[Sussex] Searching for a distro....

[Steve Dobson]

Matt


On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 10:30 +0000, Matthew Macdonald-Wallace wrote:
> Quoting Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org>:
> >> Here's my wishlist:
> >>
> >> 1) A distribution that has no "free vs. libre vs. open" zealotry
> >>    attached to it
> >
> > Don't all distributions that include GPLed software have some form of
> > "free vs. libre vs. open" zealotry at some level?  In fact about the
> > only distro that doesn't have that kind of zealotry associated with it
> > is OS-X.  I'd even rule out Windows because their zealotry is against
> > free/libre software (although they do seem to like open now that they
> > want you to use a WAMP stack).
> 
> I guess so, I just tire very quickly of asking a question on a mailing  
> list or support forum only to have people try and convert me to using  
> completely free software that works as a program but doesn't solve my  
> issue of needing to play proprietary formats.

I assume that those same forums are free and open forums.  The FLOSS
support forum model is very different from the proprietary help-desk
model.  One is *paid* to be nice to you.  One is told that "the customer
is always right".  One is giving up his personal time to help you at his
own expense - the payment is here is that he may wish to rant at you.

> > On the other hand Debian, while vocal about the subject, does give you
> > the choice by separating non-free from free (by their definition).  That
> > isn't "undue or excessive zeal" in  my opinion.
> 
> No, the core debian team (and a large number of debian users) seem to  
> be moderates when it comes to these kind of things and accept that  
> some people want to play these formats. Unfortunately the forums and  
> mailing lists appear to be inhabited by trolls looking to tell me that  
> I'm wrong to want to watch News24 online.

No matter how vocal the "Free Debian Only" voice is it has never got a
majority under the Debian Constitution to effect the change, so they
remain a minority.  See above on their right to rant at you if *you*
choose to frequent the same forums that they frequent.

> >> 3) A distro that is highly customisable (a la gentoo) yet does not have
> >> huge build-times (??based on binaries??)
> >
> > What customisation does gentoo offer that Debian does not?  I don't know
> > of any packages/apps/programs that do don't have some kind of
> > configuration file that is customisable separate from the binary (kernel
> > not included).  Debian go to the effort of compiling all their packages
> > so that somewhere in /etc is the default config file.  That doesn't make
> > the package more or less configurable, just easier to find and configure
> > it.
> 
> Ah, I'm thinking about the _distro_ here, not necessarily packages. A  
> base install of Gentoo gives you a command prompt and a shell.  From  
> here, you can install or remove as much as you want.  I'm also talking  
> about the ability to specify that packages only install the parts of  
> them that you want to use.  This reduces the risk of security exploits  
> (I know of several people over the years who have been exposed to the  
> world via an exploit based on something that had been compiled into  
> the core of apache when it should have been a module and disabled!) as  
> well as reducing (and I know we're talking nano-seconds here) the CPU  
> time that software uses.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

A base install of Debian give you much the same.  A number of the key
packages in Debian do come in different compiled configurations.  Exim4
for example there is a light and heavy version depending whether you
don't want or want MySQL, PostgreSQL, embedded Perl etc.  Of course
there maybe time when this hasn't been done when you think it should
have.  But what distro can meet every users wish?

> >> 4) A distro that use SysV init, _NOT_ upstart
> >
> > Debian offers both and defaults to SysV.
> 
> Fair enough, however I believe that the next version of Debian will  
> switch to upstart - not sure if this is true or not.

Debian will almost certainly switch to upstart, when I couldn't say.
There are problems with SysV init scripts that upstart addresses.  I
agree with you that upstart's documentation isn't there yet, but when
that and other issues are sorted I see most (of not all) the major
distros switching to it.  

> > I'm always amazed at this kind of statement.  Not requiring freedom to
> > me means that you will accept tyranny.  Why would anyone want to have
> > someone else dictate what they can and cannot do?
> 
> And here's the thing.  When it comes to what I do in my personal life,  
> I am fiercely pro-democracy and pro-freedom of speech.  I will refuse  
> an ID card if they are ever introduced and have huge issues with some  
> of the "human rights" that this government has abused with various  
> acts (RIPA and Terrorism Act included!).

Glad to here it.

> When it comes to my computer and my work life, I would love everyone  
> to be using Open-Source software without DRM and proprietary formats,  
> however I am also a realist.  People make money from proprietary  
> things, therefore, as long as people want to be sold "boxes" that  
> work, there will be proprietary codecs, software and cars. At work, I  
> need to interchange files with other businesses.  Like it or not, they  
> are mainly windows-based companies and some of them will never switch  
> to Linux (I've been speaking to some windows sysadmins recently who  
> still maintain that Linux is not a proper Server OS and is an  
> "under-developed" operating system!).  This means that I need to be  
> able to exchange files in a format that they understand.  Therefore,  
> in order for me to make money (which is the only reason I am in  
> business) I _must_ be able to read and create content in proprietary  
> formats.  I will campaign for this to change, however if I stop  
> accepting these files, I stop getting business.

Everyone has a different threshold at which point they draw a line in
the sand and say enough is enough.  I'll even defend your right to have
a lower threshold than me.

Back before 2003 I used to think the RMS and the FSF where going to far,
and that Open Source was the better way.  Then SCO came along and
changed my mind.  The GPL forced SCO to u-turn and backpedal in a way
the the BSD license would not.

I heard a politician say once "that every generation must fight for it's
freedom otherwise it will lose it" so something like that.  No freedom
was every lightly won, blood is often shed in obtaining it.  But freedom
can so easily slip thought the fingers if not fought for.

> Good to have a debate with you again sir! :o)

Indeed.

-- 
Steve Dobson

You work very hard. Don't try to think as well.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20080215/78656a52/attachment.pgp