Submitted by jay (not verified) on Sun, 2008/05/18 - 14:17.
:)
recently heard a radio interview from the linux.conf.au conference on ( melbourne, australia ) radio three triple r ( www.rrr.org.au ), and an interesting discussion with one of the main debian maintainers, martin shaw ( or was it martin short ? )
havent been able to track the podcast down, i think they run a couple of days behind the broadcast, but i'm sure a link will appear soon enough ( it would have been for may 14, 2008 ). try here for starters: http://byteintoit.wordpress.com
anyway, the same proposition was being put forward by this guy, albeit at a much lower level, in terms of common source repository infrastructure, and i presume some nice 'n easy way to pull per-distro build out of such infrastructure.
the interviewee repeated ad-nauseum a desire to 'work with' the redhat/fedora people, but curiously also claimed not to know too much about how they organised things. perhaps he tries to 'clean room' as much as possible? dunno. anyway, aside from my conclusion that it was all a pipe dream, he did come across as very balanced ( avoid flame wars, etc ), and articulate. clearly had been smoking crack, but presented the idea well enough :)
the notion that mr. shuttleworth seems to want to run with of 'linux version 2009' will comprise the same basic core components, wired up the way a particular distro wants to do it is of course the logical end result.
and on this front, i completely agree with the devil ^h^h^h dag here - just far too impractical, and points more toward canonical coming to terms with just what is involved in providing stable, long term support for enterprise customers.
and yeah, all up it really does sound to me like canonical has realised they have hitched their wagon to the wrong horse - debian runs a fine distro if you know what you're doing, but redhat rules the enterprise roost for good reason .
( full disclosure, i run fedora on desktop, centos on dozens of my company machines, and recommend redhat to our customers for support, stability, and ease of management )
ubuntu wishing they used rpms?
:)
recently heard a radio interview from the linux.conf.au conference on ( melbourne, australia ) radio three triple r ( www.rrr.org.au ), and an interesting discussion with one of the main debian maintainers, martin shaw ( or was it martin short ? )
havent been able to track the podcast down, i think they run a couple of days behind the broadcast, but i'm sure a link will appear soon enough ( it would have been for may 14, 2008 ). try here for starters: http://byteintoit.wordpress.com
anyway, the same proposition was being put forward by this guy, albeit at a much lower level, in terms of common source repository infrastructure, and i presume some nice 'n easy way to pull per-distro build out of such infrastructure.
the interviewee repeated ad-nauseum a desire to 'work with' the redhat/fedora people, but curiously also claimed not to know too much about how they organised things. perhaps he tries to 'clean room' as much as possible? dunno. anyway, aside from my conclusion that it was all a pipe dream, he did come across as very balanced ( avoid flame wars, etc ), and articulate. clearly had been smoking crack, but presented the idea well enough :)
the notion that mr. shuttleworth seems to want to run with of 'linux version 2009' will comprise the same basic core components, wired up the way a particular distro wants to do it is of course the logical end result.
and on this front, i completely agree with the devil ^h^h^h dag here - just far too impractical, and points more toward canonical coming to terms with just what is involved in providing stable, long term support for enterprise customers.
and yeah, all up it really does sound to me like canonical has realised they have hitched their wagon to the wrong horse - debian runs a fine distro if you know what you're doing, but redhat rules the enterprise roost for good reason .
( full disclosure, i run fedora on desktop, centos on dozens of my company machines, and recommend redhat to our customers for support, stability, and ease of management )