Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Debian Core Consortium Releases First Code

CmdrTaco posted about 9 years ago | from the more-than-just-words dept.

Debian 126

daria42 writes "It looks like the Debian Common Core Alliance announced a while ago is going to make good on its promises: the project has released its first code this week. The release consists of a base installation of Debian 3.1 with the Linux Standard Base and security updates attached. But the project also looks like it has attracted some criticism from within the Debian developer community - with a spoof Web site having already been set up to poke fun at the Alliance."

cancel ×

126 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Spoof mirror (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566841)

Screw the real site, the spoof is what's important: http://www.dccalliance.biz.nyud.net:8090/ [nyud.net]

OT but Re:Spoof mirror (0)

Easy2RememberNick (179395) | about 9 years ago | (#13566949)

Bah! I tried ".nyud.net:8090" for the first time and thought I'd be cool for mentioning it here first!

  Anyway, it was my first real test of it. Pretty cool. Even if it didn't work very well.

Re:OT but Re:Spoof mirror (1)

dotpavan (829804) | about 9 years ago | (#13567019)

there is a greasemonkey script which shows Slashdot index page with links as having coral links, mirrirdot links and google cache links next to every link!

Try this url instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567069)

http://www.dccalliance.org.nyud.net:8090/ [nyud.net]

Seems to work when you get the correct URL. Fancy.

Re:Spoof mirror (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | about 9 years ago | (#13567106)

Looks like your cache has been slashdotted too.

frist psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566844)

frist psot 2 electric bugaloo

First Post? (-1, Offtopic)

paulicat (822389) | about 9 years ago | (#13566848)

No way? Is it possible?? Prolly not...

You sir (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566915)

are a twat.

foo! (-1)

SalsaDoom (14830) | about 9 years ago | (#13566934)

Dude, you had the first post. You could have done anything with it. Instead, you just say, "first post, duuh". Pathetic!

With that many people looking over your shit, you could have said just about anything even remotely on-topic and gotten a +5.

But you wasted it, your moment has come and gone now to exist only as a series of 'what ifs' for the rest of your life.

Its sad, really...
--SD

Re:foo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567647)

But you wasted it, your moment has come and gone now to exist only as a series of 'what ifs' for the rest of your life.

Its sad, really...


WTF!! Isn't it more sad that anyone would actually worry about messing up a /. post than the fact that they messed it up?

Slashdotted... (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | about 9 years ago | (#13566857)

...already. Looks like the spoof web site is down.

I like the dreamcast logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566864)


must of taken ages [splorp.com] to think that one up

Re:I like the dreamcast logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567168)

Must HAVE, not must OF. Damn it.

link (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566865)

The story includes a link to the spoof website but not to the actual one. Great reporting.

The address is http://www.dccalliance.org/ [dccalliance.org] btw.

Re:link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567157)

Is it too much to ask that a supposed standards consortium have a web site that follows web standards?

Releasing of the Code.. (3, Insightful)

ShawnX (260531) | about 9 years ago | (#13566879)

There should be no problem with this as long as they're following the proper licensing for all the code they distribute.

It won't matter anyway to the Debian groups.

Re:Releasing of the Code.. (1)

ISayWeOnlyToBePolite (721679) | about 9 years ago | (#13567135)

Well, the name Debian is a registered trademark and they haven't afaik (and I've checked the various debian mailing lists), got an approval to use it (yet).

slashdotted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566882)

The "spoof site" is already slashdotted. God, fuck you slashdot.

Bah... (3, Insightful)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | about 9 years ago | (#13566901)

Just what we need: some more kids (or grown-ups acting like kids) fighting among themselves. This is all we need to project that trustworthy Linux and open-source image.

Re:Bah... (0, Flamebait)

wolf31o2 (778801) | about 9 years ago | (#13567095)

While I do agree with you, this is Debian. Unfortunately, Debian has the reputation of being a bunch of elitist assholes and flaming kids. Not that Gentoo's reputation is any better, but at least people just think we're a bunch of ricers and not likely to flame the hell out of anyone who asks us a question. *grin*

I really hope these kinds of attitudes can change in the future and that some developers (in all camps) can grow the hell up and start acting like adults.

Re:Bah... (1)

joib (70841) | about 9 years ago | (#13567242)

Umm, yeah.

Sometimes I wonder how amazingly better than it already is debian would be if the debian developers would spend even half the time they spend flaming each other, and anyone unlucky enough to set his foot in their mailing lists, on actually improving the software.

Re:Bah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567245)

"Not that Gentoo's reputation is any better, but at least people just think we're a bunch of ricers and not likely to flame the hell out of anyone who asks us a question. *grin*"

Oh shuuuuuttttt up, with your adorableness.

Until a majority agrees with your unfounded bull, shut up.

Conflict brings about the biggest changes. (5, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | about 9 years ago | (#13567221)

Conflict often brings about the biggest changes, and conflict between OS developers is nothing new.

Take OpenBSD. Had it not been for Theo quarreling with the NetBSD elite, then we would not have the ultrasecure system that we have today.

And of course there's the revolutionary DragonflyBSD. If Matt had not been ostracized by the FreeBSD team, then we wouldn't have what will most likely become the premiere workstation BSD in the near future.

Then there's the whole CTSS/ITS/Multics debacle of yesteryear.

While not an operating system in itself, the whole XFree86/Xorg licensing incident has proved to be one of the greatest influences on UNIX GUI development in the past 20 years.

I believe that conflict is essential for open source projects. For if it were not for conflict, we would not have such great products as OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and Xorg. I, for one, support this sort of conflict. It often leads to increased productivity in the long run.

Re:Conflict brings about the biggest changes. (1)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | about 9 years ago | (#13567363)

Well, I do agree that conflict is usually necessary for change, naturally.

However, *childish* conflict such as this (the spoof site and whatnot) only serves to degradate one's own image, and drag their peers down the same way.

I'd see it more as a beneficial incitement. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | about 9 years ago | (#13567422)

Frankly, I think it's excellent for such spoof sites to be created. And hopefully they do incite much hatred, angst and conflict. I want the DCC people to have the urge to, as certain Microsoft executives might say, "fucking destroy" Debian. I want them to have that urge so badly that they put out a far superior product.

Re:Conflict brings about the biggest changes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13568131)

If Matt hadn't been ostracized? Try reading a little history, they didn't just kick him out for the hell of it.

I, for one, wish ignorant people would stop posting long enough to be informed about the subject they're discussing.

Re:Conflict brings about the biggest changes. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13568139)

Conflict serving as a catalyst for people to break away from current mode/model/whatever, and do what they think is right is a Good Thing, in my opinion.

That said, continual pissing matches/flame wars accomplish nothing. The examples given are pretty much people getting tired of the bs, and wandering off to do their own thing, not sticking around and rolling in the mud.

Aside from that, the examples you give to back up "conflict is a good thing for FOSS" is a bit daft; people broke away to work on the code since they weren't getting anywhere with the existing project (xorg's fork wasn't strictly this, but it was a long standing issue with xf86).

Re:Bah... (1)

thedustbustr (848311) | about 9 years ago | (#13567381)

At least they are't suing each other...

Re:Bah... (1)

bigpat (158134) | about 9 years ago | (#13567660)

Much better to have development disagreements settled behind closed doors at the flip of a coin.

Coral Cache (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566930)

I smell a new slashdot meme! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566946)

int main (int argc, char **argv) {
    printf("Fr0st Code!!1!one!eleventyone!");
}

Cool (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566948)

Now UserLinux has died a painful death of disinterest, Bruce Perens has a new toy which he can use to avoid becoming next years recipient of the "Eric S Raymond Memorial Prize for Open Source Irrelevance."

Altogether now:
Will the real Bruce Perens please shut up,
Please shut up
Please shut up

Re:Cool (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566963)

"Eric S. Raymond Memorial Prize"?

Did Eric S. Raymond die or something? I'd heard he'd been sick. Who is going to maintain fetchmail now?

Re:Cool (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567024)

Please note that the correct spelling is "Feltch male". Thank you.

Re:Cool (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 9 years ago | (#13567243)

Mods on crack again.
That's REALLY funny.

Obligatory off-topic link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567303)

Everybody loves Eric Raymond:
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond [geekz.co.uk]

Standards are a good thing (3, Insightful)

Compaq_Hater (911468) | about 9 years ago | (#13566974)

let's face it if more Linux Distros worked the same way and had the same layout, plus if all lib,Sources were the same that would help out a lot.

CH

Re:Standards are a good thing (2, Interesting)

Donny Smith (567043) | about 9 years ago | (#13567302)

Which is the precise reason why they are different - everyone wants to be the leader.

That's why on the one side we have these DCC guys (at the moment underdogs, of course) trying to pool resources and, on the other side, the big shots (RH, Novell, Ubuntu) trying to be as different as possible.

Re:Standards are a good thing (1)

Hercynium (237328) | about 9 years ago | (#13567634)

Funny, I find most Debian packages I pull in to my Ubuntu box integrate quite well. Same goes for Mepis. (Linspire is a noted exception for me)

I'm not saying everything's perfect, but I've had no problems. In contrast, my experience mixing packages between Mandrake, Fedora, SuSe, and RedHat has often been quite frustrating.

My $.02? My ultimate system would be a best-of-breed mixing of Debian and Gentoo. Just imagine...

# USE="mysql dbx hardened -X" apt-get install php5-cgi
  * No binary pkg available with those USE flags...
  * Fetching source...

... and watch it recurse that through the dependency tree, generated automagically depending on the USE flags! (drool...)

Or, how about this: Dynamically generated debian distro with all packages built to your custom specs using a portage-style system... yet remaining compatible with Debian's official repositories!

Of course, I *really* appreciate some of the things that make them fundamentally different, right tool for the job and all, but... wouldn't it be cool?

Re:Standards are a good thing (1)

Liam (39474) | about 9 years ago | (#13568922)

Maybe apt-build [debian.org] does what you want?

Re:Standards are a good thing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567760)

All linux distros work the same way. The only differences are the directories where the binaries are kept, the packaging systems used, chosen included packages, administrative tools, and the options used to compile stuff. It's all the same code.

I can walk into any linux system and get stuff done, whether it's SuSE, Ubuntu, Debian, Knoppix, [insert distro here] and do regularly.

Maybe I am the minority but I certainly hope not. I've found you can glean anything you need to know from ld.so.conf, modules.conf, find, grep, and apropos.

Very basic simple stuff....

If you need a GUI to manipulate the sysem, you are distro-dependant. That's bad... if distro dependance is an issue for you, just stop using the heroin, er, um, guis. Learn how to do everything from a prompt and your distro dependancy will go away.

For me it takes much longer, for example, to use the network setup gui on any system, because on each system, you need to first figure out where it is, in the ouija board, known as gnome or kde, then you need to figure out what it does and how to use it.

vi ifcfg-eth0 works the same in any distro and you don't have to find vi or figure out how it works on a given distro. vi is universal. Guis and the distro specific tools in them, are frustrating...

Internet browsing, video games, word processing are what gui's are good for. If that's all you do, you don't really need to know the innards of the system, and probably shouldn't meddle with it.

l8,
AC

Ubuntu (1, Informative)

Doros (887174) | about 9 years ago | (#13567030)

The real benefit of the alliance that I see is that .deb packages should be compatible across multiple distros. Unfortunately, Ubuntu is not part of the alliance, and there are a lot of 3rd-party Ubuntu .debs out there.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

Compaq_Hater (911468) | about 9 years ago | (#13567054)

yeah i have often wondered why they would choose not to participate in somthing that can only bring them more users and stability ?

CH

Re:Ubuntu (3, Insightful)

hungrygrue (872970) | about 9 years ago | (#13567077)

DCC is based on older versions of most packages than those in Ubuntu. Ubuntu can't really be part of DCC.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

Compaq_Hater (911468) | about 9 years ago | (#13567166)

Ah, i see did not know that well now that makes more sense. thanks for the Info. :)

CH

Re:Ubuntu (2, Insightful)

Donny Smith (567043) | about 9 years ago | (#13567388)

I think that's a very superficial reason.

Nobody's versions match those of DCC (even Debian itself) - if all members felt that way, there would be no DCC.
DCC is a good idea, and so was United Linux, which got screwed up by a member. DCC is not facing such risks, so I think it will prosper.
In any case, DCC is targeted at people and companies sick of dicking around with distro incompatibilities and frequent version updates - a bit different from Ubuntu and Fedora.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

Compaq_Hater (911468) | about 9 years ago | (#13567450)

well then the DCC is for me, becuase you just described what i would like to see more of.

CH

Re:Ubuntu (1)

ivan256 (17499) | about 9 years ago | (#13567554)

That's actually also what Debian stable is for. The 'stable' means that it doesn't change much, and is not describing whether it crashes or not. Even 'unstable' is stable in that regard. This point gets missed quite frequently due to the poor namimg choice and the "VersionTracker mentality."

If geeks are the new gold standard for "coolness" then there is still hope that someday reliability and functionality will be "cool" rather than keeping your machine on the bleeding edge.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 9 years ago | (#13567423)

Ubuntu take a snapshot of Sid every six months and then work on that to get it good enough for release... DCC is based on Debian Stable... currently Sarge.

I like Ubuntu cos the apps are more up to date. Currently KDE3.4 as opposed to 3.3? and Xorg as opposed to xfree86... I'm currently playing with Breezy on my testing box and it's very nice... latest Gnome 3.12 as opposed to 3.8 on Sarge...

I reserve Debian stable for my workhorse server...

Re:Ubuntu (1)

oddfox (685475) | about 9 years ago | (#13567524)

Surely you mean GNOME 2.12 and 2.8, eh? :) I'd hate to think I'd missed that many releases overnight.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

alucinor (849600) | about 9 years ago | (#13567547)

Ubuntu takes a snapshot of Debian Unstable (the cutting edge Debian) and then stabilizes it. Ubuntu can only be compatible with Debian Unstable.

For instance, if Ubuntu was to be DCC-compliant, it would have to be using Gnome 2.8 instead of 2.12.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

MadChicken (36468) | about 9 years ago | (#13568254)

...I've been trying to find out exactly what DCC specifies, but from my skimming, I don't think anything as high-level as Gnome is part of DCC.

Couldn't they start with DCC and plug any Gnome they want on top of it? Or KDE/fluxbox/XFCE/whatever instead?

Re:Ubuntu (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13568261)

The Debian release cycle has left many people unsatisfied. Some are working within the Debian Project to improve the release process. Some, such as Ubuntu, have elected to step outside of Debian to do short-term forks, while feeding changes back into Debian.

"Release early, release often" is a good approach for software development. Large numbers of small, frequent changes can produce rapid improvement. Debian Experimental and Unstable show how well that approach can work.

But what's good for developers is horrible for users. Production systems need changes collected into larger, less frequent releases. That's what Debian Stable does. But it is very easy to get stuck in the 'collect' phase, and fail to make it to the 'release' part.

One solution to that problem is to schedule releases by date rather than feature set. The traditional, and Debian Stable, approach is to define what features will be in the next release, and release when the work is done. The result is that releases get pushed out by the slowest feature, and there is constant pressure to revise finished features, since they're waiting on the other guys anyway.

Schedule-based releases set release date targets, and work backwards from those. Features are prioritized, and only those features that can be incorporated by the release date are included. Features that fall below the cutoff can go into the following release.

I've seen two things happen with the time-based approach. One is that lower priority changes that didn't make the first release make it into the second release, and still beat the traditional model's first release date. The other is that feedback from the first release will show that some of the lower priority items slated for the second release need to be revised: some changed, some completely dropped.

Ubuntu is using the calendar-based release method for production releases, using Debian Unstable as their base. DCC is using Debian Stable as their base, and hoping to improve the Debian Stable release process. Different bases, different release strategies.

I'm sure that the current Debian Stable release process will improve. But I'm also sure that a much greater improvement will come with a switch to a calendar based approach. That won't happen without a working example to point to, such as Ubuntu. Debian is run by developers, and developers understand how to manage development releases, such as Unstable. But fewer developers understand how to manage production releases, and it shows. Debian needs to make a fundamental shift in how Stable releases happen. That shift will not happen without a working example of a better way. Such a shift happened with GCC, but only after a fork showed the way.

Department of Redundancy Department? (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 9 years ago | (#13567056)

What is the actual difference between "Debian Common Core" and "Debian" (since Dv3.1)? Is DCC just an organization that certifies that (its own) Debian-based distros are actually both Debian-based, and comply with "Linux Standards Base" specs? Does Debian v3.1 itself not pass that test?

Re:Department of Redundancy Department? (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 9 years ago | (#13567101)

I believe the full Debian distribution and the DCC are 2 complimentary items.

From the DCC website:

What is the "DCC" of the DCC Alliance?

The DCC is not a Linux distribution; it is a "base" Debian system composed of essential programs or "packages" from Debian GNU/Linux, combined with member additions to attain LSB certification and achieve broad commercial acceptance and support.

It appears as thought this is the low level never changing set (just up from the kernel), and is similar to a bare Windows release, ie you have to add your own applications.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 9 years ago | (#13567174)

So I guess the difference between "DCC" and "Debian" is that DCC is just the core of the distro (kernel and some minimum apps), that is certified by the DCC Alliance to comply with LSB specs. While Debian itself contains extra apps that are not necessary to comply with LSB specs (and could, in theory, even conflict with LSB, or at least are not certified to comply).

So people who want to distribute a customized "LSB compliant version of Debian" should start with DCC and expand it, not start with Debian and change it. But some DCC expansions might (in theory) conflict with LSB. Will the DCCA somehow "decertify" those? Or is my "LSB conflict theory" invalid?

Re:Department of Redundancy Department? (1)

ISayWeOnlyToBePolite (721679) | about 9 years ago | (#13567598)

I'd bet that you can't market your distro using the Debian Common Core Alliance name, unless you cough up some cash for a license, and what that license contains is obviously their prerogative. The DCC can't LSB certify your custom distro, that's for the opengroup.org people to do. Pure Debian as it stands now, wouldn't pass a LSB certification (atleast not the most recent spec.).

Re:Department of Redundancy Department? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567108)

The answer is; Debian Common Core isn't Debian.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department? (1)

johnMG (648562) | about 9 years ago | (#13568115)

Yeah, it's funny. When I originally heard about the DCCA, I thought, "cool, so, where's Debian?".

If the DCCA wants a better standardized Debian, they should all get together and... ... maybe just contribute to Debian itself instead of forming a new distro.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13569116)

Unless conflict (around the changes/additions) arises, as it always happens.

Fragmenting (3, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | about 9 years ago | (#13567060)

Somewhat on topic is the issue of fragmenting. For a while, if an application or OS didn't do something you like, the common response was:

- Dont like it? Fork it! - Dont like it? Roll your own!

Problem is that it leads to a lot of confusion and fragmentation within the community that confuses the hell out of outsiders.

I think consolidation is a good thing and folks should work together more often rather then just splintering a code base.

(Note, fragmentation CAN be a good thing in the cases like Security Knoppix or RTLinux)

Re:Fragmenting (1)

Bent Mind (853241) | about 9 years ago | (#13567465)

I can't agree more. It's good to see so many Debian based distributions working together to make sure the base OS is compatible across forks. They certainly seem more committed then UnitedLinux was. On a plus side, maybe LSB will finally see some new development. Hopefully, this will also spur more 3rd party development.

Typical Debian (3, Funny)

Eil (82413) | about 9 years ago | (#13567110)


"Hello world, we released an open source operating system so that all may benefit from our efforts and... Oh noes! People are modifying it to suit their needs! Evil! Strike them down!"

Re:Typical Debian (1)

mjg59 (864833) | about 9 years ago | (#13567176)

Eh? I'm not saying that at all. I'm entirely in favour of what the DCC's doing. What I'm not in favour of is calling it Debian when it's not, and saying that it's not a fork when it is. (To clarify further - there's nothing wrong with forking)

Re:Typical Debian (1)

Eil (82413) | about 9 years ago | (#13567759)


Before I get lambasted with troll mods and flames, I just want to note that I really have nothing against the Debian people and their excellent work. It's just a little funny how they go on the Stallmanesque defensive whenever a Debian fork makes the headlines.

why the spoof site? (5, Informative)

digitalderbs (718388) | about 9 years ago | (#13567129)

The DCC seems like a good idea to me. From an earlier progeny [progeny.com] news article, the DCC mandate is :

  • Assemble a 100% Debian common core that addresses the needs of enterprise business users
  • Maintain certification of the common core with the Free Standards Group open specification, the Linux Standard Base
  • Use the Alliance's combined strength to accelerate the commercial adoption of Debian
  • Work with the Debian project to ensure predictable release cycles and features important to commercial adoption


This seems very reasonable to me. There's something I'm missing -- Why the resistance and the spoof site?

Re:why the spoof site? (5, Interesting)

mjg59 (864833) | about 9 years ago | (#13567256)

A few things:

  1. The use of the Debian trademark without permission, and the laughable claim that calling it "DCC" where "DCC stands for Debian Common Core" avoids infringement (rather than, say, getting involved in discussion and not using the Debian name until it's resolved)
  2. "Will the DCC "fork" the Debian project?

    No."

    Except it will. It won't be a big fork. The only packages of any consequence that aren't identical to the Debian ones are X and the kernel. But it's still a fork. Denying that merely panders to the idea that forking is somehow inherently bad, rather than being an entirely natural process in free software development.

  3. Because the idea amused me.

Debian trademark glass house: Debian/kFreeBSD (1)

joneshenry (9497) | about 9 years ago | (#13568248)

Debian/kFreeBSD [debian.org] has its web site's pages copyrighted by SPI, web pages which mention that "Debian" is a registered trademark without mentioning the status of "FreeBSD".

But the people I blame are the directors of the FreeBSD Foundation [freebsdfoundation.org] which now owns the FreeBSD trademark [freebsdfoundation.org] at least as far as it applies to "CD ROMs featuring an archive of computer programs which may be accessed for use archived on a CDROM." (And it appears the FreeBSD Foundation is working to expand the applicability of the FreeBSD trademark.) But there is already a Debian/kFreeBSD iso [debian.org] .

Considering that a simple cease and desist was sufficient to force CentOS to scrub references on its web site [centos.org] to the phrase "Red Hat" and other such trademarks (other than apparently a link to someone else's article), I am baffled what either Debian/kFreeBSD or the FreeBSD Foundation is waiting for.

Re:Debian trademark glass house: Debian/kFreeBSD (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | about 9 years ago | (#13568628)

Considering that a simple cease and desist was sufficient to force CentOS to scrub references on its web site to the phrase "Red Hat" and other such trademarks ...
No one forced CentOS to do anything. A letter from a lawyer isn't a legal decree. It's a start of a conversation. There was nothing preventing the CentOS people from opening a dialogue with RedHat's lawyers to work out an agreement that would satisfy both sides. The CentOS people chose not to pursue that dialogue and instead just remove all references to RedHat from their web site.
I am baffled what either Debian/kFreeBSD or the FreeBSD Foundation is waiting for.
How do you know that those people have not already worked out appropriate agreements for the use of those trademarks?

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567266)

As far as I can tell there are a few clashing personalities within the Debian community, and I think that if one took a stance one way or the other on this DCC thing, then the other side would go against it for the sake of going against it.

I think the spoof site is something for core Debian personality and Cambridge University graduate Matthew Garrett to have a go at another Debian personality, MJ Ray. Mr Garrett recently posted "Go suck on my fuck" on his blog IIRC relating to MJ Ray's retardedness. As a side note, Mr Garrett is a decent chap and all that, but I've never met MJ Ray.

Yes, boys and girls, this is the level of Debian developers.

Re:why the spoof site? (3, Funny)

mjg59 (864833) | about 9 years ago | (#13567333)

Mr Garrett recently posted "Go suck on my fuck" on his blog IIRC relating to MJ Ray's retardedness.

No, I didn't. If I'd written that I'd look like some sort of illiterate moron. What I actually said was "choke on my fuck", and I've no regrets about doing so whatsoever.

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567556)

Sorry my memory failed me. I shall flagellate myself as punishment.

Maybe DCC should stand for Donkey Cock Coveters?

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567571)

what a ghey arrogant immature wanker u are

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567784)

At least he's not an illiterate moron like you. (And not 'u', you'll note.)

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13568178)

His literacy may be in question but his perception seems fine.

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13568090)

Mr Garrett is a Cambridge University graduate and intolerant young white male. His comment was based on his inability or unwillingness to comprehend MJ Ray's complaint about ad-hominem attacks on the debian-project public mailing list.

Mr Garrett was one of the participants in another recent famous debian intolerance outburst at http://www.pledgebank.org/killfileandrew [pledgebank.org]

He also supported the Debian-UK society's infringement of the Debian trademark. It would be very strange that he is so angry about the DCC Alliance, if demonstrations of "everything I do is right, and everything I dislike is actually Evil Bad and Wrong" weren't so common from him.

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13568257)

Seems reasonable to me.

With the best will in the world, it has to be said that MJ Ray really can and at times does achieve a most unusual level of "retardedness". In organisations that are absolutely stuffed with idiosyncratic approaches to society, MJ's name (and attitude) stands out far enough that he is practically legendary - in the UK, anyhow.

It has to be experienced to be fully understood, and it's perhaps difficult to pin down entirely because the chap also has many moments of full and charming lucidity, but when he is motivated to do so, MJ Ray could drive mullahs to drink. If I were to devise a questionnaire for those newly disillusioned with the FSF(E) or Debian, MJ Ray would be one of the options on the "Why are you no longer involved?" page (one time his name would legitimately be seen next to RMS's!).

It's Debian (1)

wiredog (43288) | about 9 years ago | (#13567382)

What else do you need to know?

Re:why the spoof site? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567493)

DCC is not a Debian project. It should not use the Debian name.

The DCC Alliance FAQ claims that the official name is 'DCC', and that doesn't infringe on the 'Debian' trademark. But they also claim that 'DCC' is an abbreviation of 'Debian Common Core', so they ARE using the Debian name.

The very existence of a FAQ trying to explain away the name and trademark confusion between the Debian Project and the DCC Alliance proves that they've picked the wrong name.

The DCC Alliance claims that they aren't forking Debian. They also claim that they are making Debian LSB compliant. Which is it? If they make changes, then that's a fork. If they aren't making changes, then what is the purpose of DCC?

The goals are fine. I'd love to see Debian have a more predictable release cycle, for example. But they should either work to make these efforts an offical part of the Debian Project, or admit that they are forking Debian. Forking can be good, but pretending that you aren't forking leads to exactly the package incompatibility issues that the DCC Alliance claims to be addressing.

The DCC Alliance message is not internally consistent. That needs to be resolved before the PR efforts go into action.

Re:why the spoof site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13569239)

+ levarage many buzzords and claim standards compliance in order to PROFIT.

Seriously, you can't argue with a pedant who sais "gcc conforms not with section 20.3/5.24 paragraph of the revised ISO C99 standard, and therefore is NOT A CONFORMING C99 COMPILER. Is it? Well is it? If it was it would conform to this paragraph. It doesn't therefore it's not a CONFORMING IMPLEMETATION". EDG comeau is. Wall stree investor impressed. Doh!

(pluS oNe Informative) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567181)

codebase became NIGGER ASSOCIATION all alonNg. *BSD Rules are This copy a 17 Meg file 4.1BSD product, with the] laundry

disappointing (3, Interesting)

kwoff (516741) | about 9 years ago | (#13567293)

I was expecting a "spoof site poking fun" to be, you know, funny.

Re:disappointing (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567650)

I was expecting a "spoof site poking fun" to be, you know, funny.

Fork it! Roll your own!

First they ignore you, (0, Offtopic)

BobandMax (95054) | about 9 years ago | (#13567313)

then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

-- Mahatma Gandhi

Re:First they ignore you, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13568417)

First they march you several hundred miles through the jungle,
then they shoot you,
then they disembowel you,
then you lose.

-- Mahatma Gandhi, had the Japs won WW2

Debian - great idea, bad execution... (3, Insightful)

bad_outlook (868902) | about 9 years ago | (#13567351)

Sorry to be harsh, but when I started using Debian 3 years back, I wasn't treated well as a 'n00b' even though I had 2 yrs prior Slackware experience, and just felt like the entire project was too splintered. I mean, running on multiple archs is cool and all, but if it pulls down the medium range then what's been gained? The plus of this approach is it was ripe for someone to come along, take what's good (APT-GET!) and create something specialized, which is now Ubuntu Linux. Building on the Debian base was just their beginnning, but it was an ace move.

Re:Debian - great idea, bad execution... (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | about 9 years ago | (#13567510)

take what's good (APT-GET!)

Apt isn't what makes debian great. The package repositoiry is what makes Debian great. Without it, apt is just a simple tool that works no magic whatsoever. For a perfect example of this, try running some of the apt-rpm ports out there. If there isn't a consistant, well maintained package archive to point apt at, you're still in dependancy hell. Too many Debian copycats don't understand this.

That is correct (1)

arthas (654815) | about 9 years ago | (#13568573)

The package repository is indeed important. I think Debian's strict packaging guidelines and quality control have made first-class repository possible.

For several months I have tried using RHEL4 system and it has been quite frustrating. APT is there and RPM is actually quite good low-level package manager. However there are no software packages! It seems like nobody wants to build packages for RHEL. Several important things are missing: Totem video player, Evince document viewer, Gtkmm devel libs, Epiphany, AucTeX and Inkscape to name a few. As soon as I have a chance I will convert the box to Debian or BSD.

Re:That is correct (1)

ivan256 (17499) | about 9 years ago | (#13569154)

It seems like nobody wants to build packages for RHEL.

That's because developers don't want to pay for RHEL in order to build packages against it. Really, can you blame them?

But you paid RedHat all that money. Tell them to get off their asses and package the software you want to use for that distribution you paid too much for.

Re:That is correct (1)

arthas (654815) | about 9 years ago | (#13569315)

That's because developers don't want to pay for RHEL in order to build packages against it. Really, can you blame them?

No. I can't.

But you paid RedHat all that money. Tell them to get off their asses and package the software you want to use for that distribution you paid too much for.

I didn't pay anything and I am really glad I didn't. I am using Scientific Linux 4.0 (a distro built using RHEL4 srpms). I installed it because I had some compiler problems with Debian Sarge and Ubuntu. Their gcc version didn't compile Geant4 [cern.ch] simulation toolkit properly and I didn't have time to fix things so I had to install something else and I just happened to choose Scientific Linux 4 (I figured that at least SL4 would have a compiler version that would work with Geant4). Now I have simulations and data analysis code on that system and it would be just too much trouble to format and install Debian, Geant4, ROOT data analysis framework [root.cern.ch] and all the custom C++ scripts I have written during last few months. I won't switch to another distro before I have finished the project.

Damn Browncoats.... (4, Funny)

UnixRevolution (597440) | about 9 years ago | (#13567426)

Always poking fun at the Alliance. Why is it that I always find myself drinking in an alliance friendly bar on Unification Day?

No Ubuntu? (0, Redundant)

jcole (780891) | about 9 years ago | (#13567438)

It appears that all the major Debian derived distros have joined this group (Mepis, Xandros, Linspire, Knoppix, Linspire, etc.) but not Ubuntu [distrowatch.com] . Why not [slashdot.org] ?

Ubuntu ubove ull (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13567696)

Ubuntu is the wave of the future. You will accept that Ubutnu is the best Debian distro and that all other distros should kneel before Unubtu. With the most secure LiveCDs which refuse to boot on older PCs, Utubun is poised to capture the desktop Linux market. Why you haven't converted your Sarge distro to Unubut is beyond us. Realistically, it will be Utbunu for home users, Unubut for work and Utunub for servers, and resistance is futile.

Unless you prefer KDE.

Re:Ubuntu ubove ull (1)

lullabud (679893) | about 9 years ago | (#13568604)

I don't know how futile resistance will be to a guy who put Linspire *twice* in a list of what would've been 5 distros... He must really love it, and that's scary. That's the kind of guy who makes a simple story into a story of mythical proportions.

this is (what I can make of) the critisism (2, Insightful)

nietsch (112711) | about 9 years ago | (#13567735)

Thanks to the very generous move from slashdot to /. the spoof site, it is not clear why others are critisising DCC.
the spoof site at http://www.dccalliance.biz.nyud.net:8090/faq.html [nyud.net] is pretty slow too, here is my analysis (and a copy of their 'faq':

What is the DCC Alliance?

The DCC Alliance is a collection of invdividuals with a link to Debian. It exists in order to counter the idea that the use of the Debian trademark is permissable if it's hidden inside an acronym.

So somebody is upset about basing the name of a separate organisation on 'Debian' and abbreviate that to a 'D'. Well wanker, I tell you something: you cannot trademark a single letter, or we'd only have about 36 possible companies.


What Does "DCC" stand for?

"DCC" is an abbreviation for "Debian common core Cheerleaders and Critics". Since "Debian Common Core" is a trademark of the DCC Alliance, only the abbreviated form is used in referring to the DCC Alliance.

(this seems a rip-off from the 'real' DCC faq entry. see above, no trademarks on single letters.


Will the DCC "fork" Debian?

Yes, the Debian Common Core alliance will fork Debian. As an example, the Debian kernel will be modified. Maintaining a branch of a package that is not identical to the upstream one is a de-facto fork.

Aha, a somewhat real-ish bone to pick. Except that creating a patched kernel is not such a big deal. You can find several in testing, does that mean that testing has been forked with every new kernel release? As long as the new kernel is interoperable with the one it replaces you can hardly call that forking.

is DCC necesary?
Debian has grown into a big organisation, and thus also has it's share of people with 'uncommon personalities'. It is all a volunteer effort (and thus?) some people in debian react a little allergic to commerce baseed on Debian, even though the licence allows it. Commercial Debian-based distro's have a vested interest in Debian, so they seek some influence. It can be vey hard to have to argue with every maintainer whose package they have altered to get him to accept the changes(There are 1000's of developers and and at least ten times more packages in Debian). Even with proper conflict resolution it quickly becomes a nightmare, so a lot of distro makers don't feed their changes upstream/to Debian at all.

That is a problem and something that a separate repository can solve. Yes that is in effect a fork, in the same sense that Ubuntu or Knoppix is a fork (not for the silly reason above). If the Debian derived distromakers have their own repository where they can work together changing Debian to their common goals without getting bogged down in Debian rules/games, then that is just great, IMHO.

It is great for the Debian-derived-distro-makers(DDDM?), as it allows them to cooperate and improve Debian while they are at it. It is great because it avoids conflict and bottlenecks. Commercials distro's (can) have a different interest than induvidual Debain developers. With this construction no single Debain developer can obstruct a DDDM. It is great because It will concentrate all enhancements made by DDDM's into one place, so the Debian developers don't need to track all different DDDMs for changes to their packages. And most of all, it will concentrate efforts into coding and cooperating, and that is good for all.

Re:this is (what I can make of) the critisism (1)

metamatic (202216) | about 9 years ago | (#13567976)

If the Debian derived distromakers have their own repository where they can work together changing Debian to their common goals without getting bogged down in Debian rules/games, then that is just great, IMHO.

So if they want to fork Debian, why not just admit they're going to fork it and call it something that doesn't use the name "Debian"?

As I see it, the problem is that they want to fork Debian because they have different goals from Debian, but they don't want to admit it.

What is the problem with a fork then? (1)

nietsch (112711) | about 9 years ago | (#13568714)

Yes they try to avoid the word fork, probably for the connotations it has ('forks ar *bad*'). But there is nothing wrong with a fork an-sich. The size of the Debian project is what made it great(lots of packages, lots of testing, lots of development), but the size of Debian also makes it hard for commercial enities to cooperate with them directly.

Usually forks are considered 'bad' because of the duplication of effort. This fork is good because it prevents the structure of the Debian organisation to slow the efforts of the DDDMs.

Re:this is (what I can make of) the critisism (2, Insightful)

sfurious (111612) | about 9 years ago | (#13569213)

So somebody is upset about basing the name of a separate organisation on 'Debian' and abbreviate that to a 'D'. Well wanker, I tell you something: you cannot trademark a single letter, or we'd only have about 36 possible companies.

Great, I'm going to start a new Linux distribution tomorrow. I'll call it, oh, "Microsoft Windows Inspired Operating System". Then I'll get worried about trademarks and change it to "MWI Operating System", but make it clear what "MWI" is an abbreviation for. Finally, on the website I'll stick the Microsoft Windows logo to the left of "MWI Operating System" as part of the title.

The next day, everyone will be shocked when Microsoft isn't particularly happy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?