On 2004-06-24, John Summerfield penned: > > Its only since its IPO that RH has become money-hungry. I am > comfortable with the notion of paid-for support in the way of > security advisories and bug-fixes: the only matter for debate is cost.
Well, if I understood you earlier, you have paying clients. I guess having a paid support contract is a nice CYA maneuver in that kind of situation. (I like debian better, but then, I've never tried the paid version of linux support; maybe it's just fantabulous.) > Indeed. While I disagree with much of the Debian project (before you > jump in, I'd point ot that many of the Debian Developers disagree with > each other too), I do admire their endevour and commitment to the > project. Gd, do they ever disagree! I don't disagree with much of the project, but I'm right there with you. I think it's a lot like a quote I heard about the ACLU -- "If you agree with half of what we do, you should contribute. If you agree with 75% of what we do, you should be on our Board of Directors!" Something like that. >>No, what's missing is the testing infrastructure. *System* testing, >>not just the individual package. >> > Better, I think to seek ways towards that ideal. Some cliches come to > mind - the person who makes no mistakes does nothing, a journey of a > thousand leagues begins with a single step... Right. The question is whether the product can realistically be improved/sped up or not. I'm reminded of that whole "nine women can't make a baby in one month" business. > I haven't yet seen a Debian beta process, so I don't know what > happens, but if (as I've read) the DDs are mostly running testing or > unstable, then there has to be something wrong in _their_ estimation > with Woody. Er. They *have* to run testing or unstable in order to test their packages! Not all of them have multiple boxes (or even permanent network connections); many of them may not be running mission-critical systems at home; and they're all experienced enough not to have to run stable to avoid the fear of accidentally doing a Bad Thing. I'm pretty sure all the debian servers run stable, although it would be interesting to hear if they don't. > The recent move to subversion has had the effect of officially cutting > Woody users off from the latest source - there is no offical Woody > build of subversion. Eh? Whose recent move to subversion? I've been distracted by non-computer things recently; have I missed something? >>And now a lot of people who aren't motivated enough to do a google >>search or ask on d-u are installing packages that haven't been fully >>tested with the system. The status quo at least ensures that the >>people who are using backports have at a minimum the ability to >>research questions. >> > Do you think the current situration is perfect? If not, how do _you_ > think it may be improved. There's a difference between "imperfect" and "needs to be fixed." I stand by my belief that adding packages after the official release introduces risk. Now, would releasing a new version of stable more often be a good thing? I guess it depends on if it's deemed truly stable. Okay, I'm way too tired for rational thought right now. Must go beddy bye ... -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
