Re: Debian vs. other distros?
From: Christopher Browne (cbbrowne_at_acm.org)
Date: 01/08/04
- Next message: Christopher Browne: "Re: Need recommendations on Redhat Linux study for SCO OpenServer veteran"
- Previous message: John Hasler: "Re: linux a unix?"
- In reply to: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Debian vs. other distros?"
- Next in thread: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Debian vs. other distros?"
- Reply: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Debian vs. other distros?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 8 Jan 2004 03:41:22 GMT
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@x.xxx> wrote:
> Gregory Toomey wrote:
>
>> - second largest platform for Linux servers on the web after Red Hat, a fact people find surprising since it has no corporate backing
>> - great packaging system using apt-get
>> - runs on multiple architectures (including IBM mainframes, Alpha, etc)
>> - clear sensible development path, unlike Redhat who want to squeeze every dollar
>> - thousands of developers and testers, resulting in fewer releases, but each release is very stable
>> - commitment is to software quality rather than quarterly earnings
>> - the basis for other distributions, including Knoppix & Libranet
>> Is that what you expected?
>
> More or less.
>
> I didn't say anything in my original post to avoid biasing
> the discussion.
>
> The impression that I always had is that Debian is generally
> regarded as the most solid, most reliable and least buggy Linux
> distributions. However, on the negative side, it is supposedly very
> hard to get it working (but once you do, then it does work very
> smoothly). I know this last part may not be true nowadays (or
> always, for that matter); I'm just saying what I had the impression
> was the generally accepted idea. From your comments, I gather that
> if it was true at some point (about being hard to set up), it
> doesn't seem like it is still the case.
>
> I was so shocked that my colleague sees Debian as some obscure thing
> that no-one uses and just a bunch of losers maintain (ok, I'm
> exaggerating -- those were not his exact words... But that's more
> or less the essence). He was *absolutely shocked* when I mentioned
> that Debian is regarded as the most solid and most secure
> distribution!
>
> That's why I asked (to try and answer his question "who thinks
> Debian is good?" -- my answer was "everybody... except you, I just
> learned!" :-))
Well, it's fair to say that Debian hasn't got the "Barneyfied install
tools" that the "Distribution Vendors" spent a LOT of effort and money
making _really pretty_.
Several years ago, Caldera was noted for having created a package
installation front end that included a really pretty version of Tetris
for the user to play while watching the package installer indicate
that packages were being installed.
The Debian project has treated that sort of frivolous expectation of
"pretty installer" software with the derision that it well deserves.
The Debian installation software is doubtless eons "behind the times"
in terms of prettiness, and is likely "a couple years behind" in terms
of being 'friendly' for installing software to users that don't _want_
to know any details, or to actually make any choices in what is
installed.
But that indicates not that the software is horrible, intentionally
unfriendly, and _expressly_ obscure by design, but rather, simply,
that they weren't slavish about going out of their way to cater to
newcomers that are _uninterested_ in understanding anything.
Consider also that where the Project participants owe their prime
"duty of care" is to the _other participants_, who, having clearly
already been able to install the distribution, don't need MASSIVE
improvement in the friendliness of installation.
The BIG reason why Debian is there is because of the literal THOUSANDS
of individuals that contributed and manage one Debian package or
another; by virtue of the fact that these individuals are managing
construction of the packages, one may infer that:
a) They were able to manage their software's installation atop all
the other pieces of Debian software;
b) They therefore were demonstrably able to figure out how the Debian
package management system works;
c) That also indicates that they were knowledgeable enough to know
how to install Debian, in the first place.
Inference c) implies that there would only be a relatively small
incremental value in improving ease of installation.
Ease of installation is, therefore, _not_ "Job #1." That doesn't mean
that it is an "anti-goal," just that it is nowhere near the top of
their list...
-- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html Signs of a Klingon Programmer #3: "By filing this TPR you have challenged the honor of my family. Prepare to die!"
- Next message: Christopher Browne: "Re: Need recommendations on Redhat Linux study for SCO OpenServer veteran"
- Previous message: John Hasler: "Re: linux a unix?"
- In reply to: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Debian vs. other distros?"
- Next in thread: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Debian vs. other distros?"
- Reply: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Debian vs. other distros?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
