Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-24, John Summerfield penned:
Its only since its IPO that RH has become money-hungry. I am
comfortable with the notion of paid-for support in the way of
security advisories and bug-fixes: the only matter for debate is cost.
Well, if I understood you earlier, you have paying clients. I guess
having a paid support contract is a nice CYA maneuver in that kind of
situation.
After depressingly too many years of unemployment and tinkering, I found
a part-time job that comes with toys to tinker with and payment for
doing it.
(I like debian better, but then, I've never tried the paid version of
linux support; maybe it's just fantabulous.)
Being unemployed, I never actually paid for support either. However, the
level of support I want is bug-fixes for a realistic interval of time.
The prices RH charges may be justified to enterprise users who want to
oursource their maintenance, and even for the local real estate agent
with a dozen or so sales staff and whatevery else they need to support
those salesfolk. But not to a geek, even a greying geek.
Indeed. While I disagree with much of the Debian project (before you
jump in, I'd point ot that many of the Debian Developers disagree with
each other too), I do admire their endevour and commitment to the
project.
Gd, do they ever disagree!
I don't disagree with much of the project, but I'm right there with you.
I think it's a lot like a quote I heard about the ACLU -- "If you agree
with half of what we do, you should contribute. If you agree with 75%
of what we do, you should be on our Board of Directors!" Something like
that.
No, what's missing is the testing infrastructure. *System* testing,
not just the individual package.
Better, I think to seek ways towards that ideal. Some cliches come to
mind - the person who makes no mistakes does nothing, a journey of a
thousand leagues begins with a single step...
Right. The question is whether the product can realistically be
improved/sped up or not. I'm reminded of that whole "nine women can't
make a baby in one month" business.
Not being a woman, I can't be sure, but I do recall my wife produced two
in 4.5 months each:-) Full size too:-))
I haven't yet seen a Debian beta process, so I don't know what
happens, but if (as I've read) the DDs are mostly running testing or
unstable, then there has to be something wrong in _their_ estimation
with Woody.
Er. They *have* to run testing or unstable in order to test their
packages! Not all of them have multiple boxes (or even permanent
network connections); many of them may not be running mission-critical
systems at home; and they're all experienced enough not to have to run
stable to avoid the fear of accidentally doing a Bad Thing.
Certainly they have to test on testing/unstable, but that doesn't
necessarily require them to _run_ them:-) Heck, I was hacking on Debian
running under RHL, and now one of my RHL systems (what I use of it) runs
under Woody.
I recently bought some Pentium IIs at auction. The docket recorded the
winning bid as $2.50! They're certainly not ideal for _building_ kernels
or xfree86, but there are lots of jobs they can do.
I'm pretty sure all the debian servers run stable, although it would be
interesting to hear if they don't.
The recent move to subversion has had the effect of officially cutting
Woody users off from the latest source - there is no offical Woody
build of subversion.
Eh? Whose recent move to subversion? I've been distracted by
non-computer things recently; have I missed something?
I think I felt the urge to hack on d-i: I eventually decided it was too
much trouble. See
http://www.nl.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/News/2004/8
I got the impression from other reading that sv is the new standard.
And now a lot of people who aren't motivated enough to do a google
search or ask on d-u are installing packages that haven't been fully
tested with the system. The status quo at least ensures that the
people who are using backports have at a minimum the ability to
research questions.
Do you think the current situration is perfect? If not, how do _you_
think it may be improved.
There's a difference between "imperfect" and "needs to be fixed." I
stand by my belief that adding packages after the official release
introduces risk. Now, would releasing a new version of stable more
often be a good thing? I guess it depends on if it's deemed truly
stable.
atm it seems impossible to get bugs fixed in Woody unless they're
security-related. I know, someone's going to ask for an eg, and right
now I can't think of one.
Okay, I'm way too tired for rational thought right now. Must go beddy
bye ...
Gah, it's early afternoon:-) A wet one too.
Reply to: