Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
IMO if its package archive master isn't hosted on <foo>.debian.org, it isn't "real" Debian; stuff like aptosid and grml are just as much Debian *derivatives* as Ubuntu (cf. "pure blends") -- they just happen to be less divergent (at least, for now).
Aptosid's primary policy and reason for existence is compatibility with Debian-unstable. The Aptosid repo is an add-on to provide stabilisation packages only, to the best of my understanding: Your system consults the Debian-sid repo for almost everything, the add-on Aptosid repo furnshing only bugfixes for sid packages. All contents of the Aptosid repo (and installer images) must comply with Debian Policy and the Debian Social Contract. Moreover, if you decide after using that Aptosid installer that you don't care to receive Aptosid's bug-fix packages, all you need to do is disable those lines in /etc/apt/sources.list, and your system will converge onto pure Debian sid thereafter. Compare: Ubuntu's repo isn't even _binary-compatible_ with any Debian repo. They've specifically disclaimed since 2005 ever having intended any such compatibility, in fact: http://tectonic.co.za/?p=657 Adding Ubuntu repo lines to a Debian system's /etc/apt/sources.list[.d/*] or vice-versa will _break_ that system. Ubuntu has no commitment to Debian Policy or the Debian Social Contract. You see the two cases as 'just as much' derivatives and merely 'happen to be less divergent (at least for now)'? OK, good luck with that.
(As for me, I usually use syslinux to load the d-i netboot installer via PXE or USB, and then pull everything else (including the udebs) from the local deb mirror over HTTP. Who even HAS an optical drive anymore? Fing o' der parst!)
Indeed, what's an ISO for other than loop-mounting it on one's Web or NFS server? Oh, you forgot that using an ISO doesn't require an optical drive, didn't you? ;->