[ale] Distro Reply

[Jeff Hubbs]

I guess what bothers me about the attitude described here (not saying
that Jerald holds it) is that I had thought that part of the whole point
of using Linux and FOSS in general is that you *weren't* dependent on a
single source or *any* source of conditional support - the idea being
that you as an IT implementor/integrator had inviolate say over how your
software behaved.  This "viable, supported alternative" talk sounds like
nothing so much as wanting the ball and chain back.

I *know* what it's like to be stuck in a certain kind of closed-source
hell where you can't get your app fixed or your peripheral to behave
properly for love *or* money, and I also know what it's like for paid
support reps to turn their nose up at you because the way in which you
needed to adapt their product to your needs was, in their eyes,
"unsupported."  There's nothing about the OS in question being Linux
that keeps implementors out of that wasteland.  

Jeff

On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 17:26, Jerald Sheets wrote:
> Again, from a business perspective you'd never sell Debian as a viable,
> supported alternative to the pinhead suits.
> 
> They're getting better, it's just not considered viable on a widespread
> basis yet.
> 
> Jerald M. Sheets jr.
> Sr. UNIX Systems Administrator
> McKesson, Inc.
> (404) 293-8762
> **********
> >su -
> Password:
> # cat /dev/flood > /dev/earth
> # rdev noah+beasts
> # dd if=noah+beasts of=/dev/earth
> 
> PGP Key: 0x6267F183
> 
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GIT d+ s++: a C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E--- W++ N+ o-- K+ w-- 
> O M+ V PS- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R* tv- b+ DI++++ D++ 
> G+ e h---- r+++ y++++ 
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Raylynn
> Knight
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 5:12 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] Distro Reply
> 
> On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 12:41 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> > John P. Healey wrote:
> > > Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <ale at ale.org> writes:
> > > 
> > >>Yeah...  I don't get that either.  The most mature products on the 
> > >>planet are not an option...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > He's probably looking to broaden his horizons and explore packaging 
> > > systems that aren't rpm based.  Also, I fail to see how Debian is 
> > > any less mature than redhat, mandrake, and fedora.
> > 
> > Stable Debian running a 2.2 kernel.  To me, that is not mature, that 
> > is old.  Personal opinion.
> > 
> Stable Debian is 3.0r4 released on 1 January 2005.  Debian supports many
> hardware architectures, some of which only have a 2.2 kernel.  Debian 3.0
> was originally released 19 July 2002 so the default install kernel is a 2.2
> based kernel, however a 2.4 kernel is optional and available on
> x86 hardware at boot time.
> 
>  
> --
> Raylynn Knight <audilover at speedfactory.net>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
>