Re: What's the storywith 2.0?
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: What's the storywith 2.0?
- From: Bill Leach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 08:50:42 -0400
- Message-id: <19980504085042.C4405@gandalf>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980503161759.16195Aemail@example.com>; from Thomas Lakofski on Sun, May 03, 1998 at 04:23:27PM -0400
- References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980503104454.26128Afirstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.3.96.980503161759.16195Aemail@example.com>
I am one of those 'not a developer, hamm users'. I have been using 1PC type
and three 68k type Debian hamm boxes since sometime around the middle of
I am a bit frustrated with hamm right now. As of just before hamm went from
'unstable' to 'frozen' almost every upgrade on my PC box 'breaks something'.
I was literally 'spoiled' by the fact that during the last 6+ months of
development under unstable Debian hamm was more 'solid' than probably any
Not to 'wave my flag' but rather to point to the reality of the situation...
I did not 'bitch' about the problems I began to experience but rather
reminded myself that not only is Linux not warrenteed but 'unstable' and
'frozen' ARE development versions and things ARE expected to break as
conflicts and bugs are worked out -- sometimes more than one attempt.
Most of the problems that I experienced were even probably my own fault.
If you want a software distribution that 'sounds the horns' and releases
with 'great fanfare' on some specific date (irrespective of how ready the
software may be for use) then go buy something like M$.
I as one insignificant user of Debian Linux am happy with and very
comfortable with my knowledge that when the Debian developers agree that
hamm is 'ready for prime time' and move it to 'stable' that it will AT
THAT time be one of if not the most reliable Linux releases available.
Without a doubt within a month following that release, it will be.
The Debian developer's attitude about making 'the level of the quality and
reliability of the distribution' be the 'release criteria' is almost
unique in practice. While other people (esp. advertisers) 'pay lip
service' to 'quality first' and "... never before its' time", they are
really driven by 'market demands' to the point where in some cases they
will not even delay a release with serious problems. This is NOT the
sort of thing that will happen with Debian.
With Debian the release must NOT be made if there are any serious
known bugs. I think that this 'overall attitude' is also the reason
why 'unstable' became so reliable so fast. Debian has a large number of
'users' that run the 'unstable' release a soon as it 'settles down'
precisely because it is advanced in concept and the care in its'
development will ensure that bugs are short lived and fixed carefully.
So, Debian gives you a choice that you did not have before:
You can get a 'clock based release' from elsewhere or you can get a
'quality based' release from here... the choice is now yours!
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 04:23:27PM -0400, Thomas Lakofski wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 1998 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > >From what you just said, you question would better be worded: When will
> > 2.x be reasonably stable for a non-experimental user? As a non-developer,
> > let me give you my best estimate:
> > Never. History will probably repeat itself and the project will
> > go even further away from this planet. Rather than focus on building a
> > 2.0.x release that kicks ass, they will concentrate on playing with new
> > toys.
> [etc. etc. etc.]
> Expressing these sentiments in this manner is unlikely to help your cause.
> Bear in mind that the Debian developers are volunteers, and I've found
> over the last 18 months of using Debian that they are extremely helpful,
> hardworking volunteers. Please, instead of spreading fear, uncertainty
> and doubt in this manner make a positive contribution, either by helping
> to fix problems you see in the distribution yourself, or choosing another
> distribution which fits your needs more perfectly.
> I feel that the effort that is being made to make hamm actually stable
> before it is declared as such is very commendable. If I wanted a rush job
> I would go out and buy Red Hat. I don't. I want a high-quality
> distribution with top-grade reliability and a large selection of packages
> (the so-called 'toys' you complained about). That distribution is Debian.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
from a 1996 Micro$loth ad campaign:
"The less you know about computers the more you want Micro$oft!"
See! They do get some things right!
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org