On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
> 2. Type of Debian CD
> [ ] potato installation
> [ ] potato installation, with additions like Gnome, KDE, XF4 etc.
> [ ] woody installation
> [ ] unstable installation
> [ ] potato demo system
> [ ] potato demo system, with additions like Gnome, KDE, XF4 etc.
> [ ] woody demo system
Haven't been following the discussion closely, but it seems to me that there's
no fundamental difference between .debs and a "live" file system -- because a
live fs needs 1) to be installed with boot-floppies of some kind, 2) .debs to
be installed upon it. And both 1) and 2) can also be present on the CD in
original form. So I think it should really be two questions:
[ ] potato
[ ] potato with additions "to be determined later"
[ ] woody
[ ] sid
3. CD Type
[ ] installation
[ ] live fs ("demo")
Personally, I'd go for "potato with additions" and "installation" because this
demonstrates best Debian's ideas of stability, (half-)upgradeability and
"completeness" (i.e. much software). I'm afraid that if you make a live fs,
there won't be much space for all the interesting programs that people
_really_ want to use, and you'll get some throw-away demo thingy that forces
people to buy the whole CD set if they want to go use Debian on a daily basis.
Besides, people will need to be able to apt-get install stuff (from the CD) to
really begin appreciating The Debian Way[tm] ;-)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:27:10 CEST