On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > We have absolutely been talking to ISVs about their needs--indeed, this > has been a conversation that has been ongoing for years.. > > What about the LCC's scope isn't clear? The basic are fairly simple: > Make the cost-benefit equation a no-brainer by giving ISVs a single > common core to support (lower cost) while getting that single common > core into as many distros as possible (raise benefit by opening > new markets to the ISVs' products). This is what the industry wants.
What is not clear is the benefit to Debian: a loss of flexibility in the handling of our core distribution and potentialy the inability to fix bugs (because we would then louse the certification) for a benefit (support for some closed source apps) that is at best tangential to our core goal. We are in a similar situation as the Linux kernel in regards of proprietary kernel modules. If the kernel interface to modules was frozen, it would be much easier to support proprietary kernel modules. The Linux developers have elected to keep their hands free and not support binary kernel modules, even if it is not "what the industry wants". The benefit of free software is going to be thin if you are forced to run a specific binary build of such and such softwares due to certification requirement even if such build is buggy and a fix is available. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
