Debian Common Core Alliance

Corey Burger corey.burger at gmail.com
Sun Jan 1 00:07:38 GMT 2006


Please keep this on sounder.

On 12/31/05, Clint Tinsley <clintin at linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > I read recently an article in the UK magazine "Linux Format" that pointed out
> > that Ubuntu had specifically opted out from being a member of the Debian
> > Common Core Alliance.  Current members include Mepis, Knoppix, Linspire, and
> > Xandros, and the idea is that there should be a common core of code to which
> > Debian-based distro producers could add their own to target specific users or
> > to give their distros essential character.  However, the core code should
> > include that which is essentially Debian and should be the basis for a common
> > platform for Debian-based distros.
> >
> > Mark Shuttlworth is reported as saying "I'm not prepared to devote scarce
> > resources to an initiative that I believe will ultimately fail." Later in the
> > article (quoting Mark's wiki) he says, "There's no point here into going into
> > the reasons why I feel the DCC would fail - time will tell."
> >
> > It seems to me that this is the direction that Debian-based distros should be
> > heading, and even if the structure isn't perfect (I don't know that it
> > isn't), it seems to me that you need to be in such an organisation to have
> > your input and change its future.  However, if there are good reasons for
> > believing it will end in failure, and therefore no need for Ubuntu to be
> > involved, I'd like to know what those reasons are.
> >
> > I've looked up Mark's wiki, and no more information is available as to why
> > Mark feels the DCC will fail.  I've Googled and found out nothing more, so
> > I'm asking here if anyone can shed any light on the matter.
>
> I think that Mark Shuttleworth is correct in his actions and that the DCC may fail even though they have some great goals including building an aliance with hardware vendors to make sure the Debian Core Linux runs all hardware, pretty much what the wintel group did in making sure Windoze ran on all the hardware.  Another goals is the LSB, or Linux Standards Based core based on Debian but this may fail as well because even though the core OS may run and it does provide a framework for application compatibility, there are no assurances that it will do much to mitigate dependency hell.
>
> There is a also a different focus between the core of the DCC which are IMO Mepis, Linspire, and Xandros with there business desktop focus who want to sell their product into the marketplace versus Mark's which is to make Linux free for everyone.  Another reason that DCC may fail in its mission is that it is only the Debian side of the Linux tree and there are the heavyweights on the RPM side of the tree with Novell/SuSE and RedHat.  LSB itself has already been tried and failed with SuSE Linux rallying the troops but little is said there now days.  Novell, IMO, is not finding Linux to be its holy grail either, as they cutback including withdrawing funds for employing (subsidizing) open source developers.
>
> Ubuntu is right for now, it works, its current, its not restricted in its growth by a lethargic standards group, and its impressive in its implementation as not only a Linux for everyone but also in its server or enterprise configurations which includes Edubuntu and the LTSP (thin client) environments.
>
> Clint
> Linux Registered User #253140

While Ubuntu is not a formal member of the DCC (which should be be
referred to as the Debian Common Core Allliiance), we are
colloborating at lower levels, such as a common kernel and laptop
testing. See:

http://lists.dccalliance.org/pipermail/dcc-devel/2005-December/000482.html

Cheers,

Corey



More information about the sounder mailing list