Re: Mac Quadra (fwd)
Hi,
>Eagle has done a Amiga Linux Distribution and calls it m68k and not
>Amiga, because the linux m68k community wanted it. We try to support
>other m68k archs as good as we can, but we just have no Mac to test
>and only one Atari, we got recently. You might think that Eagle wants
>to rip off innocent Atari and Mac users, but the opposite is the
>case. Eagle was practically forced to support those archs and we try
>to do our best to help our users.
If you don't have a Mac to test on, you ought to have stated clearly, in the
product description and list of supported platforms, that
a) platforms other than Amiga are only supported as far as there is kernel
support for them and the general m68k binary compatibility goes, and
b) your company never actually tried to install and run your product on one
of these platforms, so you can't promise that it will even install without
problems.
The product announcement did sound rather like 'everything is supported', and
you shouldn't be surprised that people have certain expectations in that case.
The demand for a CD distribution on all platforms was pretty obvious, at least
to me, and I've warned against distributions for only one platform (or those
that were tested on only one platform) for precisely that reason.
The Linux-m68k community sure wanted something that lives up to the promise of
the port and works on all platforms, but is that really what you can claim
you have, with just one Atari as test platform outside the Amigas.
(Part of) the Linux-m68k community has been working on such a solution for a
long time, spent quite a lot of effort on testing, and wasn't amused when your
company announced the ultimate distribution for Linux-m68k (largely based on
their porting efforts). I'm even less amused now that I officially learn that
your company didn't bother to test on anything but Amiga before release.
>What makes me angry is the attitude of some people that Eagle Linux
>has nothing to do with Linux m68k or Debian, so anything Goswin says
>is irrelevant and bogus, especially from people who can't even spell
>Eagl right, but spell it Egal (was that wordplay I wonder?) and have
>certainly never seen or tested it. (Nothing against you, just others)
Your product doesn't state that it is in any way connected to Debian, or
based on Debian (it 'can use Debian packages', what are we to make of that?).
So I'm going by the book here when I say 'Eagle isn't Debian'. More so, Debian
has evolved further for some months, after your CD was released.
Sure, on the other hand I'm extremely angry about that claim, because it fails
to give due credit to Debian on which it was based, and still angry at the
decision to go ahead ignoring the concerns of the Debian developers at that
time. But I hadn't expected any better, and it's probably better if users don't
view your product as Debian distribution (my private view, not speaking for
Debian, solely based on the fact that I can't easily check what's in your
distribution etc.).
I've never claimed _anything_ you say is irrelevant and bogus. I do, however,
speak out when you happen to make irrelevant or bogus statements, especially
on platforms you don't support. That's not related to the fact that Eagle isn't
Debian (END would be the acronym for this I guess :-). I thought you were
talking about Debian installation here, not Eagle. Case in point: where you
suggested to dump the ramdisk to disk for the ClassicII user, I've not
claimed that's nonsense. It might work. But it shouldn't be necessary.
And yes, 'Egal' was a pun intended, for the Germans in the developers team.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: