Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
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.
After depressingly too many years of unemployment and tinkering, I found a part-time job that comes with toys to tinker with and payment for doing it.
Being unemployed, I never actually paid for support either. However, the level of support I want is bug-fixes for a realistic interval of time. The prices RH charges may be justified to enterprise users who want to oursource their maintenance, and even for the local real estate agent with a dozen or so sales staff and whatevery else they need to support those salesfolk. But not to a geek, even a greying geek.(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.
Better, I think to seek ways towards that ideal. Some cliches come toNo, what's missing is the testing infrastructure. *System* testing, not just the individual package.
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.
Not being a woman, I can't be sure, but I do recall my wife produced two in 4.5 months each:-) Full size too:-))
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.
Certainly they have to test on testing/unstable, but that doesn't necessarily require them to _run_ them:-) Heck, I was hacking on Debian running under RHL, and now one of my RHL systems (what I use of it) runs under Woody.
I recently bought some Pentium IIs at auction. The docket recorded the winning bid as $2.50! They're certainly not ideal for _building_ kernels or xfree86, but there are lots of jobs they can do.
I think I felt the urge to hack on d-i: I eventually decided it was too much trouble. See http://www.nl.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/News/2004/8I'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?
I got the impression from other reading that sv is the new standard.
atm it seems impossible to get bugs fixed in Woody unless they're security-related. I know, someone's going to ask for an eg, and right now I can't think of one.Do you think the current situration is perfect? If not, how do _you_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.
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 ...
Gah, it's early afternoon:-) A wet one too.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
