Re: new names (was Re: custom vs. derivative)
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, vagrant@freegeek.org wrote:
one thing that i'm not so fond of with "internal" is ... it's a little
bit unwelcome or exclusive feeling. but maybe the accuracy of it is
worth that... hard to say. we can hopefully make up for that by being a
welcoming community.
This is exactly my point. Debian actually _is_ a welcoming community
and is happy about new members who are keen on making Debian fit for
their own purpose. This internal customisability enhances Debian as
a whole and ensures that it will grow healthy. So many users just
do not know that they are able to change Debian according to their
needs _internally_ that they (mistakenly) assume they have to derive /
fork / base their very own specific distribution from / on Debian.
When dealing with these issues I have observed so many projects that
started shiny like a rocket and are now bit rotting at any corner in
the internet. If they would have tried to change Debian into their
direction their changes would have been conserved inside Debian and
stay up to date with every Debian update. So welcoming people inside
Debian is in their very own interest - and it is perfectly possible.
The reason why I'm working on CDD stuff is to make this technically
easy, because it is not otherwise.
or simply "Debian Subdistribution" or "Debian Sub-distro" ? or is it
still too open to interpretation by leaving out internal?
It _should_ be clear, but is most probably not. The word internal
fits exactly what we are. But also "Debian Subdistribution" is way
better than CDD. I personally would prefer the unshortened name
and use perhaps DSD (for "Debian Subdistribution") or DIS (for
""Debian Internal Subdistribution") as shortcut.
i think the "sub" prefix is a good choice or direction, as it indicates
that it is part of the larger whole, and not something merely based on
or derived from debian.
Absolutely.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: