le dim 24-02-2002 � 06:43, Timothy R. Butler a �crit :
 
>   Well, that's exactly my point. If you look at the way Mandrake is going 
> with things like urpmi and the recent adoption of the Debian menu system, it 
> looks like the Mandrake developers like the ideas of Debian and are working 
> to mimick them. Rather than mimick them, why not use the original? Then the 
> Mandrake developers could concentrate on things like adding new control panel 
> applets, working on various open source projects, and so forth.

1�/ mdk aims to be ... reh hat compatible. they took ideas from debian
because they were interesting.
Most commercial apps and commercials offers are for ... Red hat ( did
you see deb packages on nvidia site for their drivers ? )
debian does not have great commercial support contrary to Red Hat

2�/ another pb is debian development cycle. mdk is a distro that aims to
provide cutting edge packages. So if they want to do the same thing with
debian, they will have to rely on testing ( or maybe unstable ) what's
is not a very good thing. However cooker is a mix of unstable/testing
philosophy but msksoft control the progress. If they rely on debian at a
moment they will have to fork before releasing the distro and after come
back. This mean work to backport patchs and other things from this
branch to the common one

3�/ Will debian users/developers will be agree ?

> > The only complaint I have is the whole statically linked vs. dynamically
> > linked RPM debate.  And before the list tries to tell me why dynamically
> [...]
> > steps, download and install.  Simple.  In my opinion, this is the single
> > biggest factor that is slowing Linux uptake on the desktop.  Momma bear
> > can even install statically linked RPM's.
> 
>   Well, tell me the benefit of using statically linked RPM's are better to 
> the average user that won't download an application for a long time? 
> Virtually none. With KDE being as slow as it is with prelink problems, I 
> don't think it's a good idea to try to slow it down more. Also, if a new QT 
> comes out - for example - you must recompile statically linked apps to take 
> advantage of it...
>   If you are having dependancy problems - then please reconsider my Debian 
> argument.
> 
>   The most important thing isn't how many packages it takes to install 
> something, but how hard it is to install. If I download "superdupertool" and 
> it needs "foobarlib" I should be able to get that (in theory) automatically 
> with tools such as urpmi or apt-get. Rather than simplify in a way that 
> lowers efficiency, why not improve the tools so it can be done The Right 
> Way(tm)?

true. the argument : HD are cheap, memory is cheap are bad. why ?
Microsoft use the same, and the same for win dev.
For example I will have to install workstation with a GUI closed to the
win one. My only solution : KDE. But it's too slow ( KDE 2 ). I have to
wait and just hope that for september I will have KDE 3 packages. why ?
you say : linux. people think : less ressource so no need to upgrade
their computer and so use their 500Mhz with 64/128Mo RAM as usual. you
put KDE 2 : damn slow ! Gnome ? bugs, bugs, bugs ! gtk is bad. a file
selecftor that delect the name of the file when you whange folder !
crazy thing. I can't believe this will be fixed only with gnome 2 !
Anoter point : you can't greyed entry field. EVEN WITH MOTIF I CAN DO
THAT ! So am I going to propose gnome ? no. gnome 2 maybe but not gnome
1.x
So I have to wait and I don't really know how I will manage to cope with
this ...
 
> > Before the list flames me and says I don't know what I'm talking about,
> > trust me, I do.  I know computers and can happily solve dependency
> > problems all day but why praytell MUST I if I don't want to??  How
> > difficult is it really to release 2 versions of an RPM??  Now that would
> > offer Mandrake users REAL choice.

instead of 2/3 Cd you will have 4/6 CD. In fact 5/7CD because the rpm
will be bigger. imagine KDE statically link to QT and all others libs (
ogg, cups, ... ) 
 
>   Maybe about 5 GB worth? Why release five gigs worth of additional 
> everything-is-static packages? And, who, but the tech savvy people that have 
> some kind of preference for static packages would pick that option anyway?

-- 
http://linux-wizard.tuxfamily.org/index.html 
-
I'm not afraid of death -- I just don't want to be there when it
happens.
                -- Woody Allen


Reply via email to