Re: "I do consider Ubuntu to be Debian" , Ian Murdock
On Monday 26 March 2007 13:35, Michael M. wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 15:28 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 05:37:00PM -0700, Michael M. wrote:
> > > All that is to say that Ubuntu serves a purpose, and it's a valuable
> > > one, IMO. It's not for everybody; nor is Debian, nor any other distro
> > > in particular. Ubuntu at least provides an experience quite similar to
> > > Debian while doing things that Debian stubbornly refuses to do, like
> > > sticking to a schedule. On that score, I agree 100% with Ian Murdoch
> > > -- Debian is missing a big opportunity.
> >
> > What schedule. There was/is no promised schedule. "Dec 6th 2006" was
> > never an actual release date.
>
> The schedule that the release team puts together. It contains target
> release dates. Debian missed its December target for Etch. It remains
> to be seen whether it will make the new target of 2 April 2007.
>
> Call it what you want: schedule, timeline, target, whatever. The point
> is that the Debian Project doesn't value it enough to stick to it. I
> doubt there's a large software project in existance that hasn't missed
> its targets sometimes -- Ubuntu, Fedora, openSuSE all have had release
> delays in recent memory, and then there's Windows Vista. But Debian is
> fairly unique in being so cavalier about it.
yes, debian is cavalier about the release date. but every single OS you cited
is cavalier about shipping with bugs just to meet the target date (and some
other OS not even mentioned. case in point, google for the recent mega-patch
for OSX.) i know which i prefer.
i have been waiting for etch to go stable for a good year or so. we have some
in-house apps that *depend* on a more recent version of the some of the
apps/libs. we had to hack some workarounds and it's painful but it works. but
i'll take etch when it's good and ready and not a day before. i'd rather have
a working OS, free of bugs, late than a half baked, bug-ridden POS, on time.
>
> Like I said, it's the "when it's ready" attitude taken to the extreme --
> to the exclusion of providing users any kind of predictablility or
> expectations of timeliness -- that I don't like.
>
>
> --
> Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
> "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions
> of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to
> dream." --S. Jackson
--
anoop aryal
aaryal@foresightint.com
Reply to: