Re: Future of Debian uncertain?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 05:35:17PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Show me where in our constitution, social contract, or any other
> official document we make the official claim that we are "aiming at more
> experienced users". We make no such claim. Further show me how it's OK
While there is no official claim, that does not mean that the statement is
inaccurate.
> for the self-proclaimed "universal operating system" to have fewer
> users. Are we the universal operating system, or are we a niche product
> for a few select "advanced" users?
Hogwash. We are not about marketing. We are about quality software, and if
fewer people want quality software than shiny interfaces, then so be it.
I have yet to see anyone show why it is a problem that Debian has fewer
users than RedHat.
> We have no guidelines for what software we can package, aside from the
Yes we do. We won't package software that's too buggy for us. We haven't
packaged Project Gutenberg.
> We have no guidelines in terms of what hardware platforms we support, so
> we support them all. Tell me, how many are actively working on m68k (or
> ARM or MIPS or MIPSEL or one of the other marginal architectures)? Are
> they working on the new installer? If they don't, and nobody else cares
I don't know how many are working on those arches. Do you have data that
shows they are definitively hurting the project, or is it just a rhetorical
device to place the blame somewhere where it doesn't belong?
I would not be opposed to removing subprojects that hurt the overall effort,
but I am nowhere near convinced that the ports are doing that.
> We have no restrictions on who can join Debian, besides the fact that
> they must understand and support our committment to free software.
They also have to demonstrate technical ability, pass an ID check, prove
their technical ability, and have a 6-12-month Brady-like waiting period.
> right now. I don't think it's smart to accept just any developer, just
> as I don't think it's smart to accept just any package or any
> architecture.
Have you even bothered to check what the NM process is?
> We have more than enough packages already, and we don't need more
> package maintainers.
I refer you to the WNPP list. I think that's enough to disprove your
argument.
-- John
Reply to: