Ubuntu v. Debian
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| rht Sep 24, 2005 1:34 PM EDT |
This story is rubbish. This bloke is treating his own delusional conclusions as fact so that he can prove a conspiracy of one. If MS wants to spend his zillions in philanthropic ways then by what moral authority does this chap demand the right to mandate the objects of MS's charity. Ubuntu is what it is. At the very least, it has introduced a lot of people to The Debian Way. I hope that MS lives long, for he has already prospered. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2005 2:11 PM EDT |
It is true that you could sense a bit of authors disapproval of Ubuntu being separated from Debian as a "fork", but the article at least doesn't put that as a final conclusion. It is more of a call for discussion. If Ubuntu is a fork, community deserves to know that and establish that as a fact, instead of Ubuntu being listed side by side on sites listing debian variations (fully compatible) while it's compatibility is questionable. There is nothing wrong with Ubuntu being a fork, at least in my opinion, but it is wrong to hide that fact from the community and instead keep riding on the "debian native" wawe.. Ubuntu is Ubuntu and Debian is Debian. The question remains, is Ubuntu Debian or not? Thanks Daniel |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 24, 2005 2:12 PM EDT |
rht - My sentiments too. I think Ubuntu has had a positive effect upon Debian. That is, it may have forced Debian be a bit more focused and to release a bit more often even if it's for fewer platforms. Another reason I have come to appreciate Ubuntu more is that they treat even the "ignorant" more gently, hence, they are the more likely ones to get individuals to stick to their Linux efforts than a hundred (or more) RTFM epihets. Initially I was quite skeptical of Ubuntu (I run Debian), but my views have altered and I consider Ubuntu to be a mostly positive trend. Moreover, I wish them well (I will be adding Ubuntu for the experience). |
| devnet Sep 24, 2005 3:56 PM EDT |
I agree with Libervis. Is Ubuntu Ubuntu or is it Debian? |
| jimf Sep 24, 2005 6:27 PM EDT |
Far from being paranoid, Libervis is more than conservative in his assessment. Between Canonical's commercial interests and Ubuntu's 60's style Pepsi generation promotion, they may have forked us all. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2005 6:40 PM EDT |
Jimf, just as a note, the author of the article is not me, but Charles Shulz.. But I would agree that Ubuntu is more of a fork than a variation of Debian and I think people should be more aware of that. The only (but significant) issue I have with Ubuntu being a fork is that binary incompatibility breaks coherence that has been common in the Debian sphere of distros, one thing that has differentiated Debian from RPM based distros (installing RPM from RedHat to Mandriva and vice versa is risky, for example, while in Debian world, all distros maintained nice compatibility). Ian Murdock speaks of this himself: http://ianmurdock.com/?p=167 Thanks Daniel |
| jimf Sep 24, 2005 7:03 PM EDT |
Sorry Daniel, I stand corrected. From it's inception I've not been sure which aspect of the Ubuntu project bothers me the most, but, the forking aspect is obviously the most important one. Beyond that I see their juvenile rhetoric as a thinly veiled attempt the hide the true commercial nature of the Distro. I don't mind the commercial part, but the deception is less than acceptable. I'm also appalled at the number of people who buy into it. |
| richo123 Sep 24, 2005 7:17 PM EDT |
There is some rather odd semantics going on here: Facts: 1) Ubuntu source in the universe repository is entirely derived from Debian and is synched every 6 months with sid i.e. unstable Debian. 2) Much source development in Ubuntu is fed back into Debian. xorg is a recent example. Another example is gcc-4.0 development. 3) Many Debian "derivatives" are binary incompatible with sarge. Example: knoppix The real potential issue it seems to me is whether packages in the "main" (as opposed to "universe") repository of Ubuntu can be used by Debian users. If they cannot and this repository gets very large (it isn't now) then there may be a potential problem. This could be raised with Shuttleworth or the distro manager Matt Zimmerman as they are pretty open to discussion. On the other-hand Ubuntu IS contributing source code back into Debian so is not acting as a parasite. Likewise because it is regularly synching with unstable this backward feed of source is likely to remain useful to Debian. All in all you could call that a fork if you had a jaundiced eye but I don't ;-) so I won't ;-) Mind you if main get huge and Ubuntu starts acting in a commercially obnoxious manner then I would have little hesitation in switching to Debian. One other point that is overlooked often in these anti-Ubuntu rants is that Ian Murdock even though he founded Debian is hardly a disinterested observer on these issues. He runs Progeny which has a commercial interest in this situation which is in competition with Ubuntu. I would read at least some of his comments through this self-interest prism. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2005 8:16 PM EDT |
Well, yeah, but Ian's observations on binary compatibility coherence over all debian based distros does make sense.. Anyway, this article was basically a call for discussion as author himself points out: I have no evidence of my thesis, except for the few points I'll mention clearly in the article. I wish that this article can be the starting point of a healthy discussion, and I don't want it to be an end. I may have harsh words against either Ubuntu and Debian, but they are meant to stirr up thinking not unfairly criticizing people or projects. So, he says that he doesn't want the article to be an end, a conclusion, but does admit that he may have harsh words, as he did.. and those words may have disturbed some spirits, but generally, this was a call for discussion of an issue still not "cleared up" in the community and I think we should accept it as such. In that sense, I think it is good that someone brought this issue up, no matter what his style of doing it was. ;) I suggest we as a community take it, discuss it, review the facts and spit another article that'll be more conclusive, clear some misconceptions and confusion and maybe kind of make peace between the two communities (debian and ubuntu). If you think the issue isn't of much importance to be further discussed then consider the fact that Ubuntu today is the most popular GNU/Linux distro and that Debian is one of the greatest influences both within the GNU/Linux community and to the rest of the world, so if we don't manage to clear things up and "make peace" between the two, it certainly wont play out very well for anyone. I mean, if we can't agree if our currently most popular distro is or isn't a fork, then what are we? :P Thanks Daniel |
| jimf Sep 24, 2005 9:23 PM EDT |
As richo123 says, the project has contributed to the Debian repos and as long as Ubuntu walks that line I don't believe that we can say one way or another whether or not Ubuntu is a real fork. It is my observation that Ubuntu / Canonical promotional's have created the impression of a hidden agenda.... To be fair, maybe it is just a really dumb add campaign, but the impression remains. I will continue to monitor the progress, but only time will tell for sure what is really going on here. |
| richo123 Sep 25, 2005 6:56 AM EDT |
Libervis, I agree that discussion of these issues is a healthy thing however there has been a lot of FUD tossed around lately so I find it better to elucidate clearly what is a fairly complex relationship rather than resorting to emotive labels like fork. I think you have a priori grounds to be sceptical of Shuttleworth's motivation in this whole business. He is a very smart, very rich guy who is pouring money into a Debian derivative so one should be wary, I am. However I have followed the whole development very closely and I think it more than likely that Shuttleworth is acting from egotistical/philanthropic motivations rather than controlling/Gates like motivations. As jimf says time will tell. I don't think it serves anybody's interests however to jump the gun on this and create hostility within the FOSS community when at present there is no need for it. Another way to look at this is through how Ubuntu has affected Debian: Shuttleworth has hired a bunch of very good Debian developers so they can spend a lot of time working on Debian-like packages. Some claim this is a bad thing because it dilutes the Debian effort however if they are spending more time on development and contributing major source back to the project how is this diluting the effort? Seems like a net (small) positive to me. |
| Libervis Sep 25, 2005 7:53 AM EDT |
I agree that discussion of these issues is a healthy thing however there has been a lot of FUD tossed around lately so I find it better to elucidate clearly what is a fairly complex relationship rather than resorting to emotive labels like fork. Yes, I'd agree. We need to clearly define what kind of relationship it is and build on it in the best way possible. However I have followed the whole development very closely and I think it more than likely that Shuttleworth is acting from egotistical/philanthropic motivations rather than controlling/Gates like motivations. I've read the slashdot interview with Shuttleworth and I would also say that his intentions are good and in that genuine. I've further read the comments to this story on libervis.com and I'd say I'm beginning to better understand the whole compatibility issue. It may be something that comes out of neccessity, something that maybe cannot be effectively avoid since Ubuntu is based on sid, not sarge and sid has to be polished and this polishing might result in slight incompatibilities. However, it is possible that the issue will be resolved with further versions of Ubuntu, maybe starting already with Breezy Badger 5.10 release. Ah well.. I guess I'll join the "see what happens" club too.. EDIT: I'd say the story, spurring discussions over libervis, here on lxer and linuxtoday at least gave a chance to say some things, present certain facts so that everyone can finally see what is and what isn't. A good step further I think would be to write another article comprising all these arguments and presenting what is and what isn't. In other words, many people may have been in confusion about the issue, and while it would seem this article contributed to it, we can make it have the opposite effect; resolve the issue in minds of people. It did for me. ;) EDIT: I made a poll on the issue here: http://www.libervis.com/modules/xoopspoll/index.php?poll_id=... asking "Do you think Ubuntu is a fork or a derivate of Debian?". If enough people take it we could see what general community opinion on this is. It's something that can be taken into account in potential follow up article. Thanks Daniel |
| mjjohansen Sep 25, 2005 12:29 PM EDT |
I think that the Canonical advertising machine through Ubuntu has done a great service to the Linux community with offering the free CDs (never underestimate the promotional effect of professional wrapping) and supporting various projects. While I do not understand people who claim that the Debian installer is difficult while the Ubuntu installer is not, the fact remains that people have positive experiences with using Ubuntu as their first distribution. This is a good thing. What I do not appreciate, however, are the rumors that a lot of Debian developers have gone over to Ubuntu. Debian has a proud tradition and a social contract which should be preserved. Also, I find it curious that Ubuntu is not part of DCC. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!