[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]

On Tuesday 21 March 2006 00:08, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Saturday 18 March 2006 17:32, Roland Mas wrote:
> > Thaddeus H. Black, 2006-03-18 16:00:11 +0100 :
> > > It appears that to have a Enterprise Grade Debian Distribution, we
> > > need a SPOC [ed.: Single Point of Contact?] team which can address
> > > Enterprise demands quickly.
> >
> >   Yeah, and its members should have pointy ears and a puzzled raised
> > eyebrow.
> Nah, a fancy letterhead, a certfied logo program and very high fees should
> suffice.

You guys are good at making fun. But is that all ??

Forgive me if I've not done my homework but IMO Debian Policy sucks.

I had installed Debian Sarge at one of my client's location.
The machine serves as a NAT and does Web Content Filtering. The machine has 
Intel 1000MT NIC.

Now, there was a known issue with those cards with e1000 driver upto kernel 
2.6.11, IIRC. 
Sarge shipped with 2.6.8. Now the Debian policy says _only_ security updates 
are allowed to Debian Stable.
Fixes like Feature Enhancement of Hardware Bug Fix aren't part of Debian 

So what do you people suggest in such cases:
1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ?
2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ?
3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the 
patches ?
4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines 
which are known to work with Debian Stable?

I ended up going with point number 2. But really, next time I might think of 
another distribution before deployment.

Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
"Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is 

Attachment: pgpRxOExEjboU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: