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

Re: where do NEW packages go?

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:17:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:24:02AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > > A couple of random thoughts that might be work considering.
> > > 1.  GNU/Hurd _may_ be the GNU os of choice in five years time.
> > > 2.  How are/would other GNU/Linux distributions handle the Hurd, e.g. Red
> > > Hat and Slackware?
> >
> > If the hurd fanatics insist that everything that people are now using
> > must be thrown out so it can be molded to fit hurd dogma I can pretty
> > much guarantee that you'll never see "1.", so "2." is fairly irrelevant.
> If not the Hurd, what if another yet to be developed free os came along?
> This will happen sometime.

Maybe, maybe not. You're delusional if you think the massive installed
base is going to be tossed in the next five years. 

> > But, the answer to "2." is that requiring massive changes to "handle the
> > hurd" would mean that Red Hat is no longer Red Hat and Slackware is not
> > longer Slackware.
> So if another superior free os came on the scene then these would become
> extinct like the dinosaur and be replaced by other distributions of os
> "X".

Yes. When there is something both radically different and uncontestably
better than existing solutions, the existing solutions will fade away.
When I'm wandering around the federation starship enterprise, there
won't be a little redhat holgram floating in the air under the voice
interface speaker.

> While I am involved with the Hurd, I do have a great respect for Debian.
> My concern is that Debian be adaptable enough to accomodate radical
> changes and not become extinct.  The Hurd and the BSDs are doing Debian a
> service by inviting | challenging | demanding that Debian develop this
> adaptability.

No, you're doing no service at all by pushing non-technical dogma as if
it's radical technical change. (Obviously talking about libexec here.)
Our goal should be maximal userland compatibility between our ports, not
gratuitous cosmetic changes to suit each subgroup's personal whims. The
technical challenges facing debian aren't at all the focus of these
stupid debates that sap our attention from more productive pursuits.

Mike Stone

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: