Re: Debian's progress inspite of events (was Re: Dunk-Tank and the DD strike)
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 17:45 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Greg Folkert wrote:
> > Sarge was so late, that things happened, including:
> > Ubuntu taking shape.
>
> This is kind of like claiming that Progeny came about because potato was
> late, or Stormix because woody was late. At best it glances off one
> possible reason for making a derived distribution, while utterly missing
> the motherload of other reasons.
How many DDs became Ubuntu Developers? How many actually decided that
the in-fighting and/or stonewalling and/or filibustering-by-nitpicking
and/or... and/or... was enough to cause them to join Mark's endeavour?
How about the reasons for the Kernel-Team starting, yes I know
circumstantial and policy based, but it still happened. It caused an
issue which created collateral damage. But those events and changes in
response to the problems actually made Debian stronger in the end.
If you want we can go back and pick out quite a few more controversial
issues, but I really see no need to trample on the dead and resolved
issues.
Yes, I glanced over some of the bountiful reasons. I guess I wasn't
trying to bash Debian anymore than needed. Sorry for that, I'll make
sure I do a full and proper bashing next time. </sarcasm>
> > Many Debian Developers becoming MIA or just abandoning
> > Debian
>
> I don't recall this happening in the ramp up to sarge at any different
> rate than it always happens. Examples?
See my previous paragraphs and continue here.
Okay, maybe perception on this one, but I recall a lot of packages
getting sent to QA in one lump sum a couple of times after quite a few
DD just disappeared and/or protested and quit. But then again, I guess
maybe I only hit the highlights and didn't read the nitty-gritty. Maybe
it has happened with Etch, as I haven't been reading the Developer lists
as much since some have become more aggressive towards "change" in some
areas than others.
> > Hosting companies disallowing Debian as an available
> > distro
>
> I don't remember this happening either. I *do* recall a lot of users
> switching to and installing sarge before it was officially released, the
> same as is happening with etch today. This began to be really practical
> in August 2004 with rc1 of d-i for sarge, and continued to be well
> supported with rc2, and rc3 right up to sarge's release.
There were quite a few, just like now, there are hosting companies that
have pushed Debian off the supported list, mainly because Stable cannot
load on a majority of "new dedicated" hardware. And won't put on testing
as it is a "verboten" thing to put customers at risk that way.
I want you to realize, that many of the hosting companies push RPM based
distributions like FC 6 and OpenSUSE 10.2, its a "one shot deal", they
build it once with a garbage truck (or kitchen sink) install and then
"image it". They don't understand Debian, mainly due to the fact they
don't really want to.
Many users themselves are doing the dist-upgrade rather than waiting for
the hosting company to do it for them and/or change them for it.
> Similarly, the hosting companies I have experience with are already
> offering etch.
I agree, there many that do not bat any eye at doing a base-install of
Debian Etch for customers.
I for one, use Sid for all of my machine I use and support. But then
again, I use sacrificial machines to do the testing first, before I send
off the e-mails (or ssh commands) to the machines to be upgraded.
I also use dpkg-repack to save myself from any of the usual problems. Of
course, there are exceptions to my rules, some machines being more
critical than others, requiring hand updates and upgrades.
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
Reply to: