[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [ #1712152] dynebolic

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [ #1712152] dynebolic
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 15:14:09 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/2.0.6 (2021-03-06)

* Therese Godefroy via RT <> [2021-04-05 10:48]:
> Hello Linux-libre people,
> Here is a ticket for you. Thanks!

> Le Dim 04 Avr 2021 21:16:15, a écrit :
> > the dynebolic is apparently discontinued ! You must delete from list gnu
> >

I am not sure that this mailing list is right place for
Dynebolic. Author of Dynebolic should be the right place for issues
related to Dynebolic.

The Dynebolic website redirects to which mentions
Dyne something, it could be related website, but it does not show
anything about it.

Maybe Dynebolic OS works, maybe not. If it works, it should remain on
GNU website, and author may be asked to maintain the URLs.

Here more comments on Distrowatch website:

>  What is the difference between the Dormant and Discontinued status?

> A distribution which has not put out a new release in two or more
> years is marked as being Dormant in our database. The distribution may
> still be worked on, but has not published any new stable
> releases. When a dormant distribution publishes a new stable release
> it is then marked as being Active. A project may also be marked as
> dormant if it no longer plans to put out future releases, ie planned
> inactivity, while older releases are maintained.

Myself, I cannot see the sense well defined. Definitions here speak of
projects like they are required to exist forever. Dynebolic does not
relate to this paragraph, I am not referring to Dynebolic. Stable or
mature software need not be worked on, need not be published as new
stable releases. It need not plan to put out any future releases to be
valid, good, functional, useful software. That is what this definition
is missing.

I do believe, though I do not know which, but I do believe that there
exists finished projects which need not further maintenance.

> The Discontinued status is reserved for projects which are no longer
> being developed. There is no outward activity and no roadmap for new
> releases. Projects which no longer have websites will also be marked
> as discontinued.

I have made my distribution that fits on 2 diskettes back in 2000. I
am sure that the software on it is outdated in terms of general
security, but it may be working quite well for purposes for which the
distribution was meant to, for traveling authors who wish to write
text in safe manner on any computer. It is meant to keep it in the
pocket, turn on computer, insert 1 diskette, and have the computer
work with all basic tools for an author. Insert 2nd diskette and use
extended software. There is no need to update the distribution or do
anything with it, as it fulfills its purpose.

Maybe distrowatch watches only projects which are meant never to be finished.

IMHO, those definitions are not adequate, as there may be
distributions which simply work and work years there after even if not
looked upon as expected.

> We often receive e-mails from projects which have been Dormant and
> plan future releases (or from fans of dormant projects) asking us to
> update the distro's status to Active. This will be done automatically
> when a new stable release is published.

IMHO, when there is stable release, it is stable. If there are
problems, people shall report issues. But to claim that one need to
publish a stable release to make the previous one more stable than it
is stable is confusion. It leads nowhere.

Back to practicality

If software works, it works. People can use it and if it is stable,
there is no need to assume that new stable release must be released
ever. -- this does not relate to Dynebolic directly.

Projects are there to make software. Once software is made, it can be
in state of being functional, working, mature, stable, useful and such
software project need not be continued forever, it is finished. From
there on, software is distributed as final useful product.

Then it is question for distrowatch if they wish:

- to publish only those projects which are in development?

- or to publish also developed projects, that are finished and not any
  more developed?

- or maybe both?

Or maybe to update the definitions.

In relation to Dynebolic, it is best now to contact author to see what
author has to say, as maybe distribution just works.

If it works, the Distrowatch is third party website, they may remove
it how they think about it, that is fine.

But if Dynebolic works, it shall remain on GNU website.


Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]