Re: Debian IS for the enterprise (Was: Debian Enterprise?)
Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> writes:
> Rubbish! Once up on a time, when Debian GNU/Linux WAS for the Enterprise
> (ie, it had the quality needed to call it an Enterprise distribution)
> we managed to release in a quite reasonable time. And Debian wasn't big,
> but still had everything that one could ask for on a server.
>
> I should say that SERVER is the keyword _I_ use when talking about
> 'Enterprise'... If you want a workstation, install SuSE, RH, Whatever.
Well, I think that Debian is just the better distribution for
reasonably experienced Linux users, and I don't run any servers or
such. It it the only really free distribution I know (apart from
half-supporting non-free), and it is very good for software
development, among others.
> There's PLENTY of 'workstation' (ie, 'user') distributions around, but
> only ONE server distribution (sorry, I don't honnor Slackware as a
> distribution - it's a joke! :)
In my opinion, most of the "user" distributions don't live up to the
standards of Debian, but that judgment might be tilted due to the fact
that I have not tried the most recent versions of the other
distributions. I don't know why you feel the need to insult Slackware
here, except to show off your arrogance. (I.e., you could have
provided at least one or two reasons why you think it is a joke.)
> So when talking 'crud' and 'crap' here, I mean 'everything that is not
> needed/wanted on a server'. Example on that is anything that uses a GUI
> (ie, X11 stuff such as window managers, games), the lg-* (The Linux
> Gazette) packages etc, etc... The list could be long...
>
> Some exceptions needs to be done here, since a compiler is NOT wanted
> on a server, but still needs to be available...
Well, as the maintainer of unneeded cruft taking away valuable space
in the archive (especially gnuchess-book is large, but it does not get
updated often and is arch:all, so it is nice on the autobuilders), I
have to speak up. Before woody was released, gnuchess was in a
miserable state due to a MIA maintainer, and it was consequently not
released in woody. No packages depend on it, some people were unhappy
(among others I, so I took over the package), but it did not in any
way significantly delay the release. If Debian collectively decides
that it does not want to include games, fine, but this should probably
be proposed as a GR. (And it would be crushed, I am sure...)
As to your other examples, do you have any evidence that the lg-*
packages have delayed the release? No, you don't, because that would
be a ridiculous allegation. The case with X11 is different, so I
encourage you to stop bitching and propose a GR that we pull X from
the distribution. (Again, be sure to be crushed.)
Summarizing all this, I would say that you have made wrong accusations
(games, linux-gazette and the like hold up the release) and identified
correctly one issue which might be connected to the long release
cycle, X and all that depends on it, including KDE and Gnome. I am
quite sure that a majority of Debian developers does not want to throw
out those, but I might be wrong. I would recommend to either shut up,
try to take a poll or propose a GR. And what again was the connection
to you not fixing your RC bugs, like #152801? OK, it has only been
filed one and a half year ago...
Lukas
P.S.: For the record, games do not necessarily need GUIs, and which
Unix admin would use a distribution which doesn't provide nethack? :)
Reply to: