Stefan Nobis wrote: > > >>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Keith G. Murphy" > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > KGM> If the Amiga folks are not going to use any of the GNU tools, or > KGM> dpkg/apt especially, that would be a perverse decision. In fact, > KGM> not making it based on/compatible with m68k Debian would be > KGM> perverse, seems to me. > > I think you still missunderstand the point. The Amiga folks is looking > for a new kernel. The will take the Linux kernel, cause there are much > device drivers, so they are only interested in hardware > support. Around this kernel they will make an AmigaOS. So nothing will > look like a Linux, not the command line, not the GUI and there is a > good chance even the API will not look like the Linux API. It will be > the innermost section of the OS which is based on Linux. As i > understand the text, you can say, Linux is something like the Hardware > Abstraction Layer of NT for the new AmigaOS. And on this Linux, which > is there to support more hardware, a complete AmigaOS is set on > top. And with this AmigaOS the user and even the programmer has to > deal, so neither of them will see anything of Linux. > > And from this point of view, the hole thing has nothing to do with any > Linux-Distribution. It is a Linux distribution by definition. Just a highly unusual one. You've shown, however that, for example, Debian would not be an appropriate choice, given the decision to only use the Linux kernel. I would question that very decision, though. Think, for example, of all the software their users will forego being able to use if *all* they're using is the kernel... And they still have all the effort associated with solely maintaining their distribution. But I guess they don't want to tick off their old user base. Maybe the developers don't want any competition from open source, either. What *I* would have wanted would just be a boot manager like LILO or System Commander so I could still run my old stuff (games) the old way. Or, AmigEMU. :-) > > And if they take gcc as their compiler or use the dpkg/apt package > tools for managing installed software is quite another question - it > matters as much as asking, why not using dpkg/apt tools for windows > for software installation/administration. > It would seem to me more comparable to Mac with the Mach/BSD kernel, and, I guess, no BSD utilities or binary compatibility with anything else. It makes more apparent sense for Mac, though, with a larger existing user and developer base.
Still, only time will tell. I hope it's something nifty.
