Re: What's wrong with debian?
On Monday 28 February 2005 11:11 pm, Eric Gaumer wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > There's a big difference between being x86 only and dropping
> > architectures that are rare, rarely used, or hardly ever used in a
> > production environment. I don't know which architectures Debian supports,
> > but if some take longer to make packages work, and are hardly ever used,
> > then it is only right to question why they are supported. Is it only for
> > prestige or the right to claim a higher level of geekiness, or is it
> > because large numbers of people use that architecture so it needs
> > support.
> >
> > Just a point in the interest in keeping things straight.
>
> Portability among various architectures is a strength not a weakness. The
> fact that Debian takes the time to ensure that things are truly portable
> makes it unique from other distros. Try to find another version of Linux
> with that vision...
>
> Don't see the world through narrow blinders.
Where did you get the idea I was doing that? I pointed out there was a big
difference between being x86 only and not supporting everything. My point
was that there was a huge gray area and it wasn't an A or B choice, but A, B,
C, D... choice.
I also did not advocate dropping anything. I said IF it took longer, then it
was only right to ask the question.
> The fact that Debian is ported
> to so many different architectures makes it great for embedded devices an
> other things that don't contain an Intel, AMD, or a PPC chipset. Go over to
> the LKML and tell them they should drop support for a few obscure
> architectures to speed up kernel releases and see how they react.
Yes, it does make it unique. While I don't forsee switching to anything other
than x86 or PPC in the near future, that was a consideration of mine in
picking Debian -- I wanted to make sure the decision for which distro or OS
didn't have to be revisited in the next few years.
> I don't think that porting to countless architectures plays a huge role in
> holding up the release of Sarge. I do think it helps makes packages more
> stable and ultimately benefits us all. Think about bugs that turn up on
> various architectures that would otherwise go unnoticed (even if they are
> just build issues).
>
> Debian is unique for several reasons. It supplies more software than any
> other distro out there. It supports more architectures than any other
> distro out there. It is 100% non-profit. I don't think these should be
> viewed as flaws.
Just for the record, I never called any of them flaws. I'm sure you're
responding to the thread overall, but I just want to be clear I did NOT label
anything in Debian as anything I felt was a flaw.
Hal
> If you want fast stable (but limited software) releases
> then use Ubuntu. This is their goal. You're not selling out, you're still
> supporting Debian in the long run. We will continue to work in the shadows
> providing the things we've always provided. Things most people seem to take
> for granted these days.
>
>
> --
> "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in
> school." - Albert Einstein
Reply to: