Very good points. Like I originally mentioned, the target audiance is *desktop* users. We all know, based on the success of derivatives like Ubuntu, that nwer technology is more important than statbility. This is one of the great things about Debian (and Linux in general). You have *choice*. If I need a stable server, I can install Etch. If I want a more bleeding edge desktop, I can install Lenny or Sid.
As great as Etch is, it would be killed by Ubuntu in a *desktop* match. This is why we use Lenny and Sid. Plus we get a killer "rolling distribution" where we don't need to run questionable "dist-upgrade" or a complete wipe/re-install every 6 months. You just install the updates as they come and you maintain a much more stable updating mechanism than you do with Ubuntu. This was actually one of our primary decision points on what core to use. At this point, I don't really care about the name any more. We have some ideas on what we can use to keep the cover of our Debian core as transparent as possible. We were really just curious on what the implications would be with using "debi" somewhere in the name. Didn't mean to start a big argument. Will On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 19:45]: > > Umh... I know this will sound quite boring to you - But I (and I > > guess, many of the Debian people) do not like the idea of presenting > > testing/unstable snapshots as something ready for the end-user to > > install. Hey, if they want unstable software, why not try > > Ubuntu?</joke> > > i dont think that is a reasonable approach. if "testing" quality > is good enough and useful to people why would you hide away that > it is debian under the hood by rebranding it? Why deny debian a > good marketing opportunity where "debian" or "debi" can be found > in other places then the debian/control file? > > I am in favour of using debian prominently for products derived > from debian. the knoppix, xandros and ubunut effect should not > become the rule but rather the exception. > > > I understand you have your own motivations, and I know our testing is > > more workable and more stable than many official distributions... But > > anyway, Debian releases _are_ stable, and presenting Debiwhatever as a > > testing snapshot won't do much good to Debian's reputation - known for > > being anal about stability. > > I dont agree here. there is a distribution "testing", we make it > available, it is from debian. So if people want to use it, let > them and make it easy for them. it is their risk and they are > grown up. It provides a lot of value, too: You get the most up to > date software at an unparallelt stability, all the time, at no > monatary cost. In my oppinion we should stop telling people NOT > to use it but do the opposite. whoever needs a cutting edge > distribution and loves upgrading real frequently is destined for > testing in my oppinion. here upgrading works, even! > > There is a psychological problem in recommending a distro called > "testing" as it implies lower quality, though. I would suggest to call it > something fun and inspiring like "perpetual-upgrade" or so. > > /andreas >
