Re: Future of Debian uncertain?

[Alfredo Valles <alfredo@citma.cu>]

Thank you for your answer John.  After I read the discussion-lists' page 
I realized maybe this isn't the best place for this  kind of questions.
But as I can't go back let me ask you two more things:

> 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.
But I imagen that even power users like our fine developers will enjoy 
hardware detection and some graphical tools. Just in case one day you 
need to set up a debian desktop in a hurry.
Are you doing something about it or not?

I mean:  Debian have so many cool things that I feel it's a shame It 
can't reach more people just because some easy to solve problems, or due 
to actitudes propulsed by big egos like Josh's.

Don't you feel that your work as a developer would have so much sense if 
it helps more people?

I'm just asking a simple question:  Can debian users spect a more 
frienly system in a near future?
Do you consider this a priority or not?


> It sounds like you think you already have the answer if you phrase the
> question that way.  A little rhetorical device, eh?
>  
As you sure noticed English isn't easy for me.

>  
>
> > 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.
But it do exist.

>  
>
> > 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
>  
Mine is:  (This is just after you install the system)
rigel:~> more stack
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) 8192
cpu time             (seconds, -t) unlimited
max user processes            (-u) 4095
virtual memory        (kbytes, -v) unlimited


> 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.
Well, just one example:  I like kmail but I can't use it on kde2 because 
it does not support well authentication in smtp protocol.  Not every 
body have the same needs, you know. There are people who develop web 
sites and they would like to have the latest quanta or bluefish.
I would like the last kdevelop, even if I don't miss it to much, I 
thougth debian would give us choices, what if I choose to have the last 
soft.

> > 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.
I don't see why you can't have the first two options in unstable, after 
all is unstable, isn't it?
I would spect to have the last two in stable and testing.


Thank you for your patience.

Alfredo