> 1?/ mdk aims to be ... reh hat compatible.
Althought they are diverging from that goal in recent years. Most RedHat
apps still work on Mandrake, but most RedHat apps also work in Debian (yup,
you heard correctly).
>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
True. However, that is simply because no one has taken to the task of
supporting Debian yet. There is always the need for somebody to be the first
to take the plunge and move to something new and different.
> 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
I'm not suggesting keeping it integrated with Debian. Just like the
current MDK development platform is a fork from an old version of RedHat,
Mandrake Debian could fork Debian "unstable" or "woody," and then never
return. IMO, Mandrake would then be able to take apt-get and use it to it's
advantage. Cooker would be just like unstable in Debian, and then users could
also choose stable (i.e. MDK 8.1) or unstable (i.e. MDK 8.2 Beta).
If Mandrake didn't purposely change the way the system worked too much,
things like dpkg and apt-get upgrades could be easily integrated into the
forked system, much like new versions of RPM are integrated into MDK today.
> 3?/ Will debian users/developers will be agree ?
I dunno. I think they were fine with Corel, Progeny, and Stormix. I see no
reason why they wouldn't be okay with Mandrake using Debian as a basis.
> true. the argument : HD are cheap, memory is cheap are bad. why ?
> Microsoft use the same, and the same for win dev.
Right. The thing is static RPM's are just an easy way out. The better way
is a package system that easily resolves depenencies - and thus eliminates
the need for static packages. The last thing we need is to slow Linux down
with 10 copies of Motif and QT running at the same time.
-Tim
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info
Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com
Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz
============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ==============
