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

Re: Ubuntu and CDDs

Hi Sergio,

I completely agree with your points, some notes follow:

El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 11:50 +0200, Sergio Talens-Oliag escribió:
> El Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:35:40AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill va escriure:
> >    Now as a few people know, I'm complicit in this whole [2]Ubuntu
> >    Conspiracy. When Mark Shuttleworth first approached me about the project,
> >    the first thing I thought about was Custom Debian Distributions. I wasn't,
> >    and am still, not exactly sure how those things relate exactly.
>   I also thought about this when I learnt about Ubuntu, manly because it had a
>   lot of DDs working for them and it looked like they were proposing to do
>   things the Debian way, at least much more than other prior Debian Derived
>   Distributions I've seen.

I also thought that, as I though with UserLinux and tried to bring them
to the CDD camp but, as Ubuntu, they seem to like repeating previous

> >      * Package replacement (for lack of a better term): What packages does a
> >        derivative want to ship that has diverged from the package in Debian
> >        in terms of code (bug fixes, features, whatever)?
>   For me the first two are present in all CDDs, but I would split the third
>   one in two types of customizations:
>   - Package **data** replacement: for a lot of CDDs what is needed is the
>     addition or replacement of data included in a package for different
>     purposes (branding, menu modifications, localization, etc.)
	- Package **data** **adition**, I think I can add branding to any
package if the branding is switchable in a debian way (like
alternatives, preseeding or whatever)

>   - Package **updates**: Debian release system is too slow for a lot of CDD
>     needs, so usually the problem is that the versions included in stable are
>     too old or have non security related bugs that are not going to be fixed
>     (for stable, of course).
<flame on>
	Debian Myth #1 - Debian is too slow. Debian is right on time for stable
user, the problem is that most users aren't stable users. Companies'
servers and desktops are stable users (most of the still running W2K
Professional or NT4 Workstation on the desktop side for example), basic
home users are stable users. The other problem is that the Linux desktop
only now is on the edge of beeing mature and stable.

	A release cycle of 6 months is a PITA for stable users. Stable users
need a release cycle of, at least, 1.5 years and security updates for,
at least, 6 month more to plan the upgrade. For non-stable users you can
use testing, and testing is fast, the problem is that debian freezes
"inside" testing. If Sarge wouldn't be freezed GNOME 2.8 would be
hitting testing this very week.

	Hint, hint. Red Hat thinks exactly this. Fedora Core (their testing)
releasing every 6 months, but official Red Hat taking much more time. 
</flame off>

	I think that most of the CDD starts (like UserLinux and Ubuntu) in a
hurry to release a CD soon. After CDD is released on a stable Debian
release there is less need to do it, I think they can stick with the
Debian stable release cycle. Just my 0.02€ on this.

>   What I would like is to complete this list and agree on the common issues
>   and solutions to add or update the CDD paper and coordinate the development
>   of the different groups / distributors, if at all possible.

I would really like to help. I think the wiki is underused, there could
be a version of the paper on the wiki and work on it.

>   Greetings, 
>     Sergio.


Miguel A. Arévalo

Reply to: