Re: 70 inactive GNU packages to be decommis ?

[Nala Ginrut]

Jason Self writes:

> On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 15:36 +0800, Nala Ginrut wrote:
>> In my day job, we have to use Debian in our commercial products. I
>> understand Trisquel is still not ready for that case.
>
> A broad exclusion that Trisquel isn't ready for "commercial products"
> (whatever that means) seems a bit much. I'm not sure what your precise
> use case is but Trisquel has been around for 12 years and has so far
> shown to work just fine in all use cases I've heard.

It's not my duty to prove it, and it doesn't mean anything wrong with
Trisquel. When I've been the architect, I have sufficient reasons to
choose Debian for our product.
On the contrary, instead of asking users to prove why a project is
not ready for product, the better way is to prove to the users by its
community.
When I didn't see the convincing reason for me to make the decision, I
don't use it for the benefit of the company.

No one is wrong in this situation, and no offence.

Best regards.



--
GNU Powered it
GPL Protected it
GOD Blessed it
HFG - NalaGinrut
Fingerprint F53B 4C56 95B5 E4D5 6093 4324 8469 6772 846A 0058

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature