On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote: : On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote: : : > I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix : > user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still : > progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing, : > when I decided to switch my home OS silly me took a few hours and read : > about various OSs. : : Missing the point again as all seem to be in this discussion. I think I : have seen maybe one post that "got" the point.
Perhaps not everyone agrees with you? : Debian can be a really great technical OS but if I can not install a : particular commercial application and the vendor says "We do not support : Debian because they are non-standard" then debian goes out the door if : the project depends on the application. In what ways is Debian non-standard? We have the FSSTND, and soon FHS. Any vendor can install into /usr/local (and soon /opt) on a Debian system with the guarantee that we won't munge their stuff! How many other Linux distros can say that? : I will try to go back to the original point by saying that with some sort : of a standard base, and if Debian were to take part in it, I could rest : assured that the application WILL run on Debian. If Debian ignores the : standard and other sign onto it, Debian dies. End of story. You seem to argue this point over and over, yet no-one Debian has advocated NOT following standards. I did see some people who saw no reason to bump up our version number to "catch-up" with RedHat. : Also, I have read comments here today from people that have no idea what : free software is. They think it means non-commercial. They think it means : free in the financial sense. All it means is that you get the source code : when you get the binaries and you are free to modify and distribute the : source. Well, for Debian it means a bit more than that, but I'm sure you've read all about it :) : I am really ashamed at some of the comments I see here from people. I : started out by saying that Debian should have a clearer policy for : determining versions and then noted that the LSB (if you don't know what : it is, search Freshmeat) would take care of the concerns I had and then I : get this load of attitude about screw the users, the Central Committee : will decide what is best for you (the second time I have use those words : on this list in the last year). I think you are impatient, as the LSB does not yet exist, at least in a corporeal form. So please excuse the audience if they don't trip over themselves in a rush to embrace your proposal ... I think the Linux community is cautious of anything that smells like vapour-ware. I believe the LSB could be very useful - I hope it will be. But arguing about if, when, and how Debian should utilise the LSB is a bit premature, don't you think? : People have to understand that it is the commercial applications that will : make Linux. Is Mozilla free ... yes. Is Netscape COmmunicator? No. Mozilla : is like a reference standard implementation. Netscape might be BASED on : Mozilla but you will not see the source code for Navigator-4.5. : : I am willing to pay for good software that works, I am not willing to pay : for software that sucks and I am not willing to put up with crappy : software just because it is free. I use Debian because it is the best : distribution of Linux and it provides me with what I need right now. Well, you could be right. For me, and I'd guess a few others that are more interested in the server-side of Linux, Debian is more than adequate. (It's fantastic, actually). On the other hand, machines such as laptops are often more suited for a "commercial" distribution, due to fun things like the Neomagic (or whatever it is) chip-set. I'm getting a new laptop this fall - I may try Debian, or I may install RedHat or SuSE or Caldera. Is that so bad? I doubt the rest of the Debian community will ostracise me for that :) : The one main thing that debian has going for it is dselect and apt. The : second thing is the integration and testing. These are good. Even with : these things, if commercial applications can not be integrated easilly, it : is a curiosity. More so in a couple of years than now. Things like Corel : Office and other products are coming down the pike that will push debian : into the workplace and possibly prevent people from having Debian at home : because of software support issues if the basic standards are not met. : : That is the point that I create a slightly modified subset of Debian that : does conform to the standard and sell the sucker for $100 a pop to : businesses needing a better Linux than Red Hat. Ok, but why is it Debian's job to develop this derivative work? I am amazed that no-one's based a commercial distribution on Debian yet - it is by far the most solid UNIX-like OS I've ever installed, and I've played with HP/UX, Solaris, FreeBSD, BSDi, and SCO (not to mention OS/2, Novell, Win95/NT) Perhaps you could find someone interested in developing this derivative work? -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
