[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: My doubts about Debian choice
Just a few thought to debate JFrancois non-technical viewpoints:
(1). IMO, the Debian choice has been the best one: First and not
least, on philosophical grounds [please, do not tell me 'philosophy'
isn't important to Linux - in many ways, we're all together inhere
on ideological [not technical]] grounds; Second and not last, it's
also been a very good choice from the 'strategical' point of view:
Debian is a 'free' group so far and they seem to keep up their
approach whereas RedHat is a for-profit endevour which will grow and
start manipulating code and strategies to defend it's own interests;
(2). I do not believe Debian is an anarchic group: it just uses a
'free-will-social-contact' approach. This implies that volunteers
cannot be forced like soldiers to do things they neither like nor
consider UNimportant. In this, I'm pretty sure many hackers will
give **all they have** (time, energy, will, spirit and more) to
create packages and a system which may be universal (i.e. used
along and across the entire planet by people from all cultures and
degrees of development). IMO, this is an **historical chance** for
the Hacker Community: You'll be able to give tools for development,
education and research which in _practical terms_ get converted to
more beans & bread over the table, better life quality, less child
mortality, better water, less erosion, more rational use of natural
resources and much, much more. What I'm mentioning is neither a
movie nor an overkill: it is reality. I've been travelling myself
over Asia and South America and I feel free software can do a lot of
good. IMO, we've got to have that on scope, all the time. Also,
many of these aspects I mention _could_ be derived from Debian's so
called 'social contract', as I understand it. Having this in mind,
and mentioning it to technical guys who, perhaps, haven't thought of
these aspects, may be crucial for the moral and engagement spirit of
many of 'our' hackers. I'm pretty sure any hacker would feel damned
proud to know 'his' system is being used somewhere on the mountains
of Nepal or by the Food and Agriculture Organization in
underdeveloped countries to, say, fight off erosion and seek
groundwater, etc.;
(3). About useful software applications: Don't worry, you'll get so
many requests you'll many times fall asleep on the key-board :-)
Cheers,
Aldo
] Date: 8 Feb 1998 17:28:40 -0000
] From: jfm2@club-internet.fr
] To: seul-leaders@seul.org
] Subject: My doubts about Debian choice
]
]
]
] I am still waiting for an official announcement about basing on
] Debian. Omega promised to justify it and he still has not done it.
] In fact the announcements I have seen in Linux-Announces or in the
] Linux Gazette still speak of a Redhat base. In my country a law
] cannot be enforced until it is published, so due than the Debian
] choice has not been published it cannot be considered definitive. In
] addition it was never debated.
]
]
] First: I am not a Debian user and this time I regret it, because I
] would be saying the same but that would not seem advocacy from a
] Redhat user. IMHO when discussing SEUL matters it is _important_ we
] put aside why we like in the distribution we use and concentrate _only_
] in what pa, ma or little sister would like, on what is good for this
] project and still better in what is good for Linux.
]
] Second: Bruce Perens has mailed me the following and authorized me to
] quote him despite my warnings than it could used against Debian. That
] gives credit to his honesty.
]
] > One of the reasons we have 6 web servers and no andrew or thot is that we do
] > not tell the package maintainers what packages to work on. They package what
] > they want. Thus, if nobody is interested enough in andrew or thot, they will
] > not get packaged. I would hope that some of the people who are interested in
] > ease-of-use would volunteer to package these programs.
] >
]
] In a free project nobody gives orders but it seems in Debian there are
] not even suggestions or something like periodic announcements about
] "Useful software we would like in Debian".
]
] What I infer of Bruce's post is than the Debian project is so loosely
] coordinated than there is a definite possibility than we get only
] minimal help if any even if Bruce tells Debian developpers to help
] SEUL. I also doubt of the value for our project of people who have
] been developping a distrib since 93 or 94 and despite this in four
] years nobody between these two hundred people has shown the slightest
] interest in packaging a WYSYWYG Word Processor.
]
]
] So I will expose here what I feel are the comparative advantages and
] drawbacks of Debian against basing on RPMized distributions. Notice
] than there is a part of subjectivity.
]
]
] Debian's advantages:
]
] -DPKG: The best package software in Linux world.
]
] -Integration. A very good point in Debian and I certainly want SEUL
] imitate it on this point.
]
] -General quality of the packaging one of the reasons being the
] existence of a document defining how to do it right.
]
] -Help: A good point. If we get it.
]
]
] Debian's drawbacks:
]
] -Dselect: Completely brain damaged from an ergonomic view point. We
] simply cannot use it. Deity is still not released, until then it will
] be difficult to build the install part.
]
] -DPKG is not the standard. By choosing DPKG we cut ourselves and our
] users from all the remaining distributions. That will make difficult
] transitions from/to SEUL. Notice than commercial software uses either
] TGZ or RPM format and never AFAIK DPKG. And "alien" is only good when
] you want to try a software not for using it seriously because you lose
] too many important features like install scripts.
]
] -The majority of users and specially beginners are using RPM based
] distribs. We will be more useful to them if we exert a positive
] influence on the distributions they are using and that will be easier
] if we base on an RPM-based distrib.
]
] -LACK OF SOFTWARE. Yes I know about Debian's volume but despite this
] it is poor in END USER software. Everybody in Debian is very excited
] in DPKGing esoteric programming languages or web servers and nobody
] has given half a thought in Wysywyg word processors or simple
] Databases (NOT Postgres).
]
] -Many packages are not in the shape we want. In too many cases the
] Debian packagers have left to the user to customize them to something
] acceptable. Examples of this are the Debian kernel and many X apps
] who come without resources. Our users cannot customize.
]
]
]
] -Advantages of RPM world:
]
] -It is the standard. That will enable us to use packages from Redhat,
] Caldera, Suse and about every other distribution except Unifix,
] Slackware and Debian. In addition there is the redhat-contrib part.
]
] -The distributions using it are targetting corporate users where time
] is money. They are designed to run out of the box. An example of
] this is than RH, Caldera or Suse can be used in any networking role
] out of the box while the Debian user gets only basic networking until
] he recompiles the kernel. The "run out of the box" spirit leads to
] distributions where the user gets acceptable defaults without doing
] anything special. And that is precisely what we we are aiming at.
]
] -More end user software specially if we also consider what is
] available in Suse, Caldera and redhat-contrib. Andrew _IS_ shipped
] with Suse, Caldera _HAS_ a simple to use database and all this can be
] downloaded or (in the case of Caldera Lite) got in ultra-cheap CDs.
]
] -The trend in the RPMized distributions is to include features like
] hardware auto-detection, modularized sound who does not need be to
] recompiled or automatic mounting of floppies and CDs. All these
] features are exactly what is needed in SEUL. By basing on an RPMized
] distribution we will make easier incorporate all the future features
] of distributions using RPM and these distributions tend to care more
] in user-friendliness than Debian.
]
]
] Drawbacks:
]
] -The quality of the packaging in redhat-contrib tends to be poor. I
] have renounced to use RPMs from it and I always download SRPMS and
] build the RPMS myself.
]
] -The fact than we will be getting software from many sources and in
] addition the fact than the RPM world is presently split between glibc
] and libc5 will lead us to rebuild the RPMS ourselves. It will be
] necessary to define the development environment in great detail: you
] don't get the same GIMP if you have or lack the mpeg libraries.
]
] -RPM is not as good as DPKG. Its front end GLINT is nice but
] underpowered and dangerous. Fortunately the dangerousness can be
] fixed in a few minutes work (I did it) and there are some easy fixes
] to make GLINT better.
]
] -Redhat will not help us. However note than we don't need much work
] to issue something significantly better than RedHat: less than a month
] work by 4 or 5 volunteers. Also notice than RPM world is not limited
] to RedHat.
]
] -We were supposed to go the Redhat way then Omega told it was Debian,
] despite the preceeding policies being not official if we change again
] our credibilty will plummet.
]
]
] Conclusions:
]
] So if we get _real_ help both in quantity and quality then Debian is
] perhaps the best way but if we are forced to rely on our own forces my
] feel is than we will pay a high price for not trying to start from a
] distribution nearer to our goal.
]
] Notice than Bruce Perens was very evasive about Debian help and than
] the Debian people will have to learn how to think in end users.
]
] All the project is stacked in the question of Debian help and I fear
] what will happen if it does not come or it is weak or unadequate.
]
] In fact perhaps the real interest in cooperating with Debian is
] bringing some SEUL spirit to it. I find bad enough for Linux having
] one all-hacker distribution (Slackware) without having a second
] (Debian) not caring about end users and beginners. But that means
] than we shall be the givers not the takers of help and don't forget
] that for making a user-friendly Debian there is already LaetOS.
]
] Going Debian forces us to a cathedral model of development because
] Debian requires extensive changes before we can release something
] credible from a user friendliness view point (ie everibody will laugh
] if SEUL 0.0.0 is harder than usual distribs). The problem about
] cathedrals is than 50 years after beginning construction you are still
] getting wet. This project has been created in may 97 and nine months
] later we are still at the same point. I do not think we can allow us
] to spend another year.
]
] The model who works in free software world is the bazar model: alight
] enthousiasm by issuing something credible asap and then make
] continuous changes to it. That means than our starting point must be
] the distrib the nearest to our goal we can put our hands on.
]
] Hurd used cathedral, Linux used bazar. Where are they now?
]
] --
] Jean Francois Martinez
]
] ==================== The Linux. Use the Linux, Luke! =======================
]
] ===
] SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
] ===
********************************************************************
FISH-ECOLOGY: the largest worldwide e-conference on fish research.
Strictly academic. Reach >2400 scientists in over 60 countries.
Info/queries & feed-back to: <FISH-ECOLOGY-REQUEST@HELIOS.ULPGC.ES>.
********************************************************************
Simple End User Linux (SEUL) Project: www.seul.org - Welcome to the
SEUL Expert Group (SEG). A distributed high tech endevour.
********************************************************************
----
Aldo-Pier Solari <SolariS@CICEI.ULPGC.ES>, Fish.Res.Gr./ULP
Home-page: http://www.ulpgc.es/usuarios/solaris/index.html
PGPKey ID: 0xFDD1FD36 -- IWillNotFailThoseWithWhomIServe
----
===
SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
===