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."

Comments

Spoof mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the real site, the spoof is what's important: http://www.dccalliance.biz.nyud.net:8090/

link

[Anonymous Coward]

The story includes a link to the spoof website but not to the actual one. Great reporting.

The address is http://www.dccalliance.org/ btw.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department?

[LiquidCoooled]

I believe the full Debian distribution and the DCC are 2 complimentary items.

From the DCC website:

What is the "DCC" of the DCC Alliance?

The DCC is not a Linux distribution; it is a "base" Debian system composed of essential programs or "packages" from Debian GNU/Linux, combined with member additions to attain LSB certification and achieve broad commercial acceptance and support.

It appears as thought this is the low level never changing set (just up from the kernel), and is similar to a bare Windows release, ie you have to add your own applications.

why the spoof site?

[digitalderbs]

The DCC seems like a good idea to me. From an earlier progeny news article, the DCC mandate is :

• Assemble a 100% Debian common core that addresses the needs of enterprise business users
• Maintain certification of the common core with the Free Standards Group open specification, the Linux Standard Base
• Use the Alliance's combined strength to accelerate the commercial adoption of Debian
• Work with the Debian project to ensure predictable release cycles and features important to commercial adoption

This seems very reasonable to me. There's something I'm missing -- Why the resistance and the spoof site?

Re:why the spoof site?

[mjg59]

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.

Conflict brings about the biggest changes.

[CyricZ]

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.