[Kooler] Choice (was: Why Can't They Ever Make KDE...)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Neil Schneider wrote:
> 
> John H. Robinson, IV said:
> > Brian Deacon wrote:
> >>
> >> I was blog surfing and ran into this from Miguel de Icaza, which makes
> >> some good points.  (Careful, though, he doesn't spell Microsoft with a
> >> $, and he even makes a backhanded slap at Debian.)
> >>
> >> http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel//texts/linux-developers.html
> >
> > i quote from the above:
> >
> > = I used to think that the worst offender in breaking working
> > = applications was Debian. Considering that the commercial distributions
> > = at least did an effort to make stable releases of their products, as
> > = opposed to the continuum of updates that Debian is. Supporting Debian
> > = as an ISV is just too hard: there is no way to release software that
> > = will be usable a few months down the line, and there its too easy for
> > = a Debian user to accidentally move from `stable' to their `bleeding
> > = edge' setups.  But to these outsiders, Debian is not even on their
> > = radar: the support offered by the commercial Linux distributions is
> > = flaky compared to what they are used to from the Unix world and
> > = Windows.
> >
> > i laughed. i stopped reading.
> 
> Can't handle the truth?
> :)

let's see - 

lie #0: 
``Considering that the commercial distributions at least did an
effort to make stable releases of their products, as opposed to the
continuum of updates that Debian is.''

when talking about a released version of Debian[1], security updates are
painstakingly backported to the exact version as released. only rarely
is this not the case. this is done to ensure that your Debian system
will still act and be configured the same way after any updates.

  [1] since the author used the word released, and testing/unstable is
  not a released version we can skip it entirely

back when RedHat had its Rawhide release, were any ISV's writing towards
it? probably not. why not? it was not released, that is why not. if they
were working withit, it was to be ready when the next RedHat was
released (i'm guessing here, as i have not actually spoken to any
ISV's). i am unsure of Mandrake or SuSE has a similar program.

make even comparisons, or be laughed at.

lie #1:
``Supporting Debian as an ISV is just too hard: there is no way to
release software that will be usable a few months down the line''

how long has Debian 3.0 been out? over a year now. so if by a
few, he meant a dozen, then his argument might be true.

how long was Debian 2.2 out before that? over 18 months.

everyone knows that Debian has galaciarly long release cycles. to imply
otherwise is laughable.

lie #2: 
``and there its too easy for a Debian user to accidentally move from
`stable' to their `bleeding edge' setups.''

unless you consider opening up /etc/apt/sources.list, either
changing ``stable'' or ``woody'' to ``testing'', ``sarge'',
``unstable'', or ``sid'' or adding the approproate line, then doing the
apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade to be particularly too easy.

this is not ``click this deceptively labled box, then click this
button'' easy. that would be too easy. what i described above, while not
hard (it is not hard) it is also not too easy. sure, someone can
mistakenly do it. but it is still a deliberate act.

i guess the author realised his errors, since he ``used to think that
the worst offender in breaking working applications was Debian.''
apparently, he learned that Debian is one of the better ones.

so - i can handle the truth. but i'm waiting to see it from that
article. i stopped reading after three blatant lies in two sentences.

-john