[Sussex] Searching for a distro....

[Matthew Macdonald-Wallace]

Quoting Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org>:

> Hi Matt

Ah-ha! Mr "use-Debian" Dobson! :oP

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 2) A distro that has good package management (portage/apt etc)
>
> Does this mean that you consider RPM packaging to not meet your own
> quality requirement?

No, I'm just not too familiar to it.  If people can whole-hartedly  
recommend it, I'll use it, however I've heard that it isn't quite as  
intuitive as apt/portage.  My experience with YAST2 however has put me  
off SuSE for life!

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 5) A distro that has a huge amount of software available for it (this is
>> probably a repeat of 2!)
>
> I think not.  Both Ford and Morgan build cars, Ford have more models and
> produce more cars.  Morgan had craft each one.  Which provide the better
> quality?

Above, Morgan, obviously! :oP  Package wise, I guess that was perhaps  
not phrased as well as it could have been.  I've used a few distros  
over the years that have met many of my "wants" but then I go to  
install something from the packages and it's not there!  This may have  
changed over the last few months, however having most things available  
to me is very important.

<snip>

> 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!).

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.

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

Matt (currently using Debian at work, liking it, but not loving it!)
-- 
Matthew Macdonald-Wallace
matthew at truthisfreedom.org.uk
GPG KEY: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFEA1BC16