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

RE: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux Announce?

I may be out to lunch on the following but I believe we're zeroing in on
something anyway. That's what lists are all about, right? 

One thing I've gotten out of the thread is that RH and SUSE, (etc) are not
adhering to standards but have the market share. Therefore comercial apps
provide distributions of their software for those Linux distributions. Since
Debian does not follow RH or SUSE, it does not follow the "standard" set by
those dists, and therefore there's something of a deviation between us and

My questions are: 
How is debian different w/r/t RH/SUSE? 

Is this difference fundamental (filestructure diffs? ) or simpley different
packaging schemes. (maybe not "simply")

Like the Netscape package installer, can't other commercial apps be
installed on a debian system? 


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	jason and jill [SMTP:jgreshes@netaxs.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, August 04, 1998 10:16 AM
> To:	debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject:	Re: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux Announce?
> > : > progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time).  Funny
> thing,
> > : > when I decided to switch my home OS silly me took a few hours and
> read
> > : > about various OSs. 
> > : 
> > : Missing the point again as all seem to be in this discussion. I think
> I
> > : have seen maybe one post that "got" the point.
> I think one of the problems here is that nobody can figure out what
> George's point is since he hasn't stated it very succinctly--personally, I
> can't figure what George's point is.
> Is it:
> 1) Debian doesn't change its version number often enough.
> To which the response has been that Debian changes its version number when
> a major update is done to the distribution and that Debian does not
> advance the version number for changes that amount to patches and
> bugfixes.  Personally, I prefer that to other distributions that, for
> marketing reasons, advance their version number with each bugfix.  
> As far as people being able to compare Linux distributions to tell which
> is more up-to-date, right now there is no LSB standard set so there is, at
> this point, nothing to argue about.
> As far as George's fellow employees, what can I say?  Before I got a Linux
> distribution to install I checked to see what the different distributions
> were, looked at some pros and cons, and made a choice.  I'm not a computer
> professional; I'm an attorney.  As far as I'm concerned, a computer
> professional going out and buying an operating system with not even thirty
> minutes of research and basing the decision on the software package's
> blurb is about on the same level as my signing a contract without reading
> it b/c "All that legal stuff is what I do at work, I can't bother with it
> at home."  Not that there isn't justifiable confusion--Linux the kernal is
> one thing and has its numbering, each distribution is something different
> and has it's own numbering.  Not that difficult a concept to understand. 
> What George's friends did is a bit like someone buying a recording of
> Mozart's Jupiter symphony based on the length of the recording, figuring
> that the longer recording has more music. In the example I just gave there
> isn't much you can do besides explain; at this point, same with Linux
> distributions.  If someone isn't willing to listen or find out, there
> isn't much we can do about it in the absence of a standard, except engage
> in competitive version number inflation or stick to users willing to put a
> modicum of effort into choosing their operating system.
> Possible George point number 2:
> Debian re: standards.
> This is the alleged "point" where George has stepped in ka-ka, mainly due
> to posts that are long on verbiage and short on making an exact point.
> So far I have detected attempts at:
> a) Debian should follow standards.
> To which the response has been:  Debian does, and will keep doing.
> So where's the frickin' argument?
> Possibly b/c George has morphed to:
> b) Debian ignores or will ignore standards, and shouldn't.
> To which the response has been: Debian doesn't, and won't.
> So where's the frickin' argument?
> Possibly b/c George has morphed to:
> c) Debian is going to be nonstandard, cutting it off from all commercial
> applications, making the distribution useless.
> To which the reponse is, see a) and b) above.  Debian is being developed
> along existing standards, will be developed to meet future standards, so
> commercial applications made to install on a distribution following
> standards will install on Debian.
> So, again, I gotta ask, where's the frickin' argument?
> Near as I can see, the argument has been about arguing, with no real
> point.
> > : I will try to go back to the original point by saying that with some
> sort
> > : of a standard base, and if Debian were to take part in it, I could
> rest
> > : assured that the application WILL run on Debian. If Debian ignores the
> > : standard and other sign onto it, Debian dies. End of story.
> See, this is the kind of thing that keeps things going.  Who the hell has
> mentioned Debian not following standards, other than George?  Unless a
> standard is completely brain-dead or is based on some commercial
> distribution's proprietary software, I haven't seen anything from any of
> the Debian developers here that would suggest Debian will ignore those
> standards. 
> George, stop skewering your own damned strawman.  
> > : will decide what is best for you (the second time I have use those
> words
> > : on this list in the last year).
> Well, then, you need to get over this persecution complex. :)
> > : Office and other products are coming down the pike that will push
> debian
> > : into the workplace and possibly prevent people from having Debian at
> home
> > : because of software support issues if the basic standards are not met.
> Again, who the hell is talking about Debian being developed to be
> nonstandard, other than George?  Who?  Manoj, in all his "screw the
> lusers" posts, has nonetheless not suggested that Debian abandon or ignore
> standards.  
> > : That is the point that I create a slightly modified subset of Debian
> that
> > : does conform to the standard and sell the sucker for $100 a pop to
> > : businesses needing a better Linux than Red Hat. 
> Frankly, I can't figure out what the above sentence means:
> 1) I currently sell a $100 modified version of Debian made to meet
> standards it currently ignores.
> 2) I could sell a $100 modified version of Debian made to meet standards
> it currently ignores.
> 3) If Debian were to ignore standards, I could sell a modified version
> that meets those standards.
> Which is it?  If it's one or two, I'd rather talk about what standards
> Debian ignores so that developers can be encouraged to meet those
> standards within the free distribution.
> If it's three you are talking about, as a preliminary measure could you
> please state which standards you believe Debian will ignore in the future?
> Will you please state your basis for believing Debian will ignore those
> standards?  Maybe we could start there?
> George, if you can state standards Debian is blowing off or will blow off
> in the future based on the current state of the software, based on
> upcomming development versions or based on statements made by Debian
> developers, then you will have a point.  If you have done so, I
> appologize--it must have been in posts I missed.  Until then...
> Jason
> --  
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org <
> /dev/null

Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null

Reply to: