Re: Creating a forum for systemd debate
Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> writes:
> * On 2014 21 Sep 15:10 -0500, lee wrote:
>> Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@mcginnweb.net> writes:
>>
>> > As in any sane system of governance for this type of organization, the
>> > ones doing the work get to make the decisions.
>>
>> Then please modify Debians' social contract where it says that the users
>> are the priority.
>
> I fear that down that path lies madness. Which group of users takes
> precedence? Is it those who configure and maintain servers, those who
> want to use Debian as a desktop, those interested in using Debian as the
> basis for embedded systems, some other group?
Wouldn't that be all the more reason to modify the social contract? ;)
> In these discussions I see these are competing interests which leads
> me to think that the divisions are such that these interests may
> become mutually exclusive to the point that Debian sub projects
> catering to each group will emerge. Already some exist and they may
> gain a larger user base.
I think that Debian is still doing a really good job to accomodate a
great variety of users/use cases. It does so by giving them choices.
I might even go so far as to say that after about 20 years of using
Debian, choices, versatility and quality are expectations I have, and
that other distributions I have more or less experience with are unable
to come close. Unfortunately, Debian is on the way of not keeping up
with it's standards anymore.
As to sub-projects for different applications: I wouldn't want to have
to switch to another distribution just because I happen to have an
(unforeseen) use case which isn't covered. That really isn't feasible.
I also don't want to have to use a multitude of distributions to cover
all kinds of use cases I might have. That isn't feasible, either.
It would lead to get locked in one way or another, and that's something
which is simply not affordable. If you have a very specific use case or
environment which never changes, you are also locked in.
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Reply to: