at the postings on the maxlinus site that are all a year old. The InceptionOS link is dead. BTW what is LSB and why is it important enough to justify yet another Linux distribution.
“what is LSB”
“why is it important enough to justify yet another Linux distribution”
Are you fucking stupid? The POSIX compliance is not the task of the distribution, it’s the compiler/kernel/libraries ones. GLIBC can be 100% POSIX compliant, if you use POSIX compliant functions…
Fucking troll, you don’t know what POSIX is, don’t you?
Gentoo’s package management system, Portage, is also impressive, albeit source based. It is similar in concept for FreeBSD’s package management system. I’m surprised not much is being said about it.
Ok fuxOr, though you are correct, you really need to relax. POXIX compliance has nothing really to do with a distro, but the developers of libs and such. Last time I checked, POSIX compliance is interface definitions as well as file locations.
Just use Gentoo
Just use windows NT 5.x
It’s OK to make everything POSIX compatible, but Linux isn’t 100% compatible with it self, and the Linux standard is after all LSB!
I think all distros should strive for 100% LSB compatabillity, and then go for POSIX. Let Linux be compatible with it self first then with POSIX and other standards.
Although there are a lot of people high on apt-get and rpm, it is hardly noticed that FreeBSD/Gentoo-like port systems is the true way to go for InceptionOS. Give the user the freedom of chosing his/her compile time options! If I want particular support for something, I just want to be able to do that. The fact that all binary package junkies have never used port like systems leaves them simply with no credible arguments. Linux should start thinking in terms of source based meta-distributions. I rest my case.
“I rest my case.”
Lol… Okay, and now for the other point of view.
1) Whilst being able to specify exactly what I want to compile into my apps is nice, this “bloat-free” advantage is made up for by having to have the (generally quite large) -dev libraries present on the system for the purposes of compilation, together with a huge whack of disk space set aside for the same reason. You certainly eliminate one form of bloat, but gain another.
2) Not everyone wants to wait for their application to compile. If I wanted to see for myself whether Gnome or KDE was better in their current forms, say, I’d rather not have to wait two entire days before being able to fire them up.
3) It’s a lot easier to provide support for binaries than it is for sources, since the user can report a bug and then a developer can install the package and still be certain that his version is the exact same thing once the compilation is over. Sure, one can opt to support only one given set of CFLAGs, but if you’re going to do that, you might as well be using pre-compiled binaries anyway.
On the flip side to 3), it’s easier in a different sense to *maintain* a source-based distribution, because you don’t have to deal with an autobuilder infrastructure. Instead, you delegate the task of actually building the code onto the individual users, saving you tons of CPU time, not to mention the difficulty of getting your hands on sufficient hardware to build the whole source tree for the less mainstream architectures.
Personally, *if* the pre-compiled binary provided doesn’t do it for me for whatever reason, *then* I’ll compile the software myself from source. I don’t need to use a source-based distribution to be able to do this.
“The fact that all binary package junkies have never used port like systems leaves them simply with no credible arguments.”
I use both Debian and Gentoo.
Whomever brought up the big problem with emerge has it right on the dot. Not everyone cares to wait all day for an application to compile on a P166MMX.
There’s nothing stopping you from writing a distribution that could do Gentoo-like automatic source downloads and compiles from source RPMs or DEBs. People make believe that only emerge makes this possible are fooling themselves.
Now, this RPM vs. DEB foolishness is even stupider. RPM and DEB are pretty much the same. Apt is what most people are talking about when they claim DEB is so much better, and even that’s been ported to RPM, to extremely good effect.
This is not to say that Debian is useless – far from it, the official maintainers are what makes it very special. But bashing RPM usually ends up making the basher look like an uneducated idiot.
I can’t see a decent reason to move off RPM for DEB that’s worth the work. If you make it totally compatible with Debian, well, you’re left with a Debian distro with a pretty installer. Is that really so special?
“Apt is what most people are talking about when they claim DEB is so much better, and even that’s been ported to RPM, to extremely good effect.”
That’s true, but the port of Apt has been constrained by the limits of the RPM format, which doesn’t have support for “suggests” and “recommends” tags, just depends. So no, it’s still not as good, unless people are willing to hack the RPM specification, but then you might as well just use Debs in the first place rather than effectively forking RPM.
Just came across an enlightening post at http://www.advogato.org/person/jbucata/diary.html?start=4
No way can the RPM port of apt be the same; at least with dpkg you’ve got the foundations for a thoroughly intelligent package management system in the file format, with the surrounding software supporting its features to varying degrees (Suggests: and Recommends: aren’t handled too well ATM). With apt-rpm you don’t have those features, and you don’t have the ability to write it in the future without extending the RPM file format. Then again, they’ve been through, what, three different versions of the RPM format now, so it’s not like that’s out of the question, either…
By the way, his above comments about Debian’s handling of the “suggests” and “recommends” tags not being up to par is no longer true. Apt wouldn’t pull in any recommended or suggested packages, which was quite silly, but aptitude now does this on a user-configurable basis, whilst still supporting all of apt’s functionality.
As I explained in my post “InceptionOS”, I said the site was done due to the server we were hosted on being hacked, and so far that server has not been put back online!!!