https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/2006-January/00363(...)
4. The Premise. The vision behind DCC, which is indeed compelling, is that it would provide a common platform for certification, and that the distros that make up the DCC would all ship exactly that same core. But it strikes me that this approach has never worked in the past. In fact, every distro ALWAYS modifies elements of the core, and with good reason. And while we would love that not to be the case, the truth is that the reasons to specialise outweigh the benefits of homogeneity. Much as it may be compelling, the common core idea is ultimately flawed, because it's not just the bits at the core that matter. An ISV that certifies an OS is not just certifying the pieces on which it's app depends. It's also certifying the *environment* which it will support, which includes installer, documentation, even packaging. Screenshots, for example, won't be useful unless they reflect all of the certified OS's, and that's not possible in the DCC model. There have been several examples of places where this idea has failed. United Linux is one.
Joli retournement de veste Monsieur Mark Shuttleworth.
# Re:
Posté par IsNotGood . En réponse au journal Mark Shuttleworth : il remet (encore) ça. Évalué à 2.
4. The Premise. The vision behind DCC, which is indeed compelling, is that it would provide a common platform for certification, and that the distros that make up the DCC would all ship exactly that same core. But it strikes me that this approach has never worked in the past. In fact, every distro ALWAYS modifies elements of the core, and with good reason. And while we would love that not to be the case, the truth is that the reasons to specialise outweigh the benefits of homogeneity. Much as it may be compelling, the common core idea is ultimately flawed, because it's not just the bits at the core that matter. An ISV that certifies an OS is not just certifying the pieces on which it's app depends. It's also certifying the *environment* which it will support, which includes installer, documentation, even packaging. Screenshots, for example, won't be useful unless they reflect all of the certified OS's, and that's not possible in the DCC model. There have been several examples of places where this idea has failed. United Linux is one.
Joli retournement de veste Monsieur Mark Shuttleworth.