Re: Debian is not GNU [at least current GNU]
At 2002-06-11T12:24:09Z, Dan Jacobson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Summary: Dan says the debian install process should at least ask/inform
> the user that he is not getting current official GNU tools despite the GNU
> on the box, and in some cases [awk] he isn't even getting a GNU tool.
You know, I use a lot of non-GNU tools (think Mozilla, for example). I've
seen nothing at www.gnu.org that would lead me to believe that a
distribution has to be 100% GNU and 100% current to get the GNU "brand",
whatever that means.
> I'm talking about the most basic of user. All these names are foreign.
> He has just inserted the 8 woody CD's given to him by a friend and is
> following instructions.
How is this even an issue? The most basic user is likely to fall into one
of two camps:
1) Knows the difference between mawk and gawk and can read a manual. No
problems here; she can figure it out for herself.
2) Thinks that "awk" is the sound a bird makes and couldn't care less. No
problems here; he won't be doing anything advanced enough to ever
discover the issue, at least until he knows enough to 'apt-get install gawk'.
> Why not install current _official_ versions of all GNU tools by default?
> If there is something wrong with those tools then "go file a bug" with
> their maintainers.
You just perfectly described the 'unstable' distribution. Anyone who needs
up-to-the-minute packages is perfectly free to join the fun and file bug
reports. Since it was decided long ago that a stable distribution should be
*stable*, regardless of arbitrary version numbers, new basic users get a
working system. Advanced users are invited along with a distribution
tailored to their needs. So, once again, where is the problem?
The Strauser Group - http://www.strausergroup.com/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org