[ale] Debian 3.0 as a server platform?

[Barry Hawkins]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 06:46:47AM -0400, Chris Ricker spake thus:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Barry Hawkins wrote:
[...] 
> > Testing - the candidate for the next stable, as up to date as any other 
> > distro, except for certain areas where the free software guidelines and 
> > Debian's policies against packaging precompiled binaries in the source 
> > packages and the like impede the more rapid pace of, say, Fedora or the 
> > others.  See "what is testing?"[1] and "how it becomes stable"[2] in 
> > the Debian FAQ for more.  
> 
> Again, I'm not sure where you're coming from. The policies for Fedora are 
> almost exactly the same as for Debian; both only package open source 
> software built from source. 
[...]
I am a Debian package maintainer, and I collaborate and communicate with 
Fedora/Red Hat folks on an ongoing basis, particularly in the area of 
Java packaging.  I know for a fact that they do not require that package 
contents build only from source.  Lucene, Tomcat, and a few other libraries 
in the Eclipse package for Fedora are included as compiled binary downloads, 
because building from source on free runtimes for those components is not 
currently working.  In order to keep a brisk pace, they forego the 
requirement to build packages and dependent packages from source.  Debian 
adheres to its policy, for better or worse (depending on your point of 
view), and it makes things take longer.

You would not be the first person I have communicated with who is unaware 
of shortcuts that are taken in the name of expediency for that distro.  It 
is more a reflection of the different forces driving the two than anything 
inherently "wrong" with the one or the other.  So, as long as there is not 
an attempt on the part of either distro as to what their aims and practices 
are, there is no point of contention.

> For comparison, Debian 3.0 shipped July 2002. Debian 3.1 ships Monday. 
> Something's very slow about the Debian stabilization process, but it's 
> not the "open software only" guidelines.... My guess is it's that everyone 
> involved spends too much time in flame wars on debian-devel ;-). 
[...]
The release schedules for Debian have been embarrassingly slow, and it has 
been a real "black eye" for perception of Debian.  Geeks in the know simply 
use testing and unstable and roll on, but new folks who look at it and see 
a last stable release of 3 years ago are immediately turned off - and rightly 
so.  The hope is that we are making some big changes in that respect.

While the flame wars on debian-devel are as alive as they are on any other 
distro's developer list, I am quite certain that the adherence to Debian 
policy and the fact that it is indeed all-volunteer are major factors in 
how fast things progress.  I also believe that Debian's not being encumbered 
by corporate directives can account for the lax pace as well.  This has its 
own set of pros and cons, but it is the set that I agree with enough to give 
of my own time and effort.

Fedora is not the same as Debian; obviously not in content, but also not in 
its policies, aims, and driving motivators.  Both have their place within 
the Linux ecosystem.  I only tend to see assertions that Fedora is like 
Debian; I rarely see an assertion made in the other direction.  Perhaps that 
entrepeneurial and spririted movement ideal, not being subsidized and steered 
by a corporation, appeals to the sense of freedom with those persons who make 
this assertion.  There's a "cool" element to it.  But that kind of "cool" has 
its price; expediency, resource wealth, and slick packaging are some that I 
often miss.  But, all in all, I still choose the freedom route.

Regards,
-- 
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com

Registered Linux User #368650
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available