Re: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux Announce?
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
: On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
:
: > I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
: > user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
: > 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.
Perhaps not everyone agrees with you?
: Debian can be a really great technical OS but if I can not install a
: particular commercial application and the vendor says "We do not support
: Debian because they are non-standard" then debian goes out the door if
: the project depends on the application.
In what ways is Debian non-standard? We have the FSSTND, and soon FHS.
Any vendor can install into /usr/local (and soon /opt) on a Debian
system with the guarantee that we won't munge their stuff! How many
other Linux distros can say that?
: 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.
You seem to argue this point over and over, yet no-one Debian has
advocated NOT following standards. I did see some people who saw no
reason to bump up our version number to "catch-up" with RedHat.
: Also, I have read comments here today from people that have no idea what
: free software is. They think it means non-commercial. They think it means
: free in the financial sense. All it means is that you get the source code
: when you get the binaries and you are free to modify and distribute the
: source.
Well, for Debian it means a bit more than that, but I'm sure you've
read all about it :)
: I am really ashamed at some of the comments I see here from people. I
: started out by saying that Debian should have a clearer policy for
: determining versions and then noted that the LSB (if you don't know what
: it is, search Freshmeat) would take care of the concerns I had and then I
: get this load of attitude about screw the users, the Central Committee
: will decide what is best for you (the second time I have use those words
: on this list in the last year).
I think you are impatient, as the LSB does not yet exist, at least in a
corporeal form. So please excuse the audience if they don't trip over
themselves in a rush to embrace your proposal ... I think the Linux
community is cautious of anything that smells like vapour-ware.
I believe the LSB could be very useful - I hope it will be. But arguing
about if, when, and how Debian should utilise the LSB is a bit
premature, don't you think?
: People have to understand that it is the commercial applications that will
: make Linux. Is Mozilla free ... yes. Is Netscape COmmunicator? No. Mozilla
: is like a reference standard implementation. Netscape might be BASED on
: Mozilla but you will not see the source code for Navigator-4.5.
:
: I am willing to pay for good software that works, I am not willing to pay
: for software that sucks and I am not willing to put up with crappy
: software just because it is free. I use Debian because it is the best
: distribution of Linux and it provides me with what I need right now.
Well, you could be right. For me, and I'd guess a few others that are
more interested in the server-side of Linux, Debian is more than
adequate. (It's fantastic, actually).
On the other hand, machines such as laptops are often more suited for a
"commercial" distribution, due to fun things like the Neomagic (or
whatever it is) chip-set. I'm getting a new laptop this fall - I may try
Debian, or I may install RedHat or SuSE or Caldera. Is that so bad? I
doubt the rest of the Debian community will ostracise me for that :)
: The one main thing that debian has going for it is dselect and apt. The
: second thing is the integration and testing. These are good. Even with
: these things, if commercial applications can not be integrated easilly, it
: is a curiosity. More so in a couple of years than now. Things like Corel
: 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.
:
: 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.
Ok, but why is it Debian's job to develop this derivative work? I am
amazed that no-one's based a commercial distribution on Debian yet - it
is by far the most solid UNIX-like OS I've ever installed, and I've
played with HP/UX, Solaris, FreeBSD, BSDi, and SCO (not to mention OS/2,
Novell, Win95/NT)
Perhaps you could find someone interested in developing this derivative
work?
--
Nathan Norman
MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104
mailto:finn@midco.net http://www.midco.net
finger finn@kepler.midco.net for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
Reply to: