Re: Difference between blends and remastered systems
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:25:32AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 10:59 AM, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > To fix, change the heading from "Difference between a Blend and a
> > derivative" to "Difference between a Blend and a remaster", or else
> > rework the content to clearly make the distinction.
>
> Oh, and if you decide to rework the content, the tone needs adjustment.
Sorry for mixing this up - I was a bit quick yesterday when doing this
under time pressure. So yes, the arguing was not about derivatives and
I decided for fixing the heading and adding a short introduction
paragraph.
I hope this makes things more clear.
> I am fairly critical of what I call "vanity" distributions that are poor
> quality rip-offs of some parent distro. These invariably end up shafting
> the user when the creator gets bored or overwhelmed and stops providing
> support. On the other hand, I have respect for derivative distributions
> which fork from a parent distro due to differences that cannot be
> reconciled in any other way. These derivatives most often have their own
> archives, bug tracking system, mailing lists/forums and so forth, and
> when done well, illustrate the strength with free software of being able
> to fork. I definitely would not want to come off in our documentation as
> being "anti-derivatives", particularly in light of recent efforts to
> develop a better relationship between Debian and derivatives through the
> Debian Derivatives Exchange project
> (http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110318).
Sure. In this sense another subsection should be added to the docs but
this needs more careful thinking than I can currently spend time into
it.
BTW, feel free to provide patches to the doc in SVN - it should be
writable for any DD.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: