Re: branding debian releases
On (16/04/04 10:28), s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Chris Metzler:
> >
> > But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
> > and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
> > their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
> > fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the
> > development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to
>
> I was around when Ian Murdock first introduced Debian. Back then, we
> had SLS and Slackware, the latter having been produced because the
> same un-fixed problems tended to be reproduced in subsequent issues of
> SLS. Debian's raison d'etre was stability in response to the lack of
> it in existing distributions.
>
> I still think that's what Debian should be striving for. I don't see
> any point in catering to bleeding-edge-itis in Debian. If the user
> wants/needs newer software than stable provides, the Debian system can
> accomodate that through the installation of backports or even
> /usr/local. Debian has proven itself robust enough to support the
> creation of dependent distributions like Libranet and Knoppix. If the
> user demands bleeding edge, that's where they should be looking.
>
> No change is necessary. If the user thinks stable is obsolete, it
> should be up to them to deal with that, and that means they should
> learn to add what they want onto stable, or go elsewhere. testing and
> unstable are for those who know what they're doing and are willing and
> able to understand the consequences, in the spirit of wanting to help
> Debian produce a future stable distribution. Debian should not be
> bothering to cater to bleeding-edge-itis in a misguided attempt to
> open up Debian to more users. Leave that to the Libranets and
> Knoppixes.
As a relative newbie, this makes eminently good sense to me. After 10
months of woody (on a workstation) I recently upgraded to unstable, with my eyes
open having absorbed a lot of information from d-u. I won't say that it
has been painless but a valuable learning experience, certainly. And I now have a
first class desktop system albeit with some functionality yet to configure.
The thought of anyone installing unstable without understanding the
consequences makes me wince. I bypassed testing for reasons that have
been well rehearsed in this thread.
FWIW I think the Debian community has plenty to do without this
proposed diversion of renaming or worse, fundamentally changing the way
that the distribution is developing. I suspect that when sarge becomes
stable, much of this criticism will go away until the next stable
release is imminent. Woody was a significant improvement over potato
and I suspect that sarge (with the new installer) will assuage many of
the current concerns.
I run woody on Mac and PC servers (my first networking experience) and they are a
doddle to maintain.
I have never used other distros, so I can't make any comparissons but I
remain convinced that Debian is the distro for me and anyone who values
quality and OSS.
In short "it rocks"
Regards
Clive
--
http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk
strategies for business
Reply to: