Re: RH and GNOME
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
>If we have to rewrite every app out there to make them do the right thing
>I doubt we were be able to buil quality distribution, or any
We won't have to rewrite every app out there, because it's a pretty
reasonable assumption that:
1) All our old apps aren't going to disappear
2) All the new apps being written aren't going to use every stupid
extension in existence.
And if an app looks like it's going to be too much work to make
stable, we don't bother packaging it. Nothing says we have to package
every scrap of code in existence. Developers who want to muck with
packages with problems, will, and everyone else can ignore them. No
great loss. And I think the net has amply demonstrated that when things
start to break in a serious fashion, and the "people in charge"
refuse to change, people will take their work elsewhere and start a
divergent tree if they have to. Because they can. That's why it made a
difference in the previous argument that Windows is not GPL. The funny
thing about GPL is that the worst that can happen to you is that you sit
at the status quo.
>distribution at all. When you think about market share, you must remember
>that includes the developers of the software we package. If more of them
>use Debian, that will make our work easier.
Sure. Of course, having them use Linux at all makes our work easier
than if they write their code for Windows, at which point it's
>C'mon, the wold is not black and white, there is a continuum of gray
>shades (unless you use a green phosphorus monitor, of course).
>A little bit (just a little bit) of paranoia makes our life longer.
>Mothers tell their children "don't talk to strangers". Does it ruin
Hard to say, actually. I've started to come to the conclusion that
it does, but that subsequent damage should they be unlucky will be even
worse, so I go along with the idea to an even further extreme than most.
I must be still tired; I'm drifting off topic. The reason that the
extreme came up is because I see truly paranoid and/or venemous comments
come flying across this list, and I really don't want that to become a
serious part of my life. Windows still has a lot of software that is
either nicer than the Linux equivalent or that has no counterpart, but
Linux is still my primary work machine because for 80% of the work I do
it covers my work needs, and that number keeps rising. Frankly, I don't
see Redhat as a threat to that trend.
>> example, I think there are people who will choose software that works
>> over software that looks nifty but comes up with the BSOD twice a
>Of course, that's an extreme example, but look at the RPM vs deb thing.
>It's not that extreme, and we are facing it _now_.
And I *still* don't see the problem. It's not like Debian is going
to stop using dpkg in favor of RPM, especially since RPM doesn't do what
we want. Beyond that, I've been told now that RPM packages aren't even
necessarily interoperable with each other...
>More "market share" means more developers using Debian (not just more
>Debian developers, but Linux apps developers), doing things "the Debian
>way", and that means our goal (a high quality distribution) will be
>easier to achieve.
Hey, I'll agree with that, at least up to a point. I'd be as happy
to settle for developers not doing things that were inherently wrong,
though, and Debian isn't the only advocate of that.
Zed Pobre <firstname.lastname@example.org> | PGP key on servers, fingerprint on finger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org