Archived thread 179304 from Debian. Markdown source: Debian/thread_179304_Debian_vs_Ubuntu_Linux_Magazine_slams_Ubuntu.md
I was just at the book store today, and there is an article in the back that slams Ubuntu and how it is hampering the Debian project.
I didn't buy the magazine, at $10 I thought they were mad.
[[IMG]http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/8440/linuxmagazinecoverxxl2wu.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img323.imageshack.us/my.php?image=linuxmagazinecoverxxl2wu.jpg)
Linux Magazine is one such Linux magazine which I subscribe to. I won't be renewing my subscription. Aside from most of the articles being sheer crap, many of their writers are very obviously biased. Sometimes they don't know what they are writing about.
Linux Format is a good magazine. Well written and has a mega DVD!!
Linux Magazine is one such Linux magazine which I subscribe to. I won't be renewing my subscription. Aside from most of the articles being sheer crap, many of their writers are very obviously biased. Sometimes they don't know what they are writing about.
Linux Format is a good magazine. Well written and has a mega DVD!!
do you have a copy of this issue to post the article in the back?
Well in my opinion Ubuntu and Debian are complements to each other: I would feel better installing Debian on servers and Ubuntu on desktops because I'm so much used to Debian on the server side... And being on the bleeding edge is more a concern for desktops IMHO, since you don't really care about all the bells and whistles (audio, video and such) on servers.
I should probably give Ubuntu-server a go, though. It'll probably be as good a surprise as when I installed Ubuntu desktop :)
10$ for a magazine is a bit expensive, though...
Cheers
Whoa... I think I'd better get round to WHsmiths and buy a copy of this. It looks pretty interesting.
i've never bought Linux Magazine anyway. i've only ever bought Linux Format and Linux User & Developer.
Debian is holding Debian back.
Debian is holding Debian back.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
The funniest part about that article is that Ubuntu feeds all it's patches to Debian. It is the Debian devs who are too full of pride to incorporate them into their stream.
I am of the belief if anything, Ubuntu has saved Debian from becoming irrellevent because of their slow and inconsistant development processes. If the RPM based Distros were run Like Debian, they would have been out of business a long time ago.
I'm convinced that Debian Etch will be great. I'm currently running it and it works fine. It looks very similar to Ubuntu.
The funniest part about that article is that Ubuntu feeds all it's patches to Debian. It is the Debian devs who are too full of pride to incorporate them into their stream.
Where did you read that Debian devs they don't incorporate Ubuntu's patches ? Just curious. If it's true I hope Mark's appearance at debconf solves this problem.
I'm convinced that Debian Etch will be great. I'm currently running it and it works fine. It looks very similar to Ubuntu. Why are you running Etch instead of Dapper ?
Why are you running Etch instead of Dapper ? I've got plenty of space and I'm running Ubuntu Dapper, Simply Mepis beta (which is based on Dapper) and Debian Etch.
Ubuntu is my favourite distro.
I've got plenty of space and I'm running Ubuntu Dapper, Simply Mepis beta (which is based on Dapper) and Debian Etch.
Ubuntu is my favourite distro. What made you install Etch ? Just curious.
Hasn't this Debian v. Ubuntu thing been an old issue? I wonder why Linux Magazine decided to "revisit" that. I hope, though, that Linux Mag publishes at least that article online. (No one sells Linux magazines here... :( )
From a user/non-programmer point of view: Ubuntu is, in some way, really damaging Debian. But not the system itself, but its reputation. Ubuntu is slowly transforming from being just a "Debian-based" distro to a distro which stands up in its own right and light. With Ubuntu hitting headlines in the tech world, with SimplyMEPIS 6 beta, with Dapper Drake, with Sun, just to name a few, maybe the Debian people feel that Ubuntu is stealing the limelight that should have been theirs.
Debian is famous for its stability, which makes it perfect for servers. Unfortunately, it seems that the media tends to focus on Linux desktops nowadays, where Debian is easily outshined. Its slow-paced development also adds insult to injury. But that's the thing about open-source, right? You can't force devs to do what they don't want to do, when they don't want to do it.
But I guess Debian's issues/fears are out of place. As long as there's a .deb file, the entire Linux world will always remember and be indebted to Debian. (or until someone develops an uber efficient/powerful package) management :D)
Where did you read that Debian devs they don't incorporate Ubuntu's patches ? Just curious. If it's true I hope Mark's appearance at debconf solves this problem.
If you look at the source packages between Debian/Ubuntu for similar patches, you'll see an almost one-way flow. Ubuntu is very open about accepting Debian patches (as well as those from OpenSUSE, Gentoo, Mandriva, Redhat, and others), while Debian rarely accepts such patches, even back from Ubuntu which is a relatively straightforward merge.
If you look at the source packages between Debian/Ubuntu for similar patches, you'll see an almost one-way flow. Ubuntu is very open about accepting Debian patches (as well as those from OpenSUSE, Gentoo, Mandriva, Redhat, and others), while Debian rarely accepts such patches, even back from Ubuntu which is a relatively straightforward merge.
I've read somewhere (one the threads in this section discussing the Debian/Ubuntu issue) that the Debian guys are saying that the patches that Ubuntu gives are incompatible with Debian, or something to that effect. Is this true?
Ok the Subtitle is titled "Project Burlesque":
(Burlesque- Tending to excite laughter or contempt by extravagant images, or by a contrast between the subject and the manner of treating it, as when a trifling subject is treated with mock gravity; jocular; ironical. [1913 Webster])
[[IMG]http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/3623/003300lc.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img128.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003300lc.jpg)
[[IMG]http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/606/003221yr.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003221yr.jpg)
[[IMG]http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6750/003231in.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003231in.jpg)
[[IMG]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2594/003244fu.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003244fu.jpg)
[[IMG]http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1654/003252vt.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003252vt.jpg)
[[IMG]http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/3269/003262bt.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img128.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003262bt.jpg)
[[IMG]http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6696/003273ni.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img128.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003273ni.jpg)
[[IMG]http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/5185/003281nw.th.jpg[/IMG]](http://img128.imageshack.us/my.php?image=003281nw.jpg)
If you look at the source packages between Debian/Ubuntu for similar patches, you'll see an almost one-way flow. Ubuntu is very open about accepting Debian patches (as well as those from OpenSUSE, Gentoo, Mandriva, Redhat, and others), while Debian rarely accepts such patches, even back from Ubuntu which is a relatively straightforward merge.
I really hope Mark Shuttleworth raises /raised this issue at debconf6.
Thanks for posting the article.
But why exactly should this be seen as slamming Ubuntu? If anything, this article is critical of both Debian and Ubuntu and critisizes Ubuntu for not giving back enough to Debian in the last sentence. Now if this is true or not sure is debateable, but it's still a far cry from slamming imho.
Well, it's not really slamming. But the author has already made an assumption when he wrote that subsection that Ubuntu really doesn't give back to Debian. The last line says it all.
Just a few questions: Was that French developer an Ubuntu dev? What was really the content of the message he sent. The article didn't say.
If any thing Ubuntu is bringing Linux to the non computer literate person. In this way ubuntu is really supporting the whole Linux community
What made you install Etch ? Just curious. Mainly challenge. Some people say that Ubuntu is for the ones who can't install Debian (not that I'm that unexperienced). I guess they are wrong. Debian has become easy to install.
Debian Etch is less polished than Ubuntu Dapper but it's a nice distro. Perhaps my ubuntised mind lead me to set "sudo" also in Debian (by doing "visudo") and make it a carbon copy of Ubuntu.
Trying Debian reinforced my convinction that I prefer Debian based distros over Red Hat based ones. Fedora is nice but its kernels sometimes break the compatibility with my computer (and I need a minimum of stability).
I suggest Ubuntu users to try Debian Etch when it's stable so as to make go away their bias against it (if they have such a bias) .
The article isn't really slamming Ubuntu but the author really didn't do his homework on the issue. Mark mentioned on many occasions that Ubuntu tries to work closely with upstream and provides any patches/discoveries to all the relevant teams. I don't think Ubuntu is hurting Debian in any way. Those who will run servers know full well what Debian is and will very likely chose that over Ubuntu. Ubuntu is helping the Linux community very much, it is the first ever "real" Linux distribution that's good for the "average" user and has achieved great publicity. Another one is Linspire but it tends to emulate Windows in many ways (such as root all the time) and doesn't really introduce users to Linux itself IMO. Of course the fact that it's free and libre helps alot. The Debian project seem to need a good project manager REAL bad. On a final note, I'm sure there is a reason for Debian to not incorporate Ubuntu patches into their mainstream version.
Mainly challenge. Some people say that Ubuntu is for the ones who can't install Debian (not that I'm that unexperienced). I guess they are wrong. Debian has become easy to install.
Debian Etch is less polished than Ubuntu Dapper but it's a nice distro. Perhaps my ubuntised mind lead me to set "sudo" also in Debian (by doing "visudo") and make it a carbon copy of Ubuntu.
Trying Debian reinforced my convinction that I prefer Debian based distros over Red Hat based ones. Fedora is nice but its kernels sometimes break the compatibility with my computer (and I need a minimum of stability).
I suggest Ubuntu users to try Debian Etch when it's stable so as to make go away their bias against it (if they have such a bias) .
I have used both Debian sarge and Ubuntu (since warty). i liked Debian but at that time it wasn't suited for my primary desktop. I've been using linux for my primary Desktop since a couple of months into Warty.
I haven't tried Debian Etch yet. IMHO Debian is great but Ubuntu is more suited for the average desktop user.
some practical differences IMHO between Debian and Ubuntu :
-Debian has a terrible menu -Debian has long periods between releases versus Ubuntu's predictable releases -Ubuntu has more polish -Ubuntu is bit more easy for the average Desktop User -this great community :)
just my opinion.
I have used both Debian sarge and Ubuntu (since warty). i liked Debian but at that time it wasn't suited for my primary desktop. I've been using linux for my primary Desktop since a couple of months into Warty.
I haven't tried Debian Etch yet. IMHO Debian is great but Ubuntu is more suited for the average desktop user.
some practical differences IMHO between Debian and Ubuntu :
-Debian has a terrible menu -Debian has long periods between releases -Ubuntu has more polish -Ubuntu is bit more easy for the average Desktop User -this great community :)
just my opinion. I agree with everything you said apart from this part:
-Debian has a terrible menuOr, at least I didn't notice (in Debian Etch).
Trying Debian reinforced my convinction that I prefer Debian based distros over Red Hat based ones. Fedora is nice but its kernels sometimes break the compatibility with my computer (and I need a minimum of stability). its a bit unfair to compare debian with fedora and to base your preference(ie red hat systems Vs debian systems) from that. fedora is intended to be cutting edge. why not compare debian to red hat instead?
If you look at the source packages between Debian/Ubuntu for similar patches, you'll see an almost one-way flow. Ubuntu is very open about accepting Debian patches (as well as those from OpenSUSE, Gentoo, Mandriva, Redhat, and others), while Debian rarely accepts such patches, even back from Ubuntu which is a relatively straightforward merge.
If Debian doesn't accept our patches, then how do our patches make their way further up the chain and back to where they originated from?
I really hope when Ubuntu submit patches to Debian, the originators (ie Kernel) get them simultaenously, otherwise devolopment would completely stop.
its a bit unfair to compare debian with fedora and to base your preference(ie red hat systems Vs debian systems) from that. fedora is intended to be cutting edge. why not compare debian to red hat instead? First of all I was referring to Debian Etch, i.e. the "testing" version of Debian, which is not stable and is much less obsolete than Debian Sarge (the "stable" version).
Comparing Debian testing to Red Hat stable wouldn't be fair. Nonetheless comparing Debian Etch to Ubuntu Dapper is fair enough. They sport the same kenel version, the same version of GNOME (2.14.1), etc.
When I say that I like Debian based distros more than Red Hat based distros I mean that I like their package management better (Fedora's yum is not bad though), and the way things work there and how easily you can set up your system (with or without Automatix).
I'm NOT saying that Debian based distros ARE better. I'm only saying that I like them better. They have a different "feel". I can't explain it, even in my native language.
I've tried many rpm distros Fedora, PcLinux, Mandriva, OpenSuse, etc. and but none of them has managed to convince me to leave Ubuntu.
Then, when I tried Debian Etch I saw that it was almost as beatiful as Ubuntu for the desktop (I don't run a server). Perhaps it's because it's similar to Ubuntu... I really don't know.
It only needs some polish but, if you think that it's bound to be released next December, I'm sure it will be a wonderful distro.
When I say that I like Debian based distros more than Red Hat based distros I mean that I like their package management better (Fedora's yum is not bad though), and the way things work there and how easily you can set up your system (with or without Automatix).
I'm NOT saying that Debian based distros ARE better. I'm only saying that I like them better. They have a different "feel". I can't explain it, even in my native language. oh ok. nothing is stopping you from using apt in fedora and other rpm distros, though. its the same as it is on debian systems. why don't you give it a try and see for yourself. also, you don't have to use the command line for installation/deletion/upgrade of packages. using a GUI(such as Synaptic or Smart) makes the underlying packaage management largely irrelevant. i'm not quite sure where you get the idea that debian based ssytems are easier to set up, because there isn't any rationale to give that any substance. none that i've ever found anyway. maybe its just a case of you being more familiar with it.
from http://www.us.debian.org/releases/ :
The next release of Debian is codenamed ‘etch’ -- no release date has been set
I haven't seen any release dates for Etch but if it will be released a couple of months after Dapper and also has 5 years of security support for the server then it might be serious competition for Dapper on the server.
I have to agree with tseliot, Debian Etch is *awesome*. that doesn't mean anything against Ubuntu, it deserves the praise it gets- like one poster said, it's the way a computer should run. I can't help but notice, however, that both Breezy and Dapper feel somewhat bloated next to Etch. (Just to point out, I use a triple-boot: I'm running 64-bit breezy, 32-bit Dapper, and 32-bit Etch. I thought about naming my comp Overkill :twisted: )
oh ok. nothing is stopping you from using apt in fedora and other rpm distros, though. its the same as it is on debian systems. why don't you give it a try and see for yourself. also, you don't have to use the command line for installation/deletion/upgrade of packages. using a GUI(such as Synaptic or Smart) makes the underlying packaage management largely irrelevant. That's true up to a certain point. I prefer the command line though.
i'm not quite sure where you get the idea that debian based ssytems are easier to set up, because there isn't any rationale to give that any substance. none that i've ever found anyway. maybe its just a case of you being more familiar with it. Debian based distros ARE NOT easier to set up but I DO FIND them easier to set up.
BTW I'm not an APT fanatic. I like YUM, Packman (I use it in Arch Linux) and Emerge. I've also used pkg_add in FreeBSD.
I like Fedora but, as I've already said (perhaps in another thread), its kernels sometimes break the compatibility with my hardware. But it's a nice distro.
I also like Arch Linux (which I use on my portable computer), but Ubuntu is my favourite OS. And of course that doesn't make Ubuntu superior to any other distro.
It's a matter of taste. "De gustibus non disputandum est", as my Latin ancestors would say.
If I wasn't clear enough, I'm trying to say that I'm not trying to convince anyone else or stating some universal truth.
And BTW, it wouldn't be so much of a challenge trying to convince the users of the Ubuntu Forums to run Ubuntu.
from http://www.us.debian.org/releases/ :
I haven't seen any release dates for Etch but if it will be released a couple of months after Dapper and also has 5 years of security support for the server then it might be serious competition for Dapper on the server. Have a look at this article, please: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Debian_preps_for_December_code_release/0,2000061733,39254887,00.htm
Have a look at this article, please: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Debian_preps_for_December_code_release/0,2000061733,39254887,00.htm thnx. I vaguely remember to have read it. It's strange that that they don't update their website with the Etch release date accordingly :-?
Have a look at this article, please: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Debian_preps_for_December_code_release/0,2000061733,39254887,00.htm
Thanks for posting this overall positive article, this article touched on alot of the same content as the Linux Magazine article but in a completely different tone and addressed some aspects with one line.
The negative tone of the Linux Magazine article was a slam against Ubuntu, beginning with the subtitle and finalized with the last sentence. The overall tone was negative and I feel the writer made statements that didn't need to be made.
Thanks for posting this overall positive article, this article touched on alot of the same content as the Linux Magazine article but in a completely different tone and addressed some aspects with one line.
The negative tone of the Linux Magazine article was a slam against Ubuntu, beginning with the subtitle and finalized with the last sentence. The overall tone was negative and I feel the writer made statements that didn't need to be made. The only negative, or rather critical remark is in the last sentence. Other than that, the article is mainly critical of Debian, or at least of both Debian and Ubuntu.
The only negative, or rather critical remark is in the last sentence. Other than that, the article is mainly critical of Debian, or at least of both Debian and Ubuntu.
True, but again I found the overall " tone " negative.
tone-
*5. A general quality, effect, or atmosphere: a room with an elegant tone.* www.thefreedictionary.com
True, but again I found the overall " tone " negative. Ah, I see, I read it not as really negative, but a little sarcastic, which I actually liked.
I took it as saying, grow up people (as in, stop happily flaming away like 5 year olds) and work together. Both projects will benefit from it.
Ah, I see, I read it not as really negative, but a little sarcastic, which I actually liked.
I took it as saying, grow up people (as in, stop happily flaming away like 5 year olds) and work together. Both projects will benefit from it.
This is true and a good point that you make, lets hope that the two (Debian and Ubuntu) become the dynamic duo of the Linux world and actual bring to realization the fix for bug #1.
This is true and a good point that you make, lets hope that the two (Debian and Ubuntu) become the dynamic duo of the Linux world and actual bring to realization the fix for bug #1. I can only agree with this! :D
This is true and a good point that you make, lets hope that the two (Debian and Ubuntu) become the dynamic duo of the Linux world and actual bring to realization the fix for bug #1. whats bug #1? (for give my ignorace)
whats bug #1? (for give my ignorace) https://launchpad.net/bugs/1
HAHAHA! That is quite humorus, thanx aysiu.
heh..I have tracked down the original thread; Here it is in the mailing list.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg00008.html
bonzodog]heh..I have tracked down the original thread said: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg00008.html[/URL]
thanks.
The funniest part about that article is that Ubuntu feeds all it's patches to Debian. It is the Debian devs who are too full of pride to incorporate them into their stream.
I am of the belief if anything, Ubuntu has saved Debian from becoming irrellevent because of their slow and inconsistant development processes. If the RPM based Distros were run Like Debian, they would have been out of business a long time ago.
Or the pure fact that the patches are wrong?
Yes wrong, Ubuntu assumes that we have things like udev - surprise on many of the platforms Debian supports don't have that sort of thing (KFreeBSD, HURD, etc.). The patches Ubuntu do are Linux specific and that's not good enough for Debian in many cases.
Respectfully accusing the Debian developers of hindering progress because of pride is unfounded and shows a fundamental lack of research.
Where exactly can you download the debian ISOs and how many are there? I thought about trying debain, but I dont know too much about it, Ubuntu and Mepis are my only experiances with debian.
Where exactly can you download the debian ISOs and how many are there? I thought about trying debain, but I dont know too much about it, Ubuntu and Mepis are my only experiances with debian.
Where exactly can you download the debian ISOs and how many are there? I thought about trying debain, but I dont know too much about it, Ubuntu and Mepis are my only experiances with debian.
I'm going to wait for Debian Etch to try in November.
.
Or the pure fact that the patches are wrong?
Yes wrong, Ubuntu assumes that we have things like udev - surprise on many of the platforms Debian supports don't have that sort of thing (KFreeBSD, HURD, etc.). The patches Ubuntu do are Linux specific and that's not good enough for Debian in many cases.
Ummm.... Ubuntu is a Linux-distro. Debian is a Linux-distro. Why on Earth would Debian care about FreeBSD? Isn't that like Debian refusing a patch because "this would not work on OS X"? Shouldn't Debian and Ubuntu care about Linux, since they are Linux-distros? Why should Linux be held back by shortcomings in *BSD?
Who are the people who should be worrying about compatibility with FreeBSD, HURD, Linux and so forth? It's the upstream-projects like KDE, GNOME and the like. They can't assume that their users are using Linux. But I think that it's pretty safe for Debian to assume that their users are using (shock and horror) Linux.
Yes, there is a port of Debian to Hurd, but I think that letting something like HURD prevent you from improving your OS is just plain moronic. Maybe ten years from now HURD has another user, but is that good enough reason to prevent progress for everyone else?
The truth is that Ubuntu is filling a gap that Debian left themselves.
Debian and apt have many advantages, but if you wanted to take advantage of them you needed Debian. But if you also wanted some up-to-date software (at least before r3.1, you were out of luck.
I'm sorry to say it, but Warty was a nice Desktop and Woody was not an alternative to it, it was a step back in time.
Ubuntu filled this gap and offers the most conistent Desktop experience I have ever had on Linux. Combined with the advantages of Debian, that's a killer combination.
I was a computer illiterate high-school teacher of literature and history when I started using debian in 2000. For the most part of these years, I've been running debian sid at home and at work, with very few issues and constantly very up-to-date. It hasn't been hard, and atm I have the same bling as any ubuntu user (i e Xgl, compiz etc). When I've tried dapper out, I haven't found it to be more stable than sid, and easier to use only in a way which is useful to a user in the first month or so of his or her GNU/Linux experience.
I think ubuntu is great to bring people to the GNU/Linux desktop and all in all good for debian, but I think it would be wise to remember that without debian, ubuntu wouldn't exist. Debian however survives just fine without ubuntu. Putting debian down with comments about it being hard to use, its devs refusing to patch, its lack of community etc isn't true and is hurting ubuntu just as much.
How can that be true? It's the Debian developers that make the development process sooooo long.
Debian is a Linux-distro. Why on Earth would Debian care about FreeBSD? Isn't that like Debian refusing a patch because "this would not work on OS X"? Shouldn't Debian and Ubuntu care about Linux, since they are Linux-distros? Why should Linux be held back by shortcomings in *BSD? Debian calls itself an universal operating system. There are projects to enable the usage of other kernels than Linux, like for example the Hurd kernel. If you care only about Linux and a very limited number of architectures, well, no problem with that. But respect that there are people who are interested in other architectures and kernels which are not suported by Ubuntu. Debian is more general and can not accept patches which break some of their supported architectures.
Who are the people who should be worrying about compatibility with FreeBSD, HURD, Linux and so forth? It's the upstream-projects like KDE, GNOME and the like. They can't assume that their users are using Linux. But I think that it's pretty safe for Debian to assume that their users are using (shock and horror) Linux. Debian tries to support more then the Linux kernel.
Yes, there is a port of Debian to Hurd, but I think that letting something like HURD prevent you from improving your OS is just plain moronic. Maybe ten years from now HURD has another user, but is that good enough reason to prevent progress for everyone else? If you accept everything which breaks your ongoing projects it will never ever work. And it's not preventing progress, only forcing the developers to not make wrong assumptions and make better patches.
How can that be true? It's the Debian developers that make the development process sooooo long.
There are three versions of Debian: stable, testing and unstable (aka SID).
I am using SID, which is always up to date since it is Still-In-Development. The name 'unstable' refers more to the changing nature of the release than to the quality of the software. That's my experience, but if you don't believe me, you can read more about it in Martin F. Kraffts "The debian system. Concepts and technologies." (p 110f). Like I said, I've used SID for the most part of six years at home and at work without much trouble, and I am by no means a 'computer-person'. Judging from the ubuntu dapper forums, from the bug count and from my own dapper sessions, I can't say that I feel dapper is much stabler than debian unstable atm (which is not at all bad for a desktop os, but not the same thing as being enterprise ready).
Debian testing is usually also pretty up to date. This is the release that eventually freezes to become stable.
Debian stable seems to be what many people mean by debian taking so much time. This is the super well tested release -- way, way beyond the stability that dapper will have in two days. Such quality takes time, especially when the release is done on 10+ architectures simultaneously. You should be grateful that the devs make such a thing as debian stable available. No-one else does.
**asimon]Debian calls itself an universal operating system. There are projects to enable the usage of other kernels than Linux, like for example the Hurd kernel. If you care only about Linux and a very limited number of architectures, well, no problem with that. But respect that there are people who are interested in other architectures and kernels which are not suported by Ubuntu. Debian is more general and can not accept patches which break some of their supported architectures.
Debian is 99.9% Linux. the remaining 0.1% is the two crackpots running HURD. Maybe it nice to say "we are an universal distro" when in reality it doesn't show anywhere.
What is the official name of Debian? It's Debian GNU/Linux. I tried finding some info about this "universal" stuff in debian.org. I failed. Hell, the very first thing debian.org says is this:
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project said:**
Notice how they talk about *BSD and HURD. Or not. The "About Debian"-section mentions HURD, but I think it's fair to say that HURD is next to irrelevant. It mentions HURD in whopping two sentences! I can't find any place where I could download this Debian/HURD, and NO other kernels are mentioned.
And I find it REALLY hard to believe that Debian rejects patches because they are "wrong" (as in: they don't work on HURD). Maybe the whole comment about Ubuntu-patches being "wrong" is just an attempt to slam Ubuntu?
Debian tries to support more then the Linux kernel.
Does it? There is a port to HURD, but that seems to be it. And is ANYONE using the HURD-port? Seriously? And Debiand doesn't really make much noise about the HURD eiter-
If you accept everything which breaks your ongoing projects it will never ever work.
What "projects"? The HURD-port that no-one uses? Maybe this really is due to Debian-devels disliking Ubuntu? Hell, I remember few years ago when they commented on Gentoo. Talk about whining and flaming. It seems to me that Debian sees itself as "Capo di Tutti Capi" of Free Linux, and they get pissed whenever someone tries to steal their thunder.
Debian is 99.9% Linux. the remaining 0.1% is the two crackpots running HURD. Maybe it nice to say "we are an universal distro" when in reality it doesn't show anywhere. Don't be respectless to Hurd fans, fair enough if you don't share their interests, but why not accept that Debian is more than Linux? You have plenty of choise among projects with a more narrow focus.
What is the official name of Debian? It's Debian GNU/Linux. I tried finding some info about this "universal" stuff in debian.org. I failed. Hell, the very first thing debian.org says is this: The Debian project is evidently more than Debian GNU/Linux. See the other kernel projects.
And I find it REALLY hard to believe that Debian rejects patches because they are "wrong" (as in: they don't work on HURD). Maybe the whole comment about Ubuntu-patches being "wrong" is just an attempt to slam Ubuntu? No, it's good to not accept packages which break in Debian land. AFAIK the reason mentioned here was that the patch assumed that every Debian installation has udev running, when it's not mandatory on Debian. Not accepting this was the only right thing to do in my eyes, but I haven't looked deeper into this issue. Not accepting a patch because it has issues is not the end of the world. There is always the option to fix it.
Does it? There is a port to HURD, but that seems to be it. And is ANYONE using the HURD-port? Seriously? And Debiand doesn't really make much noise about the HURD eiter- Evidently there are people working on this project, yes.
What "projects"? The HURD-port that no-one uses? Maybe this really is due to Debian-devels disliking Ubuntu? Hell, I remember few years ago when they commented on Gentoo. Talk about whining and flaming. It seems to me that Debian sees itself as "Capo di Tutti Capi" of Free Linux, and they get pissed whenever someone tries to steal their thunder. Of course there are Debian Developers who dislike Ubuntu. If you are interested, some developers blogged about their diverse reasons, some even in a constructive form. And I have seen flaming Ubuntu developers saying stupid things too. If you make the opinions of a single developer the opinion of the whole project you end up with a lot of stupid and contradictory things.
Instead of assuming that Debian hates Ubuntu, something which is a very unhelpful thing to do, I recommend to be thankful for the work Debian does and help them. Without it Ubuntu would be nothing and could not survive.
Don't be respectless to Hurd fans, fair enough if you don't share their interests, but why not accept that Debian is more than Linux?
Because in reality Debian is Linux and Linux alone? There are few skunkworks-projects, sure, but that does not change the fact that in reality Debian is all about Linux.
I'm not "disrespectful" towards HURD-fans. And I do not dislike HURD. I just acknowledge the fact that HURD is tiny, appalingly late and will never really get off the ground. The entire project seems to be academic at this point, with little interest in creating something that is actually usable. And now we have HURD holding back the developement of Linux-distro? Well, if Debian chooses to do something like that, it's their choice.
The Debian project is evidently more than Debian GNU/Linux. See the other kernel projects.
If they are, they are not actually shouting it in every street-corner. When I checked Debian.org, all I saw was Linux. I saw TWO sentences that mentioned HURD, but that's it.
No, it's good to not accept packages which break in Debian land. AFAIK the reason mentioned here was that the patch assumed that every Debian installation has udev running, when it's not mandatory on Debian. Not accepting this was the only right thing to do in my eyes, but I haven't looked deeper into this issue. Not accepting a patch because it has issues is not the end of the world. There is always the option to fix it.
The original complaint I replied to was about those pathes breaking on stuff that are not Linux. And only "non-Linux" thing in Debian seems to be HURD. And HURD is tiny.
And if the case REALLY is about the patches being incompatible with Debian because of some skunkworks bizarro-project of theirs, then I fail to see why people should slam Ubuntu/Canonical because of it. Ubuntu-developers care first and foremost about Ubuntu. To claim that they don't give back to Debian is crap, since the seem to give plenty of back, but Debian just chooses (for one reason or the other) to not accept their pathes. Should Ubuntu-developers then spend time changing their patches so that they are Debian-compatible? Do you see SUSE-developeres creating Red Hat patches? Then why should Ubuntu-developers spend time creating Debian-patches? Why should Ubuntu-developers spend time creating patches that work on Debian/HURD? Ubuntu-developers are not HURD-developers. Ubuntu has nothing to do with HURD, it quite unreasonable to expect them to create HURD-compliant patches.
Instead of assuming that Debian hates Ubuntu, something which is a very unhelpful thing to do, I recommend to be thankful for the work Debian does and help them. Without it Ubuntu would be nothing and could not survive.
Of course I acknowledge the efforts by the Debian-project. But I also acknowledge the fact that Debian is quite elitist, and for good reason.
Because in reality Debian is Linux and Linux alone? There are few skunkworks-projects, sure, but that does not change the fact that in reality Debian is all about Linux. No the reality is that there are people working on alternatives kernels under the Debian project. Having a real GNU kernel is a longstanding goal anyway. If you don't accept this, there is no point to further discuss.
I'm not "disrespectful" towards HURD-fans. Calling people "crackpots" and their work "skunkwork" is insulting in my eyes.
And I do not dislike HURD. I just acknowledge the fact that HURD is tiny, appalingly late and will never really get off the ground. The entire project seems to be academic at this point, with little interest in creating something that is actually usable. The same thing was once sayed about Linux, many people thought that it will never get off the ground... No good agrument when trying to change Debian policies.
And now we have HURD holding back the developement of Linux-distro? Well, if Debian chooses to do something like that, it's their choice. If your patch breaks things, either fix the patch or accept that it doesn't go upstream unchanged. It's that easy. Nothing is holding anything back.
If they are, they are not actually shouting it in every street-corner. When I checked Debian.org, all I saw was Linux. I saw TWO sentences that mentioned HURD, but that's it. Probably because it's not yet ready for mass consumption.
The original complaint I replied to was about those pathes breaking on stuff that are not Linux. And only "non-Linux" thing in Debian seems to be HURD. And HURD is tiny. You can not start to accept patches which break "tiny" things. Next other people want to get their patches integrated too, which break other tiny things. You can imagine to where this path leads.
And if the case REALLY is about the patches being incompatible with Debian because of some skunkworks bizarro-project of theirs, then I fail to see why people should slam Ubuntu/Canonical because of it. Ubuntu-developers care first and foremost about Ubuntu. To claim that they don't give back to Debian is crap, since the seem to give plenty of back, but Debian just chooses (for one reason or the other) to not accept their pathes. There are many patches which have gone from Ubuntu to Debian. But don't expect them to accept anything, especially if it breaks things. I have read a couple of complains from some Debian developers (not many btw) and they seemed well founded and I hope that the situation improves. Not that the situation is terrible or so, but there is room for improvement and people are working on it. A situation where I can understand the unhappyness of a DD is for example when they start to get tons of bug reports because of some breakage introduced by changes to their package which they knew nothing about (Ubuntu made some big changes to the packages but did not change the maintainer field of them in that case) .
Should Ubuntu-developers then spend time changing their patches so that they are Debian-compatible? If they are happy if the patch doesn't go into Debian... No one forces them. On the other side don't expect Debian developers incorporating broken patches.
Do you see SUSE-developeres creating Red Hat patches? Then why should Ubuntu-developers spend time creating Debian-patches? Why should Ubuntu-developers spend time creating patches that work on Debian/HURD? Ubuntu-developers are not HURD-developers. Ubuntu has nothing to do with HURD, it quite unreasonable to expect them to create HURD-compliant patches. It's reasonable to expect non-breaking patches to go into Debian. Nothing else. None expects Ubuntu developers to work on Hurd. But the small Ubuntu team can not affort to diverge too much from Debian.
No the reality is that there are people working on alternatives kernels under the Debian project. Having a real GNU kernel is a longstanding goal anyway. If you don't accept this, there is no point to further discuss.
What makes you think that I "don't accept it"?
Calling people "crackpots" and their work "skunkwork" is insulting in my eyes.
Well, IMO it is more or less "crackpot" to run HURD, when there are perfectly working (and free) alternatives available. And "skunkwork" is not a derogatory term.
The same thing was once sayed about Linux, many people thought that it will never get off the ground... No good agrument when trying to change Debian policies.
What makes you think I'm trying to change Debians policies?
If your patch breaks things, either fix the patch or accept that it doesn't go upstream unchanged. It's that easy. Nothing is holding anything back.
Well, there seems to be quite a few people whining about Ubuntu and Canonical. Canonical doesn't (propably) have much issues with the fact that their patches don't end up in Debian (because they apparently don't work on HURD), so they do "accept" it. But maybe the whiners should accept it as well then? If Debian won't/can't accept Ubuntu's patches, then I would say that's Debians problem.
Probably because it's not yet ready for mass consumption.
Will it ever be? How long have they been working on HURD? over 15 years. And it's still nowhere near to be usable.
You can not start to accept patches which break "tiny" things. Next other people want to get their patches integrated too, which break other tiny things. You can imagine to where this path leads.
To non-working HURD-distro? Oh the humanity!
There are many patches which have gone from Ubuntu to Debian. But don't expect them to accept anything, especially if it breaks things.
I think you are confused. I'm not expecting them to do anything! But there seems to be quite a few whiners who complain that Ubuntu does not contribute back. Well, they do, it's just that Debian refuses their patches apparently. Shouldn't they then whine to Debian and not Ubuntu?
If they are happy if the patch doesn't go into Debian... No one forces them. On the other side don't expect Debian developers incorporating broken patches.
*sigh*..... again: I'm not "expecting" anything from the Debian-developers. If they choose to not include the patches, it's their choice. But in that case the whiners can stop their "Ubuntu does not contribute back!"-moaning. What should Ubuntu do to satisfy them? Force Debian in to accepting their patches? Start working on HURD so that their patches work on it as well?
It's reasonable to expect non-breaking patches to go into Debian. Nothing else. None expects Ubuntu developers to work on Hurd.
Well, since the patches can't be accepted due to HURD (apparently a project of great strategic importance to Debian....), and it's not reasonable to expect Ubuntu-devels to work on Hurd, then I guess there's only one thing left: the whiners should just shut up.
Sushi, with all your comments about debian developers as crackpot elitist flamers working on bizarro projects, you're like the guy who's in a tree building a tree-house and tries to hack off the branch he's standing on :).
This article is interesting in relation to this thread:
http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/22/1240231&tid=18
I agree with Sushi (not entirely) on this issue. Debian claims that Ubuntu does not contribute back. Once that was refuted someone (maybe not in this thread) brought out a comment by a DD about Ubuntu not sending them to the right place, now there is talk of patches not being 100% Debian compatible. Like someone said Ubuntu has a small development team they cannot possibly create 100% tested patches for Debian's HURD based project so they contribute what they can, which is Linux patches. I do have tremendous respect for Debian and Ubuntu but I see no reason for Debian to accuse Ubuntu of not contributing.
I think it would be most beneficial for the free software community for everyone to encourage cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu, as well as HURD and NetBSD Debian projects. We can bitch about HURD when bug #1 is fixed.
In the mean time, I'd like to see Ubuntu devs using applications in Ubuntu which would make Debian GNU/Linux and Ubuntu completely intercompatible. If some things aren't so great for a user-friendly distro, then perhaps thats where we most need to work.
I think it would be most beneficial for the free software community for everyone to encourage cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu, as well as HURD and NetBSD Debian projects. We can bitch about HURD when bug #1 is fixed.
In the mean time, I'd like to see Ubuntu devs using applications in Ubuntu which would make Debian GNU/Linux and Ubuntu completely intercompatible. If some things aren't so great for a user-friendly distro, then perhaps thats where we most need to work. There is no reason for any of that. Ubuntu is a desktop distribution that is aiming to be easy to use for a novice, with a very fast development cycle. Debian aims to be a distro that is exteremely stable and has a fairly slow pace of development. The HURD and BSD projects are side projects and have no bearing on Ubuntu whatsoever, it is actually quite possible that Ubuntu devs don't have the expertise to create patches that would work on the other two projects.
As far as interoperability goes there is the LSB that no one is stopping Debian from joining, Ubuntu is planning on joining it so if Debian wants binary compatibility it would have to follow suit.
TO be honest I partly ageree with this. Th main differences between Ubuntu and Debian is that Ubuntu is a more integrated desktop (installs a nice fully configured gnome desktop for you) and the release cycles. Now one of those has gone down the toilet with Dapper I find that yes Ubuntu is nice, why why is all this effort going into a distribution that's only difference is reality is allows a fully fledged desktop to be installed very easily. Look, I find that the Ubuntu developers are realising that the reason Debian took so long to release was they wanted a stable system. They are finding out with Dapper that this is hard, even to get a half-stable system. I am of the belief that yes, Ubuntu is excellent, it is an amazing distribution... but it isn't really a distribution, it should be part of the Debian project as a sub-project. Then I think most people would be happy and all this work could go into making one really good system not two.
the following is from here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth
"Is Ubuntu a Debian fork? Or spoon? What sort of silverware are you, man?
Yes, Ubuntu is a fork. No, it isn't. Yes it is! Oh, whatever.
In short, we are a project that tries hard to collaborate with many other projects - such as upstream X.org, and GNOME, and of course Debian. In many cases, the code we ship is modified or different to the code shipped by those other projects. When that happens, we work hard to ensure that our changes are published as widely as possible, in a format that is easy for other project maintainers to understand and incorporate into their own working tree.
In practice, we have gone to great lengths to develop tools that make it easy to collaborate with Ubuntu, and help us to collaborate with upstreams and other distributions. For example, we have an automatic patch publisher that shows Debian maintainers what patches for their packages are available for Ubuntu. It couldn't be easier for DDs to decide which patches they want, and which they don't. And frankly, it's a lot easier for us if they DO take them, but we can't force that. Many of the patches only make sense in Ubuntu. As a side benefit, these patches are also available for Gentoo, Red Hat, Linspire (yes, really) and Suse. And we know they check 'em out and use some of them, which is cool.
Collaboration goes beyond patches though. We have developed [WWW] Malone, a bug tracker that explicitly tries to create collaboration between Ubuntu and other distros, and upstreams, on the fixing of bugs. Each bug can be tracked in lots of places, and in a single place you can see the status of the bug in all places. It's pretty cool.
One of the triggers that got me out of the "cosmonaut playboy international love rat of mystery" game and into Ubuntu was the emergence of tools like TLA, which it seemed to offer the promise of even better collaboration on source code between distros and upstreams. So we did a lot of work on TLA, to the point where it looked different enough to call it [WWW] Bazaar. Then we did a ground up rewrite in Python, and the result is [WWW] Bazaar-NG, or Bzr, which will be Bazaar 2.0 by March 2006. Why is this important? Because passing patches around is not nearly as effective as working in a genuinely distributed revision control system. Many of the Ubuntu guys don't work on the distro, they work on tools like Bazaar, and [WWW] HCT, which we hope will really accelerate the kind of collaboration that is possible in the open source world. Time will tell.
In summary: binary compatibility between Ubuntu and Debian is not a priority for us. We believe we contribute more to the open source world by providing patches to make Ubuntu (and Debian) packages work better, and providing a cutting edge (or bleeding edge, depending on your perspective) distribution for others to collaborate with. We invest a lot of energy in making sure our patches are widely published and easily available to developers of ALL other distributions as well as upstream, because that way we think our work will have the biggest long term benefit. And we develop tools (see Bazaar and Bazaar-NG and Launchpad and [WWW] Rosetta and Malone) that we hope will make source code collaboration even more efficient.
What about forking the community? The Ubuntu community has grown very quickly, and that causes some people to worry that this growth might come at some cost to other open source communities, Debian in particular.
Given that patches can flow so easily between Ubuntu and Debian, it seems to me that the bigger we can make our total combined developer community, the better for both projects. Ubuntu benefits from a strong Debian, and Debian benefits from a strong Ubuntu. This is particularly true because the two projects have slightly different goals. Ubuntu gets to break new ground sooner, and Debian benefits hugely from those patches (just scan changelogs in Debian Sid since the Sarge release, and you'll see how many references to "Ubuntu" are in there. And that's only the cases where credit has been given.
[COLOR="Sienna"]If the Ubuntu and Debian communities worked in the same way, then I think there would be more truth to this concern, because we would attract the same sorts of people, which would mean that we were competing for talent. But the two communities are quite different. We organise ourselves differently, and we set different priorities. That means that we tend to attract different sorts of developers.
Now, there are certainly Debian developers who have started doing most of their work in Ubuntu now. There are also developers who work equally in Ubuntu and Debian. But the majority of the Ubuntu community is made up of newer developers, who are attracted to the Ubuntu way of doing things. There will always be some churn and movement between communities, and thats healthy because it helps to spread good ideas.[/COLOR]
What if Ubuntu's success means Debian dies?
That would be very bad for Ubuntu. [COLOR="Red"]Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer, because one way to contribute to Ubuntu is to contribute to Debian.[/COLOR] We incorporate Debian changes regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible. And the Debian Way is under no threat, it's getting a lot more exposure in more interesting places now that Ubuntu has shown what amazing things can be done within that community.
Why is Ubuntu not part of the DCC Alliance?
I don't believe the DCC will succeed, though its aims are lofty and laudable. It would be expensive to participate, and it would slow down our ability to add the features, polish and integration that we want in new releases. I'm not prepared to devote scarce resources to an initiative that I believe will ultimately fail. There's no point here in going into the reasons why I think the DCC will fail - time will tell. I would encourage members of the Ubuntu community to participate in the DCC discussions if they have time and are interested. If the DCC produces good code, we should merge that into Ubuntu releases, and it should be easy to do so.
Why are you funding Ubuntu, instead of giving the money to Debian?
I spent a lot of time thinking about how best to make a contribution to the open source world, and how best to explore the ideas I am personally interested in, such as the best ways to deploy open source on the desktop. One option was to stand for the position of DPL (I'm a DD, first maintainer of Apache in 1996 blah blah) and drive those ideas inside Debian. In the end I decided to create a parallel distribution, and invest in the infrastructure to make inter-distro collaboration a lot more efficient.
Here's why.
First, a lot of the things I want to do involve reducing the scope of the distro. That makes it MORE useful for one set of people, but quite clearly LESS useful for others. For example, we currently officially support only 3 architectures in Ubuntu. That's GREAT for people running those architectures, but clearly not so useful for people running on something else.
Similarly, we support about 1,000 core apps in Ubuntu. Those are the core pieces that are in the "main" component for Ubuntu, [WWW] Kubuntu and [WWW] Edubuntu. Everything else is accessible, as part of [WWW] Universe or Multiverse, but not officially supported.
[COLOR="DarkOrange"]The more I thought about it, the more I realised this was the wrong thing for Debian, which derives much of its strength from its "universality". It makes more sense to take these approaches in a separate project. We get to pioneer and focus on those things, and the patches are instantly accessible to the DDs who feel they are appropriate for Debian too.
Second, the problem of "sharing between distributions" is the really interesting one. At the moment, we tend to see the world, as upstream, a distro, and derivatives. Actually, the world looks more like a bunch of different projects that need to collaborate. We need to collaborate with Debian, but we should also be able to collaborate with upstream, and with Gentoo. And with Red Hat, too. We need to figure out how to collaborate effectively with distributions that use totally different packaging systems to us. Because the reality of the open source world is one in which the number of distributions continues to rise - each one fulfilling the needs of a specific group of people, based on their job, or their cultural identity, or the institution for which they work, or their personal interests.
Solving the "distro collaboration problem" would really advance the state of open source. So that's what we set out to do in Ubuntu. We work on Launchpad, which is a web service for collaboration on bugs, and translations, and technical support. We work on Bazaar, which is a revision control system that understands branching and distributions, and is integrated with Launchpad. And hopefully those tools allow us to make our work available easily to Debian, and to Gentoo, and to upstream. And also, allow us to take good work from other distros (even if they would rather we didn't ;-)).[/COLOR]
And finally, it seems to me that the hard part is not making funds available, its allocating them to people and projects. I could easily write a cheque to SPI, Inc, for the same amount that I've invested in Ubuntu. But who would decide how that money was spent? Have you actually read the financial statements of SPI, Inc, over the past few years? Who would decide who gets hired full time, and who doesn't? Who would decide which projects get funded to be worked on, and which don't? As much as I admire the governance and social structures of Debian, I don't believe that it would be effective to allocate funds to it and expect to see the same level of productivity that we have been able to achieve in the Ubuntu project.
Mixing funding with volunteer work raises all sorts of issues. Ask [WWW] Mako to tell you about the experiment that showed that this difficulty might be hard-wired into our genes - there are deep social difficulties with projects that blend full time paid work with volunteer efforts. I'm not sure Debian needs that kind of challenge. You can very quickly get into deep conflict over who gets to allocate money and hire people, and who decides which ideas get funding and which don't. One of the things that I believe gives Debian its real strength is the sense of "untaintedness". And to a certain extent, the fact that Ubuntu does NOT force changes into Debian has helped to reinforce that healthy reputation for Debian.
OK, but why don't you call it "Debian for Desktops" then?
Because we respect the Debian trademark policy. You may have watched the mindbending contortions around the definition of "DCC Alliance" recently for an example of what happens when people don't. Very simply, the Ubuntu project is not Debian, so it has no right to use the name. And using the name would weaken Debian's own brand name. In addition, [COLOR="Blue"]we like the "humanity" aspect of the name Ubuntu, so we chose that. [/COLOR]"
TO be honest I partly ageree with this. Th main differences between Ubuntu and Debian is that Ubuntu is a more integrated desktop (installs a nice fully configured gnome desktop for you) and the release cycles. Now one of those has gone down the toilet with Dapper I find that yes Ubuntu is nice, why why is all this effort going into a distribution that's only difference is reality is allows a fully fledged desktop to be installed very easily. Look, I find that the Ubuntu developers are realising that the reason Debian took so long to release was they wanted a stable system. They are finding out with Dapper that this is hard, even to get a half-stable system. I am of the belief that yes, Ubuntu is excellent, it is an amazing distribution... but it isn't really a distribution, it should be part of the Debian project as a sub-project. Then I think most people would be happy and all this work could go into making one really good system not two.
I'll admit that I don't stay abreast of issues in the Linux world but according to distrowatch there are 129 linux distros based on Debian yet I don't really hear any bleating about the injustice of that. Is the issue really that a fork 'steals' away development work that could be spent on Debian or is it more that this particular fork is seemingly eclipsing Debian in many ways? Somehow i doubt that there is an equal amount of gnashing of teeth about Beatrix as there is ubuntu
[COLOR=Sienna]Let's state the obvious:[/COLOR] [FONT=Lucida Console] [COLOR=Black]I[/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Black][B][FONT=Lucida Console]t's only a matter of time before Ubuntu - Debian have a friendly, direct, merger. [/FONT] Allen :cool:
[/B][/COLOR]
There is no reason for any of that. Ubuntu is a desktop distribution that is aiming to be easy to use for a novice, with a very fast development cycle. Debian aims to be a distro that is exteremely stable and has a fairly slow pace of development. The HURD and BSD projects are side projects and have no bearing on Ubuntu whatsoever, it is actually quite possible that Ubuntu devs don't have the expertise to create patches that would work on the other two projects.
As far as interoperability goes there is the LSB that no one is stopping Debian from joining, Ubuntu is planning on joining it so if Debian wants binary compatibility it would have to follow suit.
Planning on joining lsb ...does anyone know 'when' that is going to take place as I frankly wont use any distro that does not support LSB or at least has a definitive schedule for doing so. Does anyone know why ubuntu has lagged behind other distros in supporting this necessary project ? ;-)
cheers nl
Ubuntu is not Debian. It uses the Debian packaging tools (dpkg apt-get aptitude) but that does not mean anything. Many distros use RPMs but no one is expecting them to be compatable with Red Hat or Fedora Core. Small apps compiled for Fedora work on SUSE but you cannot enable the Fedora Repos in Suse and upgrade GNOME or KDE and expect it to work, similarly you cannot do the same with Ubuntu and Debian. Perhaps the Ubuntu project is a little more closely tied with Debian then SUSE is with Fedora but it is the same basic idea. Look at Windows, it's not even always compatable with itself, Not all Windows 98 programs work with Windows XP etc. This issue is only out there because Ubuntu is very popular. If it were one of the smaller, more obscure distros (that use Debian packaging systems) most people would not care. So even though the Debian people would not admit this, part of this problem might be due to a little bit out of jealousy, after all they are only human. The packaging problems may also play a role in this, but honestly I don't think the Debian devs would just take the Ubuntu packages and use them without recompiling them at least once anyways, even if Ubuntu did try to be compatable. What people need to keep in mind is Ubuntu is not part of the Debian project, it utilizes a lot of the work done by the Debian devs, but it also does alot of work on it's own. We might as well argue why SUSE's packages do not work in Fedora, after all they are diffrent distros. What I want to know is why on earth anyone using Debian would even want to use an Ubuntu package, Debian has essentially every package that Ubuntu has. If you want stability and a long Development cyle use Debian, if you want the most bleeding edge software out there use Ubuntu (That is overlysimplifed but it gets the point across).
Note: I'm comparing Ubuntu to the more stable branches of Debian)
~ED
I thought the Ubuntu development cycle is they freeze Debian unstable and work on that to make a new release? I might be wrong about that, but that pretty much makes it Debian, well about as much as CentOS is Red Hat.
I thought the Ubuntu development cycle is they freeze Debian unstable and work on that to make a new release? I might be wrong about that, but that pretty much makes it Debian, well about as much as CentOS is Red Hat. They are derived from Debian that is true, they do take the unstable branch and "add water". That in no way shape or form makes it Debian, they are different enough for packages from one not working on another.
They are derived from Debian that is true, they do take the unstable branch and "add water". That in no way shape or form makes it Debian, they are different enough for packages from one not working on another. I agree. There would be no point in making Ubuntu exactly the same as Debian, Debian is very good at what it does Ubuntu has a diffrent purpose. Read the wiki by Mark Shuttleworth (it is linked to in this thread a page or two back) he explains this a better then I would. Diffrent distros different uses. Honestly I see no conflict between the two, thats not what FOSS is about. It's about sharing for the mutual benifit of all people.
I think that a lot of the conflict here derives from the fact that Ubuntu users do not acknowledge their roots. Ubuntu would not be without Debian while Debian would still be going strong without Ubuntu. As for the great contributions that Ubuntu pays back to Debian; take a look at this article.
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_bad_taste_in_the_mouth_detailed_ubuntu_patch_review/
I think Mark Shuttleworth said it pretty well: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/56
CliffLandin said: I think that a lot of the conflict here derives from the fact that Ubuntu users do not acknowledge their roots. Ubuntu would not be without Debian while Debian would still be going strong without Ubuntu.
Very good point, I see alot of folks here thinking Ubuntu made GNU/Linux as it is today, while Ubuntu is just starting to be a player really..
kellemes said: Very good point, I see alot of folks here thinking Ubuntu made GNU/Linux as it is today, while Ubuntu is just starting to be a player really..
The most important thing for any distribution to succeed is that it has a strong community as well as strong leadership. Another important factor is that a distribution must not waste too much time reinventing the wheel. This is what has helped Ubuntu reach it's place today. The developers don't have to waste too much time doing what has already been done in Debian. I really wish it would be like that for all linux distros. We all pull from the same repos and customize to our desire all while using the same binary type. This would increase compatibility between distros and lower the amount of time wasted reinventing the wheel.
In my opinion Debian is much better for a desktop system than Ubuntu. I've tried both Ubuntu and Kubuntu (for more than 3 months for ubuntu and 1 month fr kubuntu) . Previously I was using openSUSE 10.2 so when I switched to Ubuntu I was amazed by the speed, responsibility and leightweight It came with. I personally prefer KDE over GNOME so I gave Kubuntu a try. In my opinion it;s one of the worst KDE-based distros. I'vd noticed that it is bloated and slow. After a month using it I decided to switch to Debian (lenny) with KDE. I must say it's the fastest (even in running compiz), most responsible and stable Linux-based system I've ever used. I'ts a litter bit harder to install and setup (maybe due to strict GNU Debian policy) than Ubuntu. So for me Ubuntu is a very poor derivatie of Debian.
Can't we all just get along?? If we dont Windows will always be on top. If we keep bickering amongst ourselves, we will just spin the wheels and get nowhere.
This of course is just my 2cents.
I think that ubuntu is in most cases good for those, who decide to leave windows and try something else. Ubuntu is good because it works out-of-the-box (in most cases). There must be a distro which can "pull" some number of windows users to the linux world, and ubuntu is just great in this role. Debian if far more "technical" distro, in majority good for geeks. And it's not about a debian - ubuntu war.
And that are my 2 cents (We rather say in Poland: "Moje trzy (3) grosze" ;) )
Stormy Eyes said: Debian is holding Debian back.
Its ready when it's ready ;-)
Several people have mentioned the fact that they would like to see Debian and Ubuntu work together to become the dynamic duo, take a look at the stats for registered users at the linux counter http://counter.li.org/ Debian and Ubuntu rank 1st and 2nd in that order!
Debian is a great distro, but I think they need to have the options of a Server optimized and a desktop optimized kernel - ever down a "make old conifg" on a Debian Kernel and get in there and look around? It is totally set up for Server use - they don't prempt the big kernel lock, they use no preemptive multitasking, and they have the kernel clock set to 250Hz...
oswaldkelso said: Its ready when it's ready ;-)
Personally, I prefer that approach than one that is meeting a shipping date even if you know you have a major big in there. I want stable and up to date. You can run Debian Sid and have both. Or you can run Debian stable and have very stable.
I don't Ubuntu and Debian ever working together. They have completely different goals.
greymongrey said: Personally, I prefer that approach than one that is meeting a shipping date even if you know you have a major big in there. I want stable and up to date. You can run Debian Sid and have both. Or you can run Debian stable and have very stable.
I don't Ubuntu and Debian ever working together. They have completely different goals.
You forget Lenny (testing) in there fairly up to date and pretty stable.
My opinion
Ubuntu is easy and good for someone who just wants a computer to work and do everything in 30 minutes.
Debian is amazing. It is slightly harder, but if you do a netinstall you will learn alot, just like with Ubuntu's minimal install. But what's really amazing about Debian Etch (stable) is it is really stable. I have not had once single crash, well besides the one when I tried to startx when I didn't have x (i forgot), but yeah. it's awesome.
tdrusk said: My opinion
Ubuntu is easy and good for someone who just wants a computer to work and do everything in 30 minutes.
Debian is amazing. It is slightly harder, but if you do a netinstall you will learn alot, just like with Ubuntu's minimal install. But what's really amazing about Debian Etch (stable) is it is really stable. I have not had once single crash, well besides the one when I tried to startx when I didn't have x (i forgot), but yeah. it's awesome.
I fully agree.
The most stable distro I have ever used is Debian stable (currently Etch). Every desktop environment related bug I've seen in other distros was fixed in Debian. They achieve this by working for a longer time than other distros for their next stable release, therefore it can take 1-3 years to release another stable version.
My brief experience: I was introduced to linux, found www.linux.org and gained a good foothold from their 'courses' section. My first distro was openSuSE 10.1, then Debian, then Ubuntu, now Debian again. I've tried a few others along the way. Ubuntu is the bleeding edge, and Debian is quite a bit slower with development. Ubuntu is probably the best option for new-to-linux computer deficient people (or people without the desire to learn a new system), but I have had far fewer problems with software in Debian, for example; Beryl runs significantly and surprisingly better on Debian Etch. Both installs were easy for me, debian seemed a bit faster and the gui-install is excellent. And my most weighing factor when I choose to say debian is better;
sudo
one passwd vs. two.....i thought that was the point of the root user; separate passwords makes for better security. I understand that this can be changed and somewhat easily, but the average user won't and this adds another inconvienant step in the way of better security. On the other hand Etch defaults to saving the root passwd for you're session, convenient for my fingers but very Vista-like in security. This option is much simpler to take care of, via one click of the menu before you enter your passwd.
Debian vs. Ubuntu, this is the spawn of open source....you can copy someone's system and make money off of it. At least its well known that Ubuntu is debian based so they get some credit.
It seems that Ubuntu packages are more recent than Debian ones.
For instance the Ruby language is:
Debian Etch (stable) : 1.8.5
Ubuntu 7.10: 1.8.6
So on Debian is it easy to use the 1.8.6 package from the Testing distribution? And can it be used in a production server?
Railsbuntu said: It seems that Ubuntu packages are more recent than Debian ones.
For instance the Ruby language is:
Debian Etch (stable) : 1.8.5
Ubuntu 7.10: 1.8.6
So on Debian is it easy to use the 1.8.6 package from the Testing distribution? And can it be used in a production server? The current testing distribution is very stable at this point, and it's scheduled to become the new stable late this year (don't hold your breath, though -- it'll be released when it's released). The problem is just the security updates model, which isn't as tightly run as Stable. For that reason alone, I would not use it for a public server.
Debian Sid is where things are happening.I dont know why,but Debian Should advertise more about their testing distro and may be Sid also :-|
Also,somewhere in the thread I read Debian is not utilizing Ubuntu developer's patches!why oh why! there is this project inside debian called Utnubu JFYI !
Here's my two cents
I installed Ubuntu Feisty Fawn after walking away from Linux a few years earlier. I had tried to fully move over to Linux, but it bugged the life out me with it's dependency hell. Feisty Fawn was the first breath of fresh air from a non-corporate Operating System and I loved it.
I moved with the times and upgraded to Gutsy Gibbon and then to Hardy Heron.
What I have noticed with each version increase is just how bloated Ubuntu (and Xubuntu) had become. I've got two desktop PCs that I built myself. One, sitting in the hallway, is a Duron 750mhz, 768MB RAM and 40GB hard disk and the other in the lounge is an AMD Athlon 2200+ with 1.25GB RAM and a 250GB hard disk. None of them are spectacular compared to today's blazing fast systems. But then, they don't need to be. For what I use them for they are perfectly functional.
This past couple of days I've had some free time and I decided to find out what the fuss is about Debian. I knew already from somewhere sometime ago that Ubuntu is derived from it, but I also heard about how much faster it is. Well, I am typing this from Debian Lenny Beta 1 (Beta 2 has a corrupt installer).
It is absolutely brilliant! This Duron 750 has never moved so fast. I have Firefox 3 RC1 running like a Herbie on steroids. I just did a standard install. I can maintain my MODx websites with no ridiculous periodic slowdowns. I've installed a good few other things, including Compiz Fusion and my CPU resources are still below 10% on idle. On Xubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) they are at minimum 30% idle even without Compiz.
It seems to me that Ubuntu tries so hard to achieve the "it just works" statement by having every unimaginable module and service runing at startup, in the hope that no system will have a problem with actually making it off the starting line. This may pose a problem in later versions as older hardware (P3?) will buckle under the weight of the spent resources.
For now, this Duron has never had it so good. I will be sticking to Debian in the future I think. When I next get some free time I might have the opportunity to put Debian Lenny in its stable state onto my other rig.
My two cents are this:-
If you're new to Linux give Ubuntu a try. But, if you want to see something faster or want to learn more about what make Linux tick then move over to Debian.
Over and Out
Sulligogs
P.S. Forgot to point out that I installed Debian with the default GNOME desktop. Everyone moans about it being slow and Nautilus is runs like a slug. Well, they are wrong. Nautilus is running like a dream. It pops up as soon as I invoke it.
sulligogs said: Here's my two cents
I installed Ubuntu Feisty Fawn after walking away from Linux a few years earlier. I had tried to fully move over to Linux, but it bugged the life out me with it's dependency hell. Feisty Fawn was the first breath of fresh air from a non-corporate Operating System and I loved it.
I moved with the times and upgraded to Gutsy Gibbon and then to Hardy Heron.
What I have noticed with each version increase is just how bloated Ubuntu (and Xubuntu) had become. I've got two desktop PCs that I built myself. One, sitting in the hallway, is a Duron 750mhz, 768MB RAM and 40GB hard disk and the other in the lounge is an AMD Athlon 2200+ with 1.25GB RAM and a 250GB hard disk. None of them are spectacular compared to today's blazing fast systems. But then, they don't need to be. For what I use them for they are perfectly functional.
This past couple of days I've had some free time and I decided to find out what the fuss is about Debian. I knew already from somewhere sometime ago that Ubuntu is derived from it, but I also heard about how much faster it is. Well, I am typing this from Debian Lenny Beta 1 (Beta 2 has a corrupt installer).
It is absolutely brilliant! This Duron 750 has never moved so fast. I have Firefox 3 RC1 running like a Herbie on steroids. I just did a standard install. I can maintain my MODx websites with no ridiculous periodic slowdowns. I've installed a good few other things, including Compiz Fusion and my CPU resources are still below 10% on idle. On Xubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) they are at minimum 30% idle even without Compiz.
It seems to me that Ubuntu tries so hard to achieve the "it just works" statement by having every unimaginable module and service runing at startup, in the hope that no system will have a problem with actually making it off the starting line. This may pose a problem in later versions as older hardware (P3?) will buckle under the weight of the spent resources.
For now, this Duron has never had it so good. I will be sticking to Debian in the future I think. When I next get some free time I might have the opportunity to put Debian Lenny in its stable state onto my other rig.
My two cents are this:-
If you're new to Linux give Ubuntu a try. But, if you want to see something faster or want to learn more about what make Linux tick then move over to Debian.
Over and Out
Sulligogs
P.S. Forgot to point out that I installed Debian with the default GNOME desktop. Everyone moans about it being slow and Nautilus is runs like a slug. Well, they are wrong. Nautilus is running like a dream. It pops up as soon as I invoke it.
I know this is a bit post-whoring to point out, but this is prolly the best Ubuntu vs Debian "comparison" i've ever seen. EXCELLENT work Sulligogs
Debian rocks.
sulligogs said: Here's my two cents
I installed Ubuntu Feisty Fawn after walking away from Linux a few years earlier. I had tried to fully move over to Linux, but it bugged the life out me with it's dependency hell. Feisty Fawn was the first breath of fresh air from a non-corporate Operating System and I loved it.
I moved with the times and upgraded to Gutsy Gibbon and then to Hardy Heron.
What I have noticed with each version increase is just how bloated Ubuntu (and Xubuntu) had become. I've got two desktop PCs that I built myself. One, sitting in the hallway, is a Duron 750mhz, 768MB RAM and 40GB hard disk and the other in the lounge is an AMD Athlon 2200+ with 1.25GB RAM and a 250GB hard disk. None of them are spectacular compared to today's blazing fast systems. But then, they don't need to be. For what I use them for they are perfectly functional.
This past couple of days I've had some free time and I decided to find out what the fuss is about Debian. I knew already from somewhere sometime ago that Ubuntu is derived from it, but I also heard about how much faster it is. Well, I am typing this from Debian Lenny Beta 1 (Beta 2 has a corrupt installer).
It is absolutely brilliant! This Duron 750 has never moved so fast. I have Firefox 3 RC1 running like a Herbie on steroids. I just did a standard install. I can maintain my MODx websites with no ridiculous periodic slowdowns. I've installed a good few other things, including Compiz Fusion and my CPU resources are still below 10% on idle. On Xubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) they are at minimum 30% idle even without Compiz.
It seems to me that Ubuntu tries so hard to achieve the "it just works" statement by having every unimaginable module and service runing at startup, in the hope that no system will have a problem with actually making it off the starting line. This may pose a problem in later versions as older hardware (P3?) will buckle under the weight of the spent resources.
For now, this Duron has never had it so good. I will be sticking to Debian in the future I think. When I next get some free time I might have the opportunity to put Debian Lenny in its stable state onto my other rig.
My two cents are this:-
If you're new to Linux give Ubuntu a try. But, if you want to see something faster or want to learn more about what make Linux tick then move over to Debian.
Over and Out
Sulligogs
P.S. Forgot to point out that I installed Debian with the default GNOME desktop. Everyone moans about it being slow and Nautilus is runs like a slug. Well, they are wrong. Nautilus is running like a dream. It pops up as soon as I invoke it.
I hate you..you reminded me of Debian beuaty. The only problem is on a laptop debian might not be ideal as those can get tricky to set up.
Here's my two cents
I installed Ubuntu Feisty Fawn after walking away from Linux a few years earlier. I had tried to fully move over to Linux, but it bugged the life out me with it's dependency hell. Feisty Fawn was the first breath of fresh air from a non-corporate Operating System and I loved it.
I moved with the times and upgraded to Gutsy Gibbon and then to Hardy Heron.
What I have noticed with each version increase is just how bloated Ubuntu (and Xubuntu) had become. I've got two desktop PCs that I built myself. One, sitting in the hallway, is a Duron 750mhz, 768MB RAM and 40GB hard disk and the other in the lounge is an AMD Athlon 2200+ with 1.25GB RAM and a 250GB hard disk. None of them are spectacular compared to today's blazing fast systems. But then, they don't need to be. For what I use them for they are perfectly functional.
This past couple of days I've had some free time and I decided to find out what the fuss is about Debian. I knew already from somewhere sometime ago that Ubuntu is derived from it, but I also heard about how much faster it is. Well, I am typing this from Debian Lenny Beta 1 (Beta 2 has a corrupt installer).
It is absolutely brilliant! This Duron 750 has never moved so fast. I have Firefox 3 RC1 running like a Herbie on steroids. I just did a standard install. I can maintain my MODx websites with no ridiculous periodic slowdowns. I've installed a good few other things, including Compiz Fusion and my CPU resources are still below 10% on idle. On Xubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) they are at minimum 30% idle even without Compiz.
It seems to me that Ubuntu tries so hard to achieve the "it just works" statement by having every unimaginable module and service runing at startup, in the hope that no system will have a problem with actually making it off the starting line. This may pose a problem in later versions as older hardware (P3?) will buckle under the weight of the spent resources.
For now, this Duron has never had it so good. I will be sticking to Debian in the future I think. When I next get some free time I might have the opportunity to put Debian Lenny in its stable state onto my other rig.
My two cents are this:-
If you're new to Linux give Ubuntu a try. But, if you want to see something faster or want to learn more about what make Linux tick then move over to Debian.
Over and Out
Sulligogs
P.S. Forgot to point out that I installed Debian with the default GNOME desktop. Everyone moans about it being slow and Nautilus is runs like a slug. Well, they are wrong. Nautilus is running like a dream. It pops up as soon as I invoke it.
I am fully agree with this statement. I even can't add anything to it.
I hate you..you reminded me of Debian beuaty. The only problem is on a laptop debian might not be ideal as those can get tricky to set up.
As for me I use Debian testing on my Dell Inspiron 6400 so I see no grate difference between ubuntu and debian on laptop. Even more there is can't be any difference between them because they are using the same package base.
Raven_Oscar said: I am fully agree with this statement. I even can't add anything to it.
As for me I use Debian testing on my Dell Inspiron 6400 so I see no grate difference between ubuntu and debian on laptop. Even more there is can't be any difference between them because they are using the same package base.
Well...that's not entirely true. Ubuntu has a lot of patches here and there. The kernels have different patches. As stated earlier Ubuntu also starts a lot of services at boot time. Ubuntu has heavily patched certain things. They are close..but the affect is different..otherwise what would be the point of ubuntu since most of the Ubuntu work would have just gone straight into debian rather than a new distribution. Google around you'll see some debian devs that are pretty upset at some of the patches Ubuntu has made. One developer cited 18mb of patches to his packages...we are talking 18mbs of source code, not binary. This is a serious number of patches...some of those packages were involved in build process etc. So there is no telling how much of an affect they really have.
In principal though you can take Debian an make it like Ubuntu with less effort than any other distro. They are very close but not the same. (Note: some packages are exactly from debain many are not and as with any distro the sum is greater than the parts when you coalce all those packages together you get a slightly different beast. (Not to mention the fact that with certain things Ubuntu packages them BEFORE Debian if debian has not yet started on them Like KDE4.
jdhore said: I know this is a bit post-whoring to point out, but this is prolly the best Ubuntu vs Debian "comparison" i've ever seen. EXCELLENT work Sulligogs
My thoughts exactly. I tried to find something to add but couldn't find it. If you don't mind a bit of time for configuration and living about 1year back in FOSS then Etch is awesome too.