RE: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
> Don't compare with windows, compare first with other linux
> distributions as redhat, suse, caldera, mandrake and also
> corel. We (debian) were one of the three global players in
> the beginning, but we are now something between 5 and 10.
> Give others (companies) the chance to make debian better,
> and for this we must be predictable.
We can't really over-simplify the reasons for the change. Our
installed count may be very much like it used to be -- it's
just that the pie has grown and our share has not.
I suspect a large part of our problem is the lack of stable
releases. How can we be perceived as a top technical distro
when Red Hat is able to release newer software than ours on
a more reliable basis? Or more importantly, why would an
average user select our tardy products when Red Hat <sarcasm>
so clearly has the most recent/best stuff out there? </sarcasm>
> Debian must be installable, secure, easy adminable and upgrade
> capable (with some new upstream topics).
We are secure, and upgrade-capable. I never found much to
complain about with the installation, but many people seem to
find it difficult so I must concede that it is. I think it
is generally as adminable as you can be without sacrificing
functionality or security. Sure, we could Wizardify things,
but it might cause more trouble than it's worth....
> For me as a linux trainer, it is a pain to be forced to use
> suse or redhat.
And why is this the case? Is it because Debian does not contain
the software you need, or does Debian not have up-to-date
features, or do your clients request to be trained on one
of these more "mainstream" products? These answers might help
us figure out what to do :-)