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

Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 13:28 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
>>> I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
>>> unchanged Debian mirrors?
>> Yes.  What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian?  A Debian
>> Pure Blend has no separate mirror - THIS is the basic idea of the concept.
> That is where I found "Blends" confusing - it conjures up images of
> mixing two different things into one. What you are describing is (to me)
> more filtering or remixing, not blending. Maybe it's my professional
> bias - I'm used to doing admixtures, blends, compounding and formulation
> and the terms have quite specific (pharmaceutical) meanings.
> A + B = C (blending A with B to make a new, bigger, C)
> (Think blending chocolate into cake mix to get a chocolate cake or
> blending a strawberry flavour into a cough mixture. What you get has a
> larger volume/mass.)
> What Blends is describing is actually something that is not possible
> with "real-world" blending - substituting a strawberry flavour for a
> raspberry flavour in an existing product - quite possibly reducing the
> total volume/mass of the final product.
> It works because the "product" (Debian) is itself a mixture that has
> both flavours available and the blending happens *before* the real-world
> product (the installation) exists:
> D = (A + B + C)
> M = (A + C)

I agree that "blend" is b(l)ending the original meaning a bit. My mind
saves it by claiming the blending to happen between

a) the more technical approach of mere packaging while adhering to some
rather abstract while important policies


b) the demands of the professional (power-user or kid to be educated)
in its specialiased environment

Bottom line: it is not about blending packages but about blending interests.



Reply to: