Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud<email@example.com> wrote:
> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is
>> irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So
>> why worry about losing relevance.
> Because if you lose relevance, you lose users (might them be individuals on
> the desktop or corporate entities on the server). When you lose users you
> lose contributors and you finally lose developers. In the end, the momentum
> (sic) slows down and you die.
> It *might* be that losing relevance on the desktop side is of little
> importance (which I believe it is _not_), but if corporate entities turn to
> use Ubuntu LTS because <insert a bunch of valuable reasons> instead of
> Debian stable, I fail to see how developers from these corporate entities
> will contribute to Debian and not to Ubuntu.
> A distribution without users is just worth nothing, no matter how
> irreplaceable its culture might be.
> In the end, synchronising Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS freezes will only
> make Debian stable appear as weaker (no commercial support, older software,
> not-so-greater stability, no longer support, less fancy) than Ubuntu LTS.
> Why would _anybody_ reasonable (and outside of the cultural thing) choose
> Debian stable over Ubuntu LTS ?
You make some strong points here, but how is non-cooperation helping
Debian? Debian releases are often behind Ubuntu upstream versions
anyways (GNOME, KDE, Linux), so how did that help Debian? If Ubuntu
benefits more than Debian, so what. Aren't we in this together? It's
like stiffling progress in order to try remain relevant, and isn't
that what non-free software vendors do?
Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon. That's part of the
irreplaceable culture that will ensure Debian's continued existence.
my place on the web: