Re: DCCA name change and remaining issues
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
> It's the shortage of "based on" that's the problem.
> "Assemble a 100 percent Debian core..."
> No, Debian does that. What do they mean?
If they take a subset of debian as their core, it would be 100
> | The DCC is not a Linux distribution; it is a "base" Debian system composed
> As they describe in the rest of the sentence, the DCC is not a "base" Debian
> system, it's Debian packages plus member additions. [...]
So you're complaining that the sentence is accurate???
> | the DCC Alliance will serve as a single point of contact for software and
> | hardware vendors who want to ensure that their products will work with
> | Debian.
> No, Debian is that single point of contact. Do they mean "will work with
> Debian-based distributions"?
It has been an occasional complaint that debian has no single
point of contact for vendors. There are developers, delegates,
the project leader and others, but I don't know that any of
them are recommended as the main contact for vendors. As a
result, sometimes different parts say very different things
and they seem equally authoritative...
Looking over the website, I see the partners program, the cd
vendors list, the consultants list and the pre-installed list.
Nothing for software and hardware vendors in general?
If DCCA wants to offer a new service that makes debian easier to
sell, let's encourage them to do it. Preferably working with us,
but I could understand them wanting to keep a distance after
the kicking they've had on this list (including from people in
other businesses that use the debian name confusingly). With any
luck, they'll take the kicking as a learning experience about how
to gather opinions from debian!
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask