Re: Future of Debian uncertain?
Alredo,
I'd like to say this: you're right that Debian does not have the latest
software. You're right that its installer could and should be better.
You're right that it doesn't have hardware autodetection in the default
install, and that it should.
Here's what you're missing:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 04:04:48AM -0500, Alfredo Valles wrote:
> I live in a small country, but our linux community is growing fast, we
> are hundreds now, I know many from our discussion forum, yet only 2 or 3
> of us use Debian (or Debian based distros). Everybody loves RH, Suse,
Why do you think this is?
RH, SuSE, and Mandrake are aiming squarely at new Linux users. Debian is
aiming at more experienced users. Debian is not trying to play the
"marketing" game, so it's OK if we're used by fewer absolute people.
> I can't recommend Debian to my friends, cause nobody wants to spend 2 or
> 3 days hand tweaking the system, only to get to the point where
> commercial distros leave you 30 min after you put the install CD.
If I install SuSE on a server, I have to spend 2 or 3 days hand-tweaking the
system just to take out all the crap that I don't want and make it work what
I want it to.
> Personally there are a few things I hate about Woody and I would like
> someone to tell me why these so easy to solve issues are still around.
It sounds like you think you already have the answer if you phrase the
question that way. A little rhetorical device, eh?
> 2-After you install the desktop environment with tasksel the gnome fonts
> are "BIG". Took me a day to figure it out how to change that.
I've never had that problem.
> 3-All the bash limits are set by default to unlimited except the stack
> limit, which is set to 8 Mbytes. This make programs which work with big
jgoerzen@wile:~$ ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
max locked memory (kbytes, -l) unlimited
max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited
open files (-n) 1024
pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8
stack size (kbytes, -s) unlimited
cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
max user processes (-u) unlimited
virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited
> 4-Finally but most important: What happens that you haven't included
> kde3 even in unstable until a few days ago? Why so many packages are so
> out of date?
Please read the list archives. This question has been asked and answered
MANY times.
Here's the bottom line: *why does this matter so much*?
If KDE2 works on woody, and works well, what's the big deal? Can't you wait
six months for the latest eye candy, if what you have is stable and
integrated?
This is the approach Debian takes. If something is stable, let's not mess
with it.
> I have heard that a bug problem in libc6 is the cause of this delay, but
> I don't see Knoppix or Suse hanging every day, and they do have the last
> soft, so they have found a way to circumvent this problem. Why can't
> Debian do the same?
A hang is not the only cause of bugs. I've recently seen updates come along
from SuSE that do things like entirely break LDAP. This is not what you're
going to get from Debian.
> I have also been told that Debian supports eleven architectures. That's
> really great! But if this prevents from having the last software
You say that, but then you proceed to disagree.
> available in an official repository for the arch that 95% of people use,
> then I think something have to be done. One obvious solution could be to
*WHY?* Why is it a problem that KDE3 wasn't in unstable? I really do not
see what the big problem is.
Now, as people reading bugs-dist know, I'm using KDE3 myself and I'm excited
about it. I've been porting it to Alpha and PowerPC.
But, KDE2 worked fine for me and I was happy with it. I had no real need
for KDE3. It's nicer, sure -- but KDE2 did everything I needed, too.
> could help Debian to follow a new paradigm: easy of use, good look and
> latest soft without sacrificing its current strengths.
Pick two:
* Latest software
* Broad selection of software
* Rock-solid stability
I advance that you cannot choose three simultaneously from that list.
Debian chooses the last two. OpenBSD chooses the first and last. Mandrake
chooses the first two.
> One would get the impression that Debian is now a bit bureaucratic and
> reluctant to changes. Maybe it is not, but that's how it feels like for
That is true, and the reluctance to change needs to change.
Bureaucracy does not necessarily imply inflexibility nor is it always bad.
> a newcomer. I wonder how decision making is conducted in Debian? Is
Have you checked lists.debian.org?
> there a guy (or a closed group) who take decisions like the holding back
> of so many new soft, because of the libc6 issue? How can we (the users)
> participate in the decisions of really important matters? Is Debian a
> democracy? (I hope so)
Obviously not. Please read our webpage, www.debian.org, which is accessible
to anyone with an Internet connection.
Yes, Debian is a democracy, regulated by a constitution. Users can and do
participate in development discussions, but are expected to have the
technical expertise to do so. Please see the mailing lists.
Also see www.debian.org/devel.
-- John
Reply to: