Re: What's wrong with debian?
On Monday 28 February 2005 09:34 pm, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:37:44 -0500
>
> Carl Fink wrote:
> > 2. We have to get it to build on architectures that are only used by
> > the people who created them as a proof-of-concept, or we're
> > leaving people behind.
>
> Your sarcasm aside, I've never understood this argument. There are a
> *zillion* distros out there that only support x86, or x86 + some very
> small number of other platforms. Debian is one of only a few with a
> broad range of supported platforms; that's one of the things that makes
> it different. Why should that be given up? Why in the world do we
> need *yet another* x86-only distro?
There's a big difference between being x86 only and dropping architectures
that are rare, rarely used, or hardly ever used in a production environment.
I don't know which architectures Debian supports, but if some take longer to
make packages work, and are hardly ever used, then it is only right to
question why they are supported. Is it only for prestige or the right to
claim a higher level of geekiness, or is it because large numbers of people
use that architecture so it needs support.
Just a point in the interest in keeping things straight.
Hal
> Also, can you give me one concrete example of how this has held up
> the release of Sarge? What problem with what platform has been a
> real hold-up for the Sarge release?
>
> > 3. Since it's already so late, we're going to hold it back until we
> > can include fooware 3.0, which is a huge improvement. See, if we
> > release before incorporating fooware 3, it'll be three years
> > before it hits stable, given how slow the release cycle is ....
>
> Can you give me one concrete example of how this, also, has held up
> the release of Sarge? The desire to include what new version of what
> software has caused a hold-up with Sarge?
>
> TIA.
>
> -c
Reply to: