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

Re: "I do consider Ubuntu to be Debian" , Ian Murdock



On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 05:41:45AM -0700, Michael M. wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 16:42 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
> 
> > If Debian worried about sticking to a schedule rather than worrying
> > about the stability of the product, you'd hear about a few more
> > missing astronauts and a couple of billion dollars gone from (I'm
> > going on a limb here) some bank data centers. Obviously this is all
> > worst case scenario, but it's what Debian is primarily made for.
> 
> Which begs the question, "Is Debian made for me?"
> 
<rant mode="pedantic">Begging the question is a logical fallacy.  What
you are talking about is "raising the question."</rant>

To answer your question, however, you must examine what it is that you
want.  If you want a toolbox with which to build, then yes Debian is for
you (Gentoo or LFS likely would be as well).  If you want ready-made
then you need FC, Ubuntu, Mandriva or something like that.

> 
> You don't have to defend Debian, at least not to me.  Just don't try to
> pretend that it is the perfect solution for everyone.  The things you
> are suggesting are routinely and actively discouraged on this list --
> apt-pinning, mixing branches.  Yes you *can* do it, but be prepared to
> face the chorus of "you should be sticking to stable" when you ask for
> help with something that's not working.  Likewise, you could make Debian

The reason for that is becuase people who don't know what they are doing
*should not* be doing those things.  Such statements are meant to give
pause, to make people consider "should I *really* do this?"

It's sort of like the old "if you have to ask how much it costs, you
can't afford it."

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: