Slashdot Mirror
Debian Core Consortium Releases First Code
daria42 writes "It looks like the Debian Common Core Alliance announced a while ago is going to make good on its promises: the project has released its first code this week. The release consists of a base installation of Debian 3.1 with the Linux Standard Base and security updates attached. But the project also looks like it has attracted some criticism from within the Debian developer community - with a spoof Web site having already been set up to poke fun at the Alliance."
There should be no problem with this as long as they're following the proper licensing for all the code they distribute.
It won't matter anyway to the Debian groups.
Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
Just what we need: some more kids (or grown-ups acting like kids) fighting among themselves. This is all we need to project that trustworthy Linux and open-source image.
let's face it if more Linux Distros worked the same way and had the same layout, plus if all lib,Sources were the same that would help out a lot.
CH
Somewhat on topic is the issue of fragmenting. For a while, if an application or OS didn't do something you like, the common response was:
- Dont like it? Fork it! - Dont like it? Roll your own!
Problem is that it leads to a lot of confusion and fragmentation within the community that confuses the hell out of outsiders.
I think consolidation is a good thing and folks should work together more often rather then just splintering a code base.
(Note, fragmentation CAN be a good thing in the cases like Security Knoppix or RTLinux)
DCC is based on older versions of most packages than those in Ubuntu. Ubuntu can't really be part of DCC.
Sorry to be harsh, but when I started using Debian 3 years back, I wasn't treated well as a 'n00b' even though I had 2 yrs prior Slackware experience, and just felt like the entire project was too splintered. I mean, running on multiple archs is cool and all, but if it pulls down the medium range then what's been gained? The plus of this approach is it was ripe for someone to come along, take what's good (APT-GET!) and create something specialized, which is now Ubuntu Linux. Building on the Debian base was just their beginnning, but it was an ace move.
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
I think that's a very superficial reason.
Nobody's versions match those of DCC (even Debian itself) - if all members felt that way, there would be no DCC.
DCC is a good idea, and so was United Linux, which got screwed up by a member. DCC is not facing such risks, so I think it will prosper.
In any case, DCC is targeted at people and companies sick of dicking around with distro incompatibilities and frequent version updates - a bit different from Ubuntu and Fedora.
the spoof site at http://www.dccalliance.biz.nyud.net:8090/faq.html is pretty slow too, here is my analysis (and a copy of their 'faq':
So somebody is upset about basing the name of a separate organisation on 'Debian' and abbreviate that to a 'D'. Well wanker, I tell you something: you cannot trademark a single letter, or we'd only have about 36 possible companies.
(this seems a rip-off from the 'real' DCC faq entry. see above, no trademarks on single letters.
Aha, a somewhat real-ish bone to pick. Except that creating a patched kernel is not such a big deal. You can find several in testing, does that mean that testing has been forked with every new kernel release? As long as the new kernel is interoperable with the one it replaces you can hardly call that forking.
is DCC necesary?
Debian has grown into a big organisation, and thus also has it's share of people with 'uncommon personalities'. It is all a volunteer effort (and thus?) some people in debian react a little allergic to commerce baseed on Debian, even though the licence allows it. Commercial Debian-based distro's have a vested interest in Debian, so they seek some influence. It can be vey hard to have to argue with every maintainer whose package they have altered to get him to accept the changes(There are 1000's of developers and and at least ten times more packages in Debian). Even with proper conflict resolution it quickly becomes a nightmare, so a lot of distro makers don't feed their changes upstream/to Debian at all.
That is a problem and something that a separate repository can solve. Yes that is in effect a fork, in the same sense that Ubuntu or Knoppix is a fork (not for the silly reason above). If the Debian derived distromakers have their own repository where they can work together changing Debian to their common goals without getting bogged down in Debian rules/games, then that is just great, IMHO.
It is great for the Debian-derived-distro-makers(DDDM?), as it allows them to cooperate and improve Debian while they are at it. It is great because it avoids conflict and bottlenecks. Commercials distro's (can) have a different interest than induvidual Debain developers. With this construction no single Debain developer can obstruct a DDDM. It is great because It will concentrate all enhancements made by DDDM's into one place, so the Debian developers don't need to track all different DDDMs for changes to their packages. And most of all, it will concentrate efforts into coding and cooperating, and that is good for all.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you