Re: Q to all candidates: Universal Operating System
On 15347 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
1) So, if you were asked to write a Social Contract paragraph about our
universality, defining/outlining both what we aim for, and also maybe
some limits to that quest for universality, what would it be?
I wouldn't be the one to write such a paragraph, sorry. There are people
who are way better with the language to get a nice and clear one
written.
The limits, IMO, would be in terms of cost. Universality is nice, but if
it means (as an example) each maintainer has to take an extra 3 hours
per upload just for it, it wouldn't be a good thing to do. If it would
"just" waste some CPU/RAM/DISK otoh, it would be good.
2) More specifically, if you believe that we should not aim for being
fully universal, *how* (in terms of decision-making processes) do you
think that we should draw a line about what's acceptable, for
example to decide how to cater to the needs of an hypothetical Debian
GNU/Darwin on m68k port? And what's your own opinion on where that line
should be (specific examples could rely on debian-ports, release
architectures, support for non-Linux kernels, init systems, ...)
I believe we should aim to be as universal as possible without bending
ourself too much. As above, cost, manpower is a size that is not hard to
measure. Applied to the whole project, and it should be clear if a thing
like a Debian Darwin m68k is a viable thing.
--
bye, Joerg
Reply to: