I think we should use Daniel's forked version because we know it is a tried and tested solution.
The timing of entire events is probably wrong, Debian management guys should have waited for next version release before making drastic changes. sent from Google Nexus device On Nov 13, 2015 5:01 PM, "Nick Bailey" <[email protected]> wrote: > I whole-heartedly agree with Michael. > > It all gives the impression that there is an emerging bourgeoisie who would > rather obstruct something than not control it. This concerns me, as a > righteous proletarian. I thought FOSS was all about working code, and > permitting other people to build on that code. > > I only used debian-live once, and it worked perfectly for the purpose I > needed. It's a shame when working code disappears to be replaced by an > officially improved, unreliable, little-tested alternative. > > I do hope this isn't symptomatic of the end of a golden age. > > > On Friday 13 November 2015 11:05:05 Michael . wrote: > > > Daniel, since this rukus blew up and your announcement I have been > considering > my involvement with Debian (I have even install Devuan to see if that would > suit my purposes). I don't have anything to add to my previous comments > apart > from I hope you create a Debian Live repository or PPA and let us know > where > it is located. Debian Live is to good a project (and tool) to just let die. > Many people, apart from myself, rely on Debian Live (to create our own > purpose > specific distros, which is something you know already) and its demise will > create many problems downstream (which is obviously something the "other" > team > chose to ignore when they started this mess). I don't want to pressure you > into anything, even though the crux of this email is to highlight the > problems > that will occur downstream, I just want to let you know that Debian Live > does > have a loyal following of people who do use it for reasons that are to help > others even further downstream. > > > Regards > > > Michael. > > > > > > > >
