Hi,
George> I firmly believe that Debian is the best integrated
George> distribution. It would be a shame to see it die in the future
George> because of a political stance that could have been easilly
George> changed. In other words, we need to make sure that we don't
George> cut our noses off to spite our face. What is TECHNICALLY
George> better may make no difference in the marketplace (Beta
George> vs. VHS). There may also be small changes that are simply a
George> matter of legacy rather than technical merit that can
George> streamline things considerably and moderate the learning curve
George> for folks (and developers) arriving from other distributions.
You should realize that Debian exists partially for the same
``political'' reasons you so lightly dismiss. There is a reason the a
couple of hundred reasonably intelligent people who spend hours in an
otherwise thankless activity, and who could doubtless be spending the
time and energy more lucratively.
George> But if it means that they risk "loving it to death"
George> (literally), some things might have to be compromised at some
George> point. Example, if dpkg is so much better than rpm, why not
George> contribute to rpm to incorporate the needed features?
All of Debian's offerings are available for the Red Hat people
to use. Or are you asking unpaid volunteers to go ahead and put in
work to enhance a product of a for profit organizaton?
George> Because some are going to resent the name rpm and the loss of
George> .deb? What difference does it make in the practical sense as
George> long as it gets the job done? As long as the technical
George> superiority is still there, what difference does it make what
George> it is called?
I don't think it is entirely a matter of the name (though I do
think that merely as a matter of respect to the people who made the
effort of writing it we should respect their choice of name), but
also of copyright (I could be wrong about this). What is the
copyright on RPM?
George> On the other hand, are there any subtle changes that can be
George> made to dpkg to make the format of .deb files a little closer
George> to .rpm without sacrificing any technical superiority? These
George> are the kinds of questions that might start to prove crucial
George> as Linux matures.
I think tht unless the formats are compatible enough not to
wreak havoc on a system, we are not doing anyone any favours by
pretending that the formats are similar. And, unless we put in an
effort to make the formats compatible, why spend time doing a
half-hearted job?
George> Face it, there are probably more than twice as many RedHat +
George> Caldera systems out there than Debian. I suspect that finding
George> commercial applications in .deb format will always be a
George> problem
Face it, there are a thousand time more Windows systems than
there are Linux. There will always be a problem finding commercial
software in Linux format (photoshop, anybody?) Is this a valid
reason? Should we all move to NT?
Syrus> 1. Debian has been growing in it's base, not shrinking.
George> Growing in number of systems installed or as a PERCENTAGE of
George> total linux systems? The first number does not count as much
George> as the second number.
Does the second one count at all? Who is doing the counting?
I, personally, am not out for world domination here.
I am not opposed to an rpm that has the advantages that dpkg
has of different types of dependencies, and topological sorting
etc. I think the project would gladly accept any such software.
I don't think I have been motivated yet to donate my time for
this.
manoj
--
On the subject of C program indentation: "In My Egotistical Opinion,
most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and
covered with dirt." Blair P. Houghton
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble?
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
