Questions about Ubuntu

[David N. Welton]

Thaddeus H. Black wrote:

> This means discriminating editorially between
> packages.  It means subdividing the vast "optional" archive Priority in
> some meaningful sense.

Not just between, but in packages too.  They need to come out of the box
in the most common and most useful configuration.

> Maybe some year I'll actually find the time to start working on this
> problem.  In the meantime, David, if you mean to start some work on it
> now, I must say, I for one would be heavily inclined to back you.

At this point I'm mostly a satisfied Ubuntu user and am pursuing other
free software stuff in what's left of my free time, <ad>like the Hecl
programming language.</ad> :-)

It's probably more worthwhile, in some ways, trying to make sure Ubuntu
is a good project, than trying to turn Debian into something it's not.
It doesn't have the culture or mechanisms to make difficult choices.
Not to say Debian's way is bad - it's a high quality technical approach
that allows a large number of 'competitors' to live happily together,
which is extremely handy in many cases.  Debian (and Ubuntu) would be
much poorer had the "hard choices" been made from the get-go, and the
alternatives mechanism not been created.

-- 
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/

Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/