Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debian Core Consortium Releases First Code

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the more-than-just-words dept.

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."

8 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Department of Redundancy Department? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is the actual difference between "Debian Common Core" and "Debian" (since Dv3.1)? Is DCC just an organization that certifies that (its own) Debian-based distros are actually both Debian-based, and comply with "Linux Standards Base" specs? Does Debian v3.1 itself not pass that test?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  2. Re:I like the debian logo by aurelien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (slightly edited)

    http://www.splorp.com/critique/

    Spirals all come from Ubu Roi's dread Gidouille :

    http://expositions.bnf.fr/utopie/pistes/grand/gido uille.htm

    --
    aurelien
  3. Conflict brings about the biggest changes. by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Conflict often brings about the biggest changes, and conflict between OS developers is nothing new.

    Take OpenBSD. Had it not been for Theo quarreling with the NetBSD elite, then we would not have the ultrasecure system that we have today.

    And of course there's the revolutionary DragonflyBSD. If Matt had not been ostracized by the FreeBSD team, then we wouldn't have what will most likely become the premiere workstation BSD in the near future.

    Then there's the whole CTSS/ITS/Multics debacle of yesteryear.

    While not an operating system in itself, the whole XFree86/Xorg licensing incident has proved to be one of the greatest influences on UNIX GUI development in the past 20 years.

    I believe that conflict is essential for open source projects. For if it were not for conflict, we would not have such great products as OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and Xorg. I, for one, support this sort of conflict. It often leads to increased productivity in the long run.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Conflict brings about the biggest changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Conflict serving as a catalyst for people to break away from current mode/model/whatever, and do what they think is right is a Good Thing, in my opinion.

      That said, continual pissing matches/flame wars accomplish nothing. The examples given are pretty much people getting tired of the bs, and wandering off to do their own thing, not sticking around and rolling in the mud.

      Aside from that, the examples you give to back up "conflict is a good thing for FOSS" is a bit daft; people broke away to work on the code since they weren't getting anywhere with the existing project (xorg's fork wasn't strictly this, but it was a long standing issue with xf86).

  4. Re:why the spoof site? by mjg59 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A few things:

    1. The use of the Debian trademark without permission, and the laughable claim that calling it "DCC" where "DCC stands for Debian Common Core" avoids infringement (rather than, say, getting involved in discussion and not using the Debian name until it's resolved)
    2. "Will the DCC "fork" the Debian project?

      No."

      Except it will. It won't be a big fork. The only packages of any consequence that aren't identical to the Debian ones are X and the kernel. But it's still a fork. Denying that merely panders to the idea that forking is somehow inherently bad, rather than being an entirely natural process in free software development.

    3. Because the idea amused me.
  5. disappointing by kwoff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was expecting a "spoof site poking fun" to be, you know, funny.

  6. Re:Standards are a good thing by Donny+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which is the precise reason why they are different - everyone wants to be the leader.

    That's why on the one side we have these DCC guys (at the moment underdogs, of course) trying to pool resources and, on the other side, the big shots (RH, Novell, Ubuntu) trying to be as different as possible.

  7. Re:why the spoof site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DCC is not a Debian project. It should not use the Debian name.

    The DCC Alliance FAQ claims that the official name is 'DCC', and that doesn't infringe on the 'Debian' trademark. But they also claim that 'DCC' is an abbreviation of 'Debian Common Core', so they ARE using the Debian name.

    The very existence of a FAQ trying to explain away the name and trademark confusion between the Debian Project and the DCC Alliance proves that they've picked the wrong name.

    The DCC Alliance claims that they aren't forking Debian. They also claim that they are making Debian LSB compliant. Which is it? If they make changes, then that's a fork. If they aren't making changes, then what is the purpose of DCC?

    The goals are fine. I'd love to see Debian have a more predictable release cycle, for example. But they should either work to make these efforts an offical part of the Debian Project, or admit that they are forking Debian. Forking can be good, but pretending that you aren't forking leads to exactly the package incompatibility issues that the DCC Alliance claims to be addressing.

    The DCC Alliance message is not internally consistent. That needs to be resolved before the PR efforts go into action.