Re: Really OT: Shuttleworth tries to deal with Debian

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi, in order to REALLY point out the truth, replace ISV by "proprietary
software publishers".

On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:20:00AM +0500, gilpel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Today, if I'm an upstream developer, say the Mozilla Foundation with
> Firefox, I have to work hard to make sure my application will work with
> multiple Linux distributions since each has slightly different components.

That's just because they want to release their own binary (just like any
proprietary software publisher).

> As an end-user, you don't see this. But, for an ISV (independent software
> vendor), this has always been a real problem. Mozilla has the programmer
> resources to handle the problem, many smaller ISVs don't have that luxury.
> But, large or small, whether an upstream developer is big as Google or
> just a guy with one, small useful program, the more work they have to put
> in to supporting multiple Linux distributions the less they like it.
> 
> So, Shuttleworth wrote a long post to the Debian Project list on the
> virtues of cadence. After laying out the problem I describe above, he
> wrote, "I hear this story all the time from upstreams. "We'd like to help
> distributions, but WHICH distribution should we pick?" That's a very
> difficult proposition for upstreams. They want to help, but they can't.
> And they shouldn't have to pick favorites."

Exactly, they don't want to publish the software as Free Software, as such
they don't "outsource" the necessary adaptations to each distribution's
package mainteners.

But really, if THEY want to publish software which removes your rights,
I have to ask myself a question «why on Earth should I help them hurt me?»

So I don't help them.

> Therefore, Shuttleworth argues, "Adopting a broad pattern of cadence and
> collaboration between many distributions won't be a silver bullet for ALL
> of those problems, but it will go a very long way to simplifying the life
> of both upstreams and distribution maintainers. If upstream knows, for
> example, that MANY distributions will be shipping a particular version of
> their code and supporting it for several years then they are more likely
> to be able to justify doing point releases with security fixes for that
> version... which in turn makes it easier for the security teams and
> maintainers in the distribution." '

This is the only reasonable argument.

Rui

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux