Re: Question regarding Debian and CGL 5.0
On 2011-04-28, Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Alex (karl exceed) Decker" <email@example.com> writes:
>> Just out of curiosity, I noticed that Debian has not been registered as
>> CGL compliant since the 2.0 standard. Is there any plan on working
>> toward CGL 5.0 compliance?
>> I understand that it's a bit above and beyond normal usage, but a proven
>> 5-nine uptime is something to brag about...
> This is the first time I've ever heard anyone even mention the existence
> of CGL, and I work professionally as a systems administrator for critical
> services (on Linux, even). Does anyone actually care about this
> specification? Often this sort of thing ends up being essentially a
> marketing tactic by the vendors involved in developing the specification
> rather than being something useful for improving technical quality.
It seems that mainly tagging a list is the main part and reporting back
what's still missing would cut it. You can download the tag lists from the
already (self-)evaluated distributions and it looked somewhat useful/sane to
have all those parts in the distro to be there when you need it.
But yeah, sure, it would mainly be marketing for those sysadmins who try to
"sell" Debian as the best since sliced bread for routers and firewalls.
;-) And if something's missing and subsequently added it would be helpful
for others, too.
 Maybe less for routers but more so for firewalls.