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

Re: pilot-link in Sid and Sarge: Much bigger question

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Björn Stenberg wrote:

> One difference, good or bad, between Debian and commercial distributions is
> the lack of branches above stable. When commercial distro X makes a release,
> they pick the last-known-good versions of all the packages they want, compile
> it all, change a few versions, compile again and ship the product. It's crude,
> it's labour-intensive, it's pretty damn effective.

And there's why it doesn't work for Debian.  We don't have money to throw at
our developers.

Face the facts: Debian Is Different.  No amount of complaining about it will
change that.  From the fundamentals, right up to the work-a-day issues, it's
all fundamentally different to any other mainstream distro out there. 
That's why many people love Debian.  It's also why many people loathe

If you do not like it, you have the choice of many other distributions of
software out there.  You are even free to get together with a bunch of your
mates and rebuild the latest, shiny! versions of all of the desktop
distractions on top of woody or sarge. I'd even encourage you to do that. 
You're targetting a different audience than Debian is, so that's probably a
good way to scratch your itch.

> Don't get me wrong. The current system works great. It produces some really
> high-quality releases, for a truckload of platforms. The only catch is the
> software in those releases is two years old.

And?  Debian appears to have chosen High Quality over Bleeding Edge.  If you
don't like that choice, you can choose to use something different, or roll
your own.

> Before brushing this aside as an uninformed rant, stop for a moment and
> consider which release you'd recommend your
> computer-savvy-but-no-programmer friends to use when they want to run
> linux at work. Then tell me there is no problem.

I'd install Debian across the board if a Linux solution was called for,
because it's a stable, reliable, functional platform, which is *exactly*
what what companies need.  Eye candy comes a distinct 20th (or lower).  I've
worked in places which are still using greenscreens, because stability,
reliability, a known UI, and a lack of distraction, is far more important
than the latest whizz-bang shiny! "hey look my monitor's melting" GUI.

Now, if you'd asked the question "what would you recommend to your csbnp
friends to try Linux at home" I'd probably burn them a Mandrake disc.  If
they want shiny! then they can have shiny.

#include <disclaimer.h>
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence

Reply to: