But of course, a possible downside ... the metaphor is what we use to weed out
the suits from the developers. ;)

I think we should as well post pictures of all the developers on the about us
page so they can see how long our hair is.  We should all be holding magician's
staffs as well.

http://bash.org/?104383  :-P

Hmm got a staff or two around here...

Though my hair isn't long :)

hmm funny quote bit imho doesn't fit in nicely...

Sorry, it was late.

/me doesn't have long hair :/ 

noes! /me doesn't fit in!!!!1

I like the revised one in Comment #2, with spelling fixes. ;)

primary -> primarily

(In reply to comment #0) 
>  
> I suggest the following combined text for the web sites (and anywhere else 
> we need this text): 
>  
> 'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning control to 
> System Administratos that 
 
> the wizards and maintainers of modern distributions 
 
I'm not entirely sure I know what this part means.  I think it is referring to 
how distros like Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu pretty much make the choices for 
you in what is installed and how, but considering it is using the word 
"wizards", which kind of refers back to our own metaphor, it is confusing. 
 
> have steadily chipped away.  This is primary accomplished through a 
> source-based, interactive package management system which uses a Sorcery 
> metaphor of "casting" and "dispelling" programs, which we refer to as 
> spells.' 
>  
 
Assuming I am correct above, how about this modified version: 
 
'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning the control of 
software to System Administrators that the modern distributions have steadily 
chipped away.  This is primarily accomplished through a Bash-based, 
interactive package management system which uses a sorcery metaphor of 
"casting" and "dispelling" programs.' 
 
(The programs are not called spells.   The collections of scripts that 
install, etc. the programs are called spells.) 
 

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #0) 
> >  
> > I suggest the following combined text for the web sites (and anywhere else 
> > we need this text): 
> >  
> > 'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning control to 
> > System Administratos that 
>  
> > the wizards and maintainers of modern distributions 
>  
> I'm not entirely sure I know what this part means.  I think it is referring to 
> how distros like Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu pretty much make the choices for 
> you in what is installed and how, but considering it is using the word 
> "wizards", which kind of refers back to our own metaphor, it is confusing.

"wizard" as a metaphor for sysadmins rather predates us (similiarly, "guru"
isn't really a  magic term, I think we use it because "wizard" and "guru" are
the traditional term for expert admins).  Anyway, I always read it as sort of an
informal/respectful/punnish thing, but it probably doesn't need to stay.

> Assuming I am correct above, how about this modified version: 
>  
> 'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning the control of 
> software to System Administrators that the modern distributions have steadily 
> chipped away.  This is primarily accomplished through a Bash-based, 
> interactive package management system which uses a sorcery metaphor of 
> "casting" and "dispelling" programs.' 

Copyedit:

'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning to System
Administrators the control that other modern distributions have steadily chipped
away.  This is primarily accomplished through a Bash-based, interactive package
management system which uses a sorcery metaphor of "casting" and "dispelling"
programs.'

You switched source-based to bash-based; I'm not sure that's a good idea, I
think source-based tells people more than bash-based does.  Though it wouldn't
hurt to get a line in there about 'minimal dependencies' if we can... maybe:

'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning to System
Administrators the control that other modern distributions have steadily chipped
away.  This is primarily accomplished through a source-based, interactive
package management system which uses a sorcery metaphor of "casting" and
"dispelling" programs.  Sorcery itself is written entirely in bash and depends
only on basic shell utilities.'

Blah that didn't really define Sorcery before using it as a noun:

'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning to System
Administrators the control that other modern distributions have steadily chipped
away.  This is primarily accomplished through a source-based, interactive
package management system called "sorcery" which uses a metaphor of "casting" and
"dispelling" programs.  Sorcery itself is written entirely in bash and depends
only on basic shell utilities.'

Short and to the point, I like that. ;)

Ugh!  I meant to reply to this sooner, but I got distracted and then forgot to 
come back to it. 
 
(In reply to comment #8) 
>  
> You switched source-based to bash-based; I'm not sure that's a good idea, I 
> think source-based tells people more than bash-based does.  Though it 
wouldn't 
> hurt to get a line in there about 'minimal dependencies' if we can... maybe: 
 
In my mind, the term "source-based" refers to the distribution itself, while 
the context it is in is discussing the "package management system".  I think, 
in that context, it is misplaced.  Ultimately, all package management systems 
are source-based.  That is the reason I put in "Bash-based".  If you want 
"Bash-based" removed, that is fine, but I think that either "source-based" 
should be removed, it should be moved to a different sentence that discusses 
the distribution as a whole or the sentence should be changed so that it is 
referring to the distribution at that point rather than the package management 
system.  As an example, I slightly modified your latest entry to reflect the 
last option. 
 
'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning to System 
Administrators the control that other modern distributions have steadily 
chipped away.  This is primarily accomplished through using a source-based 
approach with an interactive package management system called "sorcery" which 
uses a metaphor of "casting" and "dispelling" programs.  Sorcery itself is 
written entirely in Bash and depends only on basic shell utilities.' 
 

(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #8) 
> >  
> > You switched source-based to bash-based; I'm not sure that's a good idea, I 
> > think source-based tells people more than bash-based does.  Though it 
> wouldn't 
> > hurt to get a line in there about 'minimal dependencies' if we can... maybe: 
>  
> In my mind, the term "source-based" refers to the distribution itself, while 
> the context it is in is discussing the "package management system".  I think, 
> in that context, it is misplaced.  Ultimately, all package management systems 
> are source-based.  That is the reason I put in "Bash-based".  If you want 
> "Bash-based" removed, that is fine, but I think that either "source-based" 
> should be removed, it should be moved to a different sentence that discusses 
> the distribution as a whole or the sentence should be changed so that it is 
> referring to the distribution at that point rather than the package management 
> system.  As an example, I slightly modified your latest entry to reflect the 
> last option. 

To be honest you lost me there.  I don't get what distinction you're after, and
I don't know what "all package management systems are source-based" means. 
installwatch as a package management system that tracks install locations off a
binary installer is not source-based, for example.
  
> 'Source Mage GNU/Linux is a distribution dedicated to returning to System 
> Administrators the control that other modern distributions have steadily 
> chipped away.  This is primarily accomplished through using a source-based 
> approach with an interactive package management system called "sorcery" which 
> uses a metaphor of "casting" and "dispelling" programs.  Sorcery itself is 
> written entirely in Bash and depends only on basic shell utilities.' 

I was going to say I don't have a problem with this wording regardless, but
reading it again that "This is primarily accomplished..." sentence isn't really
proper grammar anymore.  If it's going to go that route it needs some tweaking.

"<alley_cat> a guy at the dlug meeting yesterday told me 
he'd seen sourceamge on distrowatch, but the description was too vague for him 
to get an idea what smgl is about"

We need to get this one figured out and out there.  Any more ideas?

Jason: reading your comments at the end again I do understand now what you meant
by your distinction between source-based and bash-based, but I don't think it
reads that way in the example given.  A "source-based package management system"
is commonly understood to mean "a package manager system that downloads upstream
sources and builds and installs them locally".

I still prefer the version in comment #9.

Here, I start from general, and go to specific, and end with a call for action.
 This is generally how you would write a political fundraising letter, but I
think it just might work for us:

Source Mage is a free and open source project founded on the principle of
returning ever-eroding control back to System Administrators.  Our main project,
Source Mage GNU/Linux is an operating system distribution that also provides a
complete ports-like system with a unique and powerful package management system
based on our philosophies of software freedom and returning choice to the
administrator.

It is written almost entirely in BASH, the default shell for most GNU/Linux
administrators, so it can be easily modified and extended without recompiling. 
Every package port is intended to be as close as possible to the upstream
vendor's vision and are entirely built from source code downloaded from the
respective upstream websites.

The distribution is provided with an easy-to-use installer from which the system
can be rebuilt entirely from source to your platform with a simple set of
sorcery-like commands, is FHS-2.2-compliant for easy software porting and use as
a developer platform, and has extensive quality-control processes in place for
ensuring that the package collection remains advanced, yet reliable.

The package management core automatically resolves dependencies, optional or
not, prompts users for extra features, and is unparalleled in its simple,
modular design and approach to modern package management.

If you're ready for GNU/Linux so advanced, it may as well be magic, then it's
time you downloaded Source Mage GNU/Linux, today.

That's way too wordy for a blurb at the top of the home page or somewhere like
distrowatch.  And despite (because of?) the length I don't think it calls out
our unique features as well as something more concise does.

What makes us unique are the emphasis on choice (subdivided into 1: we start as
basic as possible and 2: we ask before we do anything else) and the magic
metaphor (the latter is much less important to some and rather significant to
others).  These are the main reasons people decide to try us out, because
they're in contrast to the things they hate about other distros.  The other
things (self-healing/etc.) are usually seen as bonuses that are incredible in
their own right but not the main reason people switch.  I daresay more people
list "friendly IRC channel" as the reason they switched then anything about FHS
compliance.

I suspect you hear friendly irc channel when in the irc channel, there are
probably thousands of people who don't even see the irc channel.

I think our blurb is pretty good. And it's on the wiki now, so there's no reason to have a bug to try to deal with it.

Mass closing of junk.