Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
Jason Killen wrote:
>
> I have gotten the real audio player for linux and tried to set up netscape
> to use the player but when I click on a real audio file netscape gives me
> this error message
>
> sh: -c: line 1: missing closing ')' for arithmetic expression
> sh: -c: line 1: syntax error near unexpected token ';'
> sh: -c: line 1: '((/usr/local/bin/realaudio/raplayer /tmp/file.ram); rm /tmp/file.ram )&'
>
> (Yes I changed the file names)
>
> I don't use sh/bash much so I don't really understand the error.
>
> Can anyone toss me some pointers or ideas??
>
This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to
move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that
<speculation> *most* </speculation> debian 1.3.1 users use netscape
and that <speculation> *most* </speculation> of those folks will want
to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash
for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create
a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash
that I've built for 1.3.1?
In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me
say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in
the debian development "system". Even though there are many maintainers
everyone seems to be on the same page. However, I disagree with the
philosophy of fixing bugs in "old" distributions. Who decides when a
bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution.
I use debian at home and at work. For home use, I like to be on the
cutting edge. At work, my job is developing software for
clients, not being a systems administrator. I want a distribution
which is easy to maintain and as well thought out as debian. Currently,
soon after a distribution has been released (this happened for 1.2
as well as 1.3) it is abandoned by the developers. There are *still*
bugs in the 1.3 installation (such as the problems with X). And why
the hell was X 3.3 tossed in at the last minute? The 3.2 dist. didn't
even install right. What's the focus here? Is debian trying to be a
solid system or a cutting edge system. Paragraph 4 of the Debain
Social Contract ("Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software")
states (whole P not quoted),
"To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of
high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that
would prevent these kinds of use.
I find that while the quality of distributions is generally "high"
the emphasis from the developers is more on "let's get that hot new
release going" rather than "let's get all the bugs out of this latest
distribution and make it completely solid".
If this isn't what debian's about then I'm sorry for making all this
trouble. I'll shut up and go get Caldera. It's just a shame that the
distribution which I think has the most going for it technically and
produces a distribution so easy to maintain can't achieve this level
of quality.
Alright, that's just about enough out of me.
--
Jens B. Jorgensen
jjorgens@bdsinc.com
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: