Hello, I read the press articles and Ian's blog looking for the DCC reasoning. I still do not realize WHY should DCC be created. There are some very nice ideas: - predictable releases (18 to 24 months server, 6 to 12 months desktop?) - predictable support for time after release - a Debian base core (kernel, key libraries, etc) - componentized and "isolated building blocks" sw (gnome, kde, X, apache, etc) - services around the core.
The first four ones are really good ideas that should be evaluated INSIDE Debian project. The last one is a good commercial move, outside Debian, but lacks something like its social contract, or a not-a-company entity to organize it. So, I still think that UserLinux has a better manifesto. UserLinux does not try to spin off another distro, rocketing devel / maintenance costs. Instead UserLinux simply chose some packages to support. The other problems should be addressed at Debian, the pillar of all these distros. Something may have escaped to me at these press texts and blog, but the question is still alive: WHY should DCC be created instead of Debian solving its problems? Why Progeny will return to the costly distro business instead of participating in Debian and UserLinux? Is DCC only good for business? Is UserLinux good for business AND Debian? Is there something that Debian project could not accomplish? Why UserLinux is not a good commercial approach to Progeny and the other distros grouping in DCC? As Debian is a meritocracy, the decisions are usually slow to converge, but clever and solid. Please, explain these issues. Many thanks. Andre Felipe Machado http://www.techforce.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
