[ANN] Rubyx OS (Ruby oriented linux distro)

[Benny]

Why not go ahead with that idea? Couldn't you use the rubyx script to
just as easily build a FreeBSD system (might need some modifications of
course, but you could probably save a lot of the work that would be
required to do it from scratch). I like this idea because, as you say,
portupgrade is already in ruby (and I like the BSD ports system). It
would be really cool if the rubyx script could completely build a *nix
OS/system including your choice of kernal (be it Linux, or *BSD (even
including Darwin)). That would be the ultimate in flexibility.

question: could the ruby-based init system be used with *BSD as well?

why not? as I far as I know FreeBSD 5.x switched to the NetBSD init-system
which is more flexible than the old one and more similar to the linux one.
but I'm currently not so deep in the knowledge of init-systems (using 4.9
at the moment).

indeed my idea was to make the base to a layer between an underlying
rock-solid system (like FreeBSD) and the applications for the user.
this layer would represent all needed aspects of the system in an
object-orientated manner. finally a windowmanager (maybe windowmaker-based)
could attach all the via ruby accessed programs and data (hardware-access,
user-data such as addresses, clients and services (such as mail, nfs, smb
etc.)) to templates which would result in a customized user-interface (i.e.
the template defines the dependancies and pipes between the used modules
and the manner in which the selectboxes, the main data etc. are shown in
what to the user appears as "application"). this templates could be in YAML
as well so that it would be very easy to make your own application by
grouping and attaching the different services to each other and defining
the places on which they are shown to the user. this template would be
interpreted by the enhanced ruby based windowmanager.

this way one could concentrate to develop ruby modules which generates new
functionality and this functionality could be combined in numerous
userdefined interfaces the user finds useful for his daily work.

I'm not sure if I managed to get you an idea about what I meant (the text is
perhaps too short and my english too bad).

such a system might as well allow to automatically create qualified
bugreports (with the system configuration and a "history" of user-actions
on a thread) and a virtual file-system.

and the tricks needed for a user-friendly FreeBSD (without the configuration
hassle, e.g. setting up a printing system, let the cd-burner be used by a
normal user) with preconfigured often needed functionality could be done in
the ruby-layer.

so you would have:

- the FreeBSD based underlying sstem

- the ruby-layer on top of it

- already known apps (from the ports system) on top of the FreeBSD with ruby
managed configuration

- and user-customized sets (interfaces) of functionality given by the
ruby-layer

this way one could concentrate on the ruby layer which only has to be
customized to the system changes as new FreeBSD versions appear. in fact
the ruby-layer itself could be a port of FreeBSD (like instant-desktop and
FreeSBIE)

the only thing holding me back from realizing such a project is actual a
lack of time and programming skills
but I would like to contribute my ideas and start it if anybody goes with
me

Is there a ruby-command-shell or are you proposing irb be used?

no, irb is for testing ruby only. my idea was a system-shell with a
bash-like mode (so that you could simply use the commands like before) and
a new mode which has to defined but should result in a consistent a clear
syntax (understandable as well) for all commands - maybe object-orientated
(referring to the objects given by the ruby-layer). implizit expanding of
methods (object-orientated) or options of functions (not object-orientated)
as well. but I'm at the moment not clear how the syntax should definitely
be.

Phil

benny

 

[Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT]

Hi!

* Benny:

damned! I had the same idea. but I would choose FreeBSD as underlying
system. a ports-tool (portupgrade) already is in ruby.

Feel free to start 'RuBSD'. Could you detail what precisely makes you
choose FreeBSD in favor of NetBSD and OpenBSD?

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT

 

[Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT]

Hi!

* Andrew Walrond:

Rubyx is a modern linux distro created entirely from source by a
small script written in the ruby language.

'Linux' with an uppercase 'L' is a registered trademark of Linus
Thorvalds. Please note that the Trademarks *are* case-sensitive.

Now switiching to RMS mode: Besides that there is no such thing as a
Linux distribution because Linux is the raw kernel that is nothing
without the accompanying tools. The correct statement is: 'Rubyx is a
modern GNU/Linux distribution.'

One should keep in mind that the success of Linux would have been
impossible without the GNU software it comes with - many of the GNU
tools are *much* more powerful than their Unix (i.e. BSD)
counterparts.

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT

 

[Gawnsoft]

Its working now. And do you know the worst bit? I don't know why it's
working Last night, nada. This morning, lovely rubyx icon.

Ho hum

I had another go at it yesterday, re-inspired by this thread.

Still couldn't get it to work.

Uploaded it to a different server, and it worked fine.

Pfaffed with the line and relative/absolute addressing, and got it
partially working on the original server.

At a guess, the browsers adhering to the de facto standard are
adhering to the old 'there are always so many standards to choose
from' rule.




Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Andrew Walrond]

Thanks! I've submitted a short piece about Rubyx to Slashdot, entitled
"Rubyx OS - a testament to the power of ruby?". I hope they post it

Spot the missing '?' in the slashdot article? It was only just pointed out to
me. My intention, to offer it up as a point for discussion, was thus changed
to quite a forceful boast. Its seems the slashdot poster messed up the cut n
paste. Oh well; shit happens.

So, 26Gb of downloads and not one question so far.... Has anybody tried
installing it ??? Do do do do (twighlight zone music)...

 

[Dick Davies]

Phil Tomson wrote:

why not? as I far as I know FreeBSD 5.x switched to the NetBSD init-system
which is more flexible than the old one and more similar to the linux one.
but I'm currently not so deep in the knowledge of init-systems (using 4.9
at the moment).

I know we're veering OT but the NetBSD rc system knocks spots of Linuxs'
horrible 'runlevel/S91apache' SysV bodge.

See:

http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-rc.html

and Luke Mewburns paper on rcorder linked at the bottom of that page in
particular.

 

[Andrew Walrond]

I am pleased to announce the first public release of Rubyx, codename
'ItWorksForMe'.

Please move any further Rubyx discussion over to the rubyx mailing list; Its
rather off-topic here. See www.rubyx.org for details

 

[Benny]

Hi!

* Benny:

Feel free to start 'RuBSD'.

would you join the project? I haven't too much time so I wouldn't start it
alone at the moment.

Could you detail what precisely makes you
choose FreeBSD in favor of NetBSD and OpenBSD?

1. It seems to have a larger user-base.
2. I'm familiar with it
3. more ports
(my idea was to make FreeBSD more userfriendly and therefor it seems to be
better suited with more apps and larger userbase to test apps)

I guess my second favourite would be NetBSD. Much of the code of one is used
in another (e.g. OpenBSDs pf recently was ported to FreeBSD, the
USB-support of NetBSD and FreeBSD has the same basis). I got the impression
that FreeBSD runs faster than NetBSD on i386 but NetBSD might have a better
design.
I think dragonfly-bsd is an interesting project but since it reuses large
parts of FreeBSD 4.8 and some code is exchange between FreeBSD 5.x and
dragonfly (in both directions)it should not be too difficult to switch to
dragonfly later on when it has proven to be a better successor of the 4.x
line than 5.x

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT

benny

 

[Andre Nathan]

I think dragonfly-bsd is an interesting project but since it reuses large
parts of FreeBSD 4.8 and some code is exchange between FreeBSD 5.x and
dragonfly (in both directions)it should not be too difficult to switch to
dragonfly later on when it has proven to be a better successor of the 4.x
line than 5.x

Should you guys decide to start something for Dragonfly, I'd gladly join
you I think it's an amazing project, and they are currently in need
of an installer and a package management system.

As for the packaging system, there are some thoughts about it here:
http://www.dragonflybsd.org/goals/packages.cgi
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=dragonfly-kernel&w=2&r=1&s=Thoughts+about+a+packaging+system&q=b

Best regards,
Andre

 

[Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT]

Hi!

* Benny:

1. It seems to have a larger user-base.
2. I'm familiar with it
3. more ports

The objective arguments for using FreeBSD you provide make it hard to
justify why not to use Linux. It has a much larger user-base than
FreeBSD and even more ports. What in my opinion makes the most
important differences is that the Linux from Scratch project already
exists that removes quite an amout of work that has to be done to
create a fully functional Ruby-oriented distribution. Even if such a
text does exist for FreeBSD I am pretty sure that no translations of
it are available. Because it is hosted at oss.erdfunkstelle.de I know
for sure that a German translation of LFS does exist (and I would be
surprised if that is the only one).

I think one should not start to write a second Ruby-based system. If
the Linux project should happen to fail chances are bad that a
FreeBSD project will succeed. And if the Linux project does succeed
it gathers quite an amount of experience that one can build on.

Just my 0.02 EUR

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT

 

[Benny]

The objective arguments for using FreeBSD you provide make it hard to
justify why not to use Linux. It has a much larger user-base than
FreeBSD and even more ports.

advantages all 3 BSDs (I count Dragonfly to FreeBSD at the moment, sorry for
that) have over linux (IMHO)
- stability
- the "spirit" (centralized, well thought slowly changes, good design, less
hyped, more matured users / programers)
- license

that a my primary arguments. the one to choose FreeBSD are of secondary
nature (you remember O. Lafontaine's "Sekundärtugenden"?)

What in my opinion makes the most
important differences is that the Linux from Scratch project already
exists that removes quite an amout of work that has to be done to
create a fully functional Ruby-oriented distribution. Even if such a
text does exist for FreeBSD

FreeBSD From Scratch:
http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200302/fbsdscratch.html

I am pretty sure that no translations of
it are available. Because it is hosted at oss.erdfunkstelle.de I know
for sure that a German translation of LFS does exist (and I would be
surprised if that is the only one).

nobody in the world speaks german (apart from us) but so many are speaking
bad english (like me) so why not using it. in the worst case my english
would become better

I think one should not start to write a second Ruby-based system.

that depends on what is actually meant by "ruby based". my aim would not be
to use ruby but to use ruby for doing useful things. the varity of
definition what useful things could be might surpass the amount of linux
distros. so surely the are many fashions to create a "ruby based system".

If the Linux project should happen to fail chances are bad that a
FreeBSD project will succeed.

why should the project fail? there is no reason for that apart from lake of
time or programers. IMHO ruby is far more flexible as perl and there are so
many perl based linux distros (and AFAIK Perl still belongs to the
base-system in FreeBSD 4.x). it was mentioned elsewhere that nobody wants
to write a kernel in ruby. so what could mean ruby-based? nothing more than
several ruby scripts more or less bound together sitting on top of a
compiled c/c++ system. its just another layer for usability.
my idea was to first program scripts that automatically modify the standard
config files (in a more usabel manner preventing syntax errors etc). then
some pieces could be replaced one after another (if neccessary).

And if the Linux project does succeed
it gathers quite an amount of experience that one can build on.

Just my 0.02 EUR

Long lives the GROSCHEN

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT

Benny