OSNews

You raise very good points, but I think that mine mostly flew over your head, and reading back, I really don't blame you for that ;-)

Why should it a be a central hub for the free software community?

Because Debian was the first and remains the only top-level distribution project that is rooted in the principles of free software development at the system level. The basic idea of free software is that it allows to software to take on a life of its own, to be living thing that evolves to meet the needs of different users, diverse applications, and changing times. The GPL enforces this at the executable level, but Debian extends this principle to the entire system. It's relatively easy to create a new system based on Debian that takes a new direction or focus while remaining a part of the Debian development ecosystem. The underlying platform technology used by Debian makes this happen. They don't enforce it. It happens out of pragmatic considerations.

There are Red Hat derivatives, but it's hard to make a Red Hat derivative that tracks with RH development while maintaining its own identity. You'll notice that Red Hat-based distributions are either re-badged releases (CentOS, Unbreakable, etc.) or completely different systems on their own evolutionary course (SUSE, Mandriva, etc.). It seems that the Red Hat platform can only split further over time, while the Debian platform can grow its ecosystem through derivation. Much as the GPL creates an IP bubble that can only grow and never shrink, Debian creates a platform that binds its derivatives together through their common use of unstable.

Yo might think that Debian is a model for the perfect free software organization. Many other people don't.

I'm not claiming Debian is perfect, far from it. If you look back through my previous comments on Debian, you'll see that I have been highly critical of their project management in the recent past. I've suggested that they should quit making releases altogether to focus on developing unstable and development tools. I've argued that Debian is in danger of having its mindshare sucked away by Ubuntu, which could never fill its shoes on its own. I stand by these comments, and that is precisely why I believe that Debian must rediscover and embrace its role within the larger free software community. I never argued that Debian is those things I mentioned, I argued that it should be more like that.

For instance, I don't like their attitude towards the Firefox trademark

Mozilla made a decision to protect their trademarks, and Debian is respecting that decision. The branding elements aren't redistributable in derivative works, and so Debian will not distribute them. Branding is an important issue for the free software community to consider going forward. How do we reconcile the vendor's need to use branding to identify their work with the community's right to create derivative works? Some distributions have chosen to distribute their Firefox build without the branding elements and others have chosen to distribute the official binaries. Debian has chosen to create its own branding elements that are freely redistributable in derivative works. This is actually what Mozilla wants downstream distributors to do if they don't distribute the official binaries. They want them to differentiate their work by creating their own branding, not by distributing a brand-less browser that seems to be Firefox.

I don't like their lack of leadership, I don't like their lack of pragmatism.

Hopefully the new DPL will change your mind. For all of his (arguable) failures, Anthony Towns enacted some seemingly pragmatic policy during his tenure. Dunc-Tank is the most prominent example. Etch is a great example of Debian beginning to stick more closely to a release schedule and making a serious attempt at enhancing usability. Etch was not released on time, and it is not as user-friendly as one might like (compared to commercial and desktop-oriented distributions). But it was clearly a step in the right direction.

I like how you discard Redhat and Novell as some kind of sideliners not really involved with the free software world. You obviously have little understanding of Redhat's contribution to the free software world.

I think that Red Hat is one of a key reasons why Linux become the most popular free software kernel. They could have chosen FreeBSD, which was arguable superior at the time. RPM was created as an incompatible alternative to the existing dpkg system already developed by Debian, which I believe was a crucial event that fragmented the fledgling Linux community. Red Hat and Novell have chosen to go at it alone with respect to packaging and quality assurance, whereas the Debian ecosystem shares in these responsibilities.

Dell is a business! They need to work with a business entity, you know someone who can be held accountable for a release slipping by several months.

The other poster made a good point about Vista being more than several months late. I wouldn't have thought of that. But more generally, Realize that Dell would most likely work with a commercially-backed Debian derivative such as Ubuntu or Linspire.

IMHO the real promoters of free software are organizations like Mozilla and Redhat who have been able to crack the end user space

Those are real promoters of free software. But I find it hard to believe that Ubuntu won't crack the end user space. Further, appealing to end users is not the whole ball game. Free software also needs to appeal to device vendors, service providers, and consultancies. These are areas where Debian might have more appeal than any other distribution project.