[nSLUG] Jigdo File
rmgolbeck at debian.org
Wed Mar 5 16:46:37 AST 2003
> Commercial software development has been around for a long time and
> has established traditions for what version numbers mean.
> The way Linux has developed a system with odd and even point kernel versions
> is a cool enhancement on these traditions. Putting out software
> with versions *far* less than 1.0 and saying it is "useful" or maybe
> even robust, but please check the mailing lists, bugzilla, and google
> and everyone you know first, is not a practical expectation.
Commercial software (and Free Software) have both been out a long time,
and neither of them have established traditions for what version numbers
mean. Some companies seem to just suddely release software 4 versions
ahead of their last release and some name them by year. Neither of the
conventions tells you how useful the software is, only the order in
which it has been released.
Why isn't in a pracictal expectation? Some software is useful and buggy
and the best way to fix that may be to release it so that people can
help you out and give feedback. Are you arguing that that shouldn't be
done? Or the author should not call it useful?
(And to note, Linux was used before version 1.0, it was useful
> > > "We" is the entire community of open source software users. If the
> > > users don't exist, the developers might as well be playing Starcraft.
> > So you are now a spokesperson for the entire community of open source
> > software users? I'm sure you have some good ideas about what users need,
> Why not? You are a spokesperson for Debian developers are you not?
> It doesn't really matter. We can pretend, just like the people
> on TV pretend that popular opinions matter.
Just because Ben is a debian developer does not make him a spokesman for
Debian Developers. No one person is a spokesmen for 'our' community.
The community is much to broad for that and its very bothersome when
someone claims that they know what is best for the entire community.
I don't understand the comment about pretending. Are you claiming that
you are expressing popular opinion?
(Note also, from two posts back that this 'community' started with only
developers, the users came afterward. So I disagree that if the users
don't exist there would be nothing. Of course you can meld the two
> If Debian developers are concerned with adoption in business
> contexts, these points should matter to people like you.
I don't think this is a primary concern for most of us. Our social
contract says that we are just trying to make the best operating system,
for our users, as we can. And we each do that in our own way.
> Installation of the OS is something every system has to go through.
> If that fails, everything else that people put time and energy into
> is moot. I can understand the problems with bandwidth costs, but
> it seems strange that (a) in the end the same number of bytes are
> going to be needed no matter how you slice and dice them, and (b) other
> places just use mirrors, not special servers to deal with the problem
> of distributing the download traffic.
My network installations usually cost me about 300 meg of bandwidth.
That is half the size of one ISO. In the end the same number of bytes
are not needed, because when you download full ISOs, you are downloading
things you will not use.
There is a reason that there are not a lot of Debian mirrors and a whole
bunch of package mirrors (the type that you can use with jigdo), but that
reason is explained on the cdimage website so I will not repeat it here.
> I am running jigdo in the background at this moment and it seems
> to be better behaved with another mirror. Sunsite at Ualberta
> must have a botched server or something. I thought I
> tried other servers when I experienced the failure before but
> it has been awhile now.
Perhaps it was the choice of servers that caused the originally failure.
More information about the nSLUG