| 1 |
Patrick Lauer posted <1136238763.23404.171.camel@localhost>, excerpted |
| 2 |
below, on Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:52:43 +0100: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 5 |
>> When I say "we have a niche we're perfect at", |
| 6 |
>> I'm mainly referring to the source-based nature of our OS. There isn't |
| 7 |
>> another distro out there that does it as well as us and we should |
| 8 |
>> improve on that fact. Let the other distros get better at being |
| 9 |
>> binary-based. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Why would one prevent the other from happening? |
| 12 |
> Maybe someone finds an elegant way for "Binary Gentoo" ... should we |
| 13 |
> stop that person because it conflicts with a weird mission statement? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I believe that's where the differing opinions begin to come in. Here's |
| 16 |
mine. I don't believe that Gentoo, /as/ /Gentoo/, will ever be very |
| 17 |
successful as an Enterprise distribution, and I don't think that it can |
| 18 |
every be very successful as a binary distribution, either. The things |
| 19 |
that make us, that is Gentoo, unique, and the best in our area, by |
| 20 |
definition are the /same/ sort of things that make a relatively poor |
| 21 |
enterprise or binary distribution. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm all for a /separate/ enterprise effort based on Gentoo, and likewise, |
| 24 |
all for a /separate/ binary targeted distribution based on Gentoo. |
| 25 |
However, the goals are sufficiently different that I don't believe either |
| 26 |
one will work well /as/ Gentoo, or, in the event that it /does/ work well, |
| 27 |
it will change Gentoo into that image, and Gentoo won't continue to fit |
| 28 |
the current niche, a relatively fresh "source based" distribution for |
| 29 |
those who aren't afraid to take responsibility for managing their systems, |
| 30 |
as well as it does. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
What I expect will happen if we try, is that we won't be the sort of best |
| 33 |
of genre solution in those other areas, that makes Gentoo what it is today |
| 34 |
within its own "admin's source based distribution". At the same time, |
| 35 |
splitting our efforts in that direction will end up weakening the Gentoo |
| 36 |
we all know and love. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Rather, I'd prefer an independent distribution, Gentoo based is great, |
| 39 |
some devs doing both is great, to do the enterprise stuff. Same with the |
| 40 |
binary. There are of course already several smaller Gentoo based |
| 41 |
mini-distributions, and I think that's the way to go. Doing it that way |
| 42 |
will prevent fuzzing up our image and our drive, allowing us to continue |
| 43 |
to be the best at what we are good at, while others get to focus on the |
| 44 |
stuff they can be good at. Some devs will naturally be attracted to one |
| 45 |
or the other -- not a problem. Others will find they can spend time on |
| 46 |
both (or all three) projects and drive up personal productivity, much as |
| 47 |
Greg KH seems to thrive on all his projects, managing to be more |
| 48 |
productive on all of them than many devoting all their time to the |
| 49 |
project. Again, that shouldn't be a problem, for those that can |
| 50 |
effectively handle it, and for those that can't, well, it's a volunteer |
| 51 |
situation, and as such, a natural solution tends to appear. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 55 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 56 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 57 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives