Next focus: PROCESS

[Rob T]

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 02:03:34 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 20:39:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Can we drop the LTS name ? It reminds me of ubuntu, and I 
>> clearly hope that people promoting that idea don't plan to 
>> reproduce ubuntu's scheme :
>> - it is not suitable for a programming language (as stated 3 
>> time now, so just read before why I won't repeat it).
>
> You don't need to repeat your self, you need to expand on your 
> points. Joseph has already requested that you give specifics of 
> your objection, you have explained why the situation is 
> different but not what needs to be different.
>
> Your points were specific to Debian's model, which is not 
> Ubuntu's.
>
>> - ubuntu is notoriously unstable.
>
> I don't know anyone who uses the LTS releases. That isn't to 
> say no one is, but Ubuntu is doing a lot of experimenting in 
> their 6 month releases.

I think if we focus on the end results that the Ubuntu process is 
designed to accomplish and what the Debian is designed to 
accomplish we can start to think about which model is more likely 
to produce the desired results that we wish to achieve with the D 
process.

I'll sum it up as follows:

What both systems attempt to accomplish is in conflict, Ubuntu 
attempts to create a reasonably stable distribution with more 
recent updates so that users have access to current software, but 
that means there will be more bugs and less stability.

Debian attempts to distribute a bug free stable distribution, 
however the delays in getting there mean that the software is 
often much less current than what is currently available.

The end results may be summarized as follows:

I would *never* use Ubuntu for mission critical tasks, for 
example I would not use it to power a 24/7 remote server. I may 
use it for a workstation at home, but not at work, although I may 
use it at work if I needed access to the most current software.

Why not use it for mission critical tasks? Because it's unstable. 
Why is it unstable? Because it's based on Debian's unstable 
branch.

Debian stable on the other hand, is rock solid, and works well 
for mission critical tasks, and is suitable for use in a server 
environment, however, it does not come with the most current 
software, a some packages may be a couple of versions behind 
(which can be very frustrating at times).

So to achieve stability vs instability, you have to trade away 
less mature versions of software for older more mature versions 
of software.

Debian's process is design specifically for stability, Ubuntu's 
process is designed specifically to provide the most current 
software in a reasonably stable way.

--rt