On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 10:07 -0500, Conrad Nelson wrote: > On 08/27/2013 07:22 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 11:55 +0000, Curt wrote: > >> What a traitor (or not)! > > "arch traitor" ;) since I prefer Arch Linux and my explanations might be > > a "traitor's kiss", since I referred to the KISS principle. > > I am still a big Arch fan myself. But after a couple years I found > myself drawn to Debian Testing as the Arch developers (ESPECIALLY Allan > McRae, the current maintainer for Pacman.) have begun to take a fiercely > arrogant attitude and a "we know better than you, so shut up" tone > toward anyone who would question some of their decisions. > > The last couple major changes in Arch seemed like changes for changes > sake as well (systemd, while I really do love it a lot, just doesn't > seem to fit with how I understood Arch was supposed to work. And I still > believe to this day that the old BSD-like sysv setup they had before was > loads simpler to configure.) And I still don't understand the point of > the lib/bin merges they are doing, aside from the fact it's a blatant > violation of FHS. > > I used Gentoo for a bit, but its problem is the opposite of Arch: > Whereas Arch is making pointless, unnecessary changes, Gentoo seems to > be pretty stagnant and stuck in its ways. Gentoo actually is a > distribution I actually think would benefit very well with systemd. > OpenRC, though its goals are laudable, I've only ever seen it basically > just become a sysv-init clone that accomplishes next to nothing new. My > other gripe about Gentoo was it just got to be just too much work just > for basic system upkeep. The USE flags were incredibly useful and > powerful for customizing my packages and how my system would globally > work, but all too often setting them globally would just result in > Portage griping and refusing to install software, and setting USE flags > individually per hundreds of packages is way too much work, effectively > meaning Portage ended up getting in the way of what was supposed to be > its own most powerful feature. > > I think Debian works pretty well. It's not as flexible or powerful as > Arch or Gentoo, perhaps, but it's definitely better for servers than > Arch or Gentoo. But it's not without its flaws. I think Debian's > obsession with free software conformity is, indeed, a weakness. Before > you blast me, I'm just going to point out I subscribe more to the > Torvalds school of thought on open source, NOT the Stallman school. > Richard Stallman over-politicizes/idealizes the idea of open source, > tries to make it almost a moral/spiritual thing in a context and > industry where moral/spiritual choice is as a whole, irrelevant and > actually pretty counterproductive. For a long time (Until recently, in > fact.), Debian desktop users had to use third party repositories just to > get decent multimedia support into Debian. Why? Because Debian > developers questioned whether over half of the codecs most people needed > were "free" enough. > > I think my opinion is made worse by the fact I just plain do not like > Richard Stallman both as a person or as a representative of the FOSS > world. And despite all of Debian's good faith efforts to try to conform > with Richard's idea of what "free" means he still basically regards > Debian (And pretty much all Linux.) with contempt. This is probably less > to do with whether or not Debian complies with his "free" ideas and more > for the fact the guy is pedal-to-the-metal bitter and oh-so-very jealous > that Linux succeeded in every place GNU failed (Such as actually being > an operating system.), which is why he insists on the "GNU/Linux" > moniker, which is utter nonsense (Using the GNU toolchain doesn't > magically make Linux GNU, and he uses some of the most insane logic to > try and justify a pretty transparent attempt to take credit for Linux's > success from those who actually DID make Linux a success. It is a crying > shame the Debian people, in their futile attempt to get Stallman to like > Debian, actually comply with the GNU/Linux crap. Linux is not GNU, get > over it. It only uses the GNU toolchain (And even then, not always, look > at Android.)). So all Debian got for their effort to be "free" is that > to make Debian a really good desktop the users have to work a little > harder than they should. > > The Torvalds school of thought is actually based on something with a lot > more relevance and something far more objective: Software quality. Open > source ends up being a lot more effective and in a load of cases the > better option in a software deployment in production environments (The > Internet basically runs on Linux these days.) provided the open source > you use isn't worrying about whether its "politically correct" so much > as makign sure it's the best quality option. "Use what works best." > > Debian's other problem is this need to split packages. A lot. Debian > likes to brag about having a HUGE repository, but when you actually look > at it, it's actually an AVERAGE repository made "bigger" by the fact > that when you install software, despite the fact it downloads and > installs up to 12 packages for the same thing it really is basically > just ONE package. I don't actually see the purpose in why Debian has to > split its packages dozens of ways especially when you still end up > having to install them all anyway. Someone explain this to me. > > > You can read on many mailing lists that people often try to explain > > something with the argument that "we" should be better than the > > "competitors" or that "we" should follow a radical policy, but there are > > no "competitors", just other teams and other projects and Linux isn't a > > political party. I guess users who see the FLOSS communities as > > "competitors" or who care to much about ethical concepts, misunderstand > > that Linux aim is to be "lukewarm", to provide something for every > > human, the passion for Linux usually is to get rid of thinking that > > something is "superior". > > > > > > Competition is a healthy thing. I actually tend to feel when someone > becomes top dog they start getting careless and lazy and stop trying to > be competitive. Look at Ubuntu, around 2008 it stopped being a quality > distribution that cared about its community and became pretty much the > Windows of the Linux world, complete with a company that develops it who > absolutely refuses to listen to their users.
I agree with quasi most of your reply :). I won't discuss all the details and where I disagree a little bit. Resume: There are different ways to handle Linux userspace and that's why different distros are useful and one isn't really better or worse than another distro. Too funny, one thing I mentioned off-list is "Btw. startup for Debian is done by init, for Ubuntu by upstart and for Arch by systemd." On the Evolution mailing list there's a similar discussion that hopefully now found an end and hopefully it will find an end on Debian user too ;). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1377626489.711.9.camel@archlinux
