- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ian Murdock: Debian "missing a big opportunity"
|
|
|
Comments (12)
Good for Debian?
He does have a point. While I like the Debian way of doing things I moved away from Debian proper to Kubuntu and Sidux on my desktops & laptop mostly because of stale stable Debian releases. Etch has not been released stable and is already outdated. However, for a server workhorse nothing beats Debian. I am afraid that a bit less democracy as in *ubuntu yields better (in terms of timely AND pretty stable) results.
> He does have a point.
On top of his head maybe? Yes, there are advantages to running a business like a business, but, Debian has become far more than that. The democratic process, while cumbersome, is what makes Debian unique. Without it... just another also ran.
> While I like the Debian way of doing things I moved away from Debian proper to Kubuntu and Sidux on my desktops & laptop mostly because of stale stable Debian releases.
You gotta be daft. I'm running a combination of Debian testing/unstable/experimental, and it has 'far more' stability than anything I'm seeing in any of the buntus and just as much (actually more) cutting edge as in Sidux.
On top of his head maybe? Yes, there are advantages to running a business like a business, but, Debian has become far more than that. The democratic process, while cumbersome, is what makes Debian unique. Without it... just another also ran.
> While I like the Debian way of doing things I moved away from Debian proper to Kubuntu and Sidux on my desktops & laptop mostly because of stale stable Debian releases.
You gotta be daft. I'm running a combination of Debian testing/unstable/experimental, and it has 'far more' stability than anything I'm seeing in any of the buntus and just as much (actually more) cutting edge as in Sidux.
> 'far more' stability than anything I'm seeing in any of the buntus and just as much (actually more) cutting edge as in Sidux
I've got to say that Debian Etch is the most stable OS I've used. There are lots of packages for *buntu that are messed up, yet remain in the repositories. The stable Debian releases are just that, stable. If you want a near guarantee against problems, use Debian stable. But I'm using the Etch repositories and have Iceweasel 2.0.0.2 on my machine along with the latest versions of most apps.
Although something is labeled as a release, like Ubuntu 6.10, that is not the equivalent of a stable Debian distribution. I use a wide variety of packages and Debian testing has given them all to me and they've worked.
I also refer to *buntu as Debian slow, because there is a huge difference in speed.
As for the democratic process: Debian seems pretty good to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We'll see how Shuttleworth fares as he slowly forces users to do things. Debian doesn't force anything on you. And as for a specific release date I don't think you have to look far past the debacle that was opensuse 10.1 to see the problems with that approach. And that was after a significant delay.
I've got to say that Debian Etch is the most stable OS I've used. There are lots of packages for *buntu that are messed up, yet remain in the repositories. The stable Debian releases are just that, stable. If you want a near guarantee against problems, use Debian stable. But I'm using the Etch repositories and have Iceweasel 2.0.0.2 on my machine along with the latest versions of most apps.
Although something is labeled as a release, like Ubuntu 6.10, that is not the equivalent of a stable Debian distribution. I use a wide variety of packages and Debian testing has given them all to me and they've worked.
I also refer to *buntu as Debian slow, because there is a huge difference in speed.
As for the democratic process: Debian seems pretty good to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We'll see how Shuttleworth fares as he slowly forces users to do things. Debian doesn't force anything on you. And as for a specific release date I don't think you have to look far past the debacle that was opensuse 10.1 to see the problems with that approach. And that was after a significant delay.
Bigg, I agree 100% with you.
bigg two points:
1) I have installed Debian etch and Ubuntu edgy side by side and do not notice a "huge difference" in speed. I think you need to show some hard evidence for this.
2) While it is fine to stick to stable distros and I agree etch is more stable than edgy, there is another issue as well. Linux is getting globally more stable from my experience as time goes on. I have far fewer crashes with freshly minted distros than I did even a year ago. Thus having the "latest and greatest" may sometimes pay stability dividends if you do it sensibly. Case in point: kde app krusader had all sorts of issues with 1.6 but 1.7 is much more stable. An awful lot of linux apps are approaching "1.0" or higher and a lot of the higher releases are bugfixes.....
1) I have installed Debian etch and Ubuntu edgy side by side and do not notice a "huge difference" in speed. I think you need to show some hard evidence for this.
2) While it is fine to stick to stable distros and I agree etch is more stable than edgy, there is another issue as well. Linux is getting globally more stable from my experience as time goes on. I have far fewer crashes with freshly minted distros than I did even a year ago. Thus having the "latest and greatest" may sometimes pay stability dividends if you do it sensibly. Case in point: kde app krusader had all sorts of issues with 1.6 but 1.7 is much more stable. An awful lot of linux apps are approaching "1.0" or higher and a lot of the higher releases are bugfixes.....
Ian is a stand up guy and makes some very valid points regarding Debian. I wish him all the best.
> I think you need to show some hard evidence for this.
I don't know what kind of benchmarking you propose richo, but, everyone running Debian that I talk to seems to note the speed and stability of Debian over buntu. And yes, everything in Linux is, for the most part, getting better, but, Debian remains far more stable in whatever version. Debian is still nothing I'd recommend for a noob to learn, but, neither is buntu.
I don't know what kind of benchmarking you propose richo, but, everyone running Debian that I talk to seems to note the speed and stability of Debian over buntu. And yes, everything in Linux is, for the most part, getting better, but, Debian remains far more stable in whatever version. Debian is still nothing I'd recommend for a noob to learn, but, neither is buntu.
Though I'm a reformed Debian users, I think it's nice that people who are into all of that have some place to play.
A linux world without Debian would be a poorer place, and I think that applies even to those of us using something else.
A linux world without Debian would be a poorer place, and I think that applies even to those of us using something else.
> Though I'm a reformed Debian users...
Aha, Dino has multiple personalities. That explains a lot. :)
> A linux world without Debian would be a poorer place,...
Agreed.
Aha, Dino has multiple personalities. That explains a lot. :)
> A linux world without Debian would be a poorer place,...
Agreed.
> I have installed Debian etch and Ubuntu edgy side by side and do not notice a "huge difference" in speed. I think you need to show some hard evidence for this.
I hear that a lot from *buntu users. I have done some comparisons across distributions related to my work, but those aren't really relevant to most people. Debian consistently did its work about 12-15% faster on the same machine.
Where the speed difference really matters is with hardware that is not cutting edge. I have a laptop with 256 mb ram, 1 ghz processor. Ubuntu/Kubuntu, forget it. You want to open a menu, you click the button, go make coffee, and when you are halfway through the second cup, the menu will open up. Xubuntu is better but not by much.
I run Etch with Gnome and the system flies. (It also sets up the touchpad correctly and suspends to disk if I'm logged in as root, I still have to figure out how to do that as a non-root user. There is no suspend to disk with *buntu and the touchpad sucks). I have a 233 mhz box that serves as a standby, and Etch runs fairly well even on that machine.
I hear that a lot from *buntu users. I have done some comparisons across distributions related to my work, but those aren't really relevant to most people. Debian consistently did its work about 12-15% faster on the same machine.
Where the speed difference really matters is with hardware that is not cutting edge. I have a laptop with 256 mb ram, 1 ghz processor. Ubuntu/Kubuntu, forget it. You want to open a menu, you click the button, go make coffee, and when you are halfway through the second cup, the menu will open up. Xubuntu is better but not by much.
I run Etch with Gnome and the system flies. (It also sets up the touchpad correctly and suspends to disk if I'm logged in as root, I still have to figure out how to do that as a non-root user. There is no suspend to disk with *buntu and the touchpad sucks). I have a 233 mhz box that serves as a standby, and Etch runs fairly well even on that machine.
Ian's POV, Debian Project Success?
Charles Babcock published a nice article less than two months ago on Information Week entitled 'How To Tell The Open Source Winners From The Losers', found at http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessi...
This Information Week article definitely sheds some light on Ian Murdock's comments regarding his perceived success of Debian GNU/Linux -- or as it were, his perceived failure of Debian.
A nine-point tick-tack-toe checklist of some of the major points of the Information Week article can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjasay/378550703/ and a straight list of the same at http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/how-to-spot-a-s... Here is the basic checklist: 1. A thriving community 2. Transparency 3. Employed developers 4. Disruptive goals 5. Civility 6. A clear license 7. A benevolent dictator 8. Documentation 9. Commercial support
I believe that Ian in the Linux Format interview directly addresses many of these points.
1. The Debian developer-community is definitely thriving. The Etch installer R2 is out, and the full Etch release is coming out soon, but much-too-delayed (as others have remarked upon *very* strongly all over the place!) See also the first two paragraphs of Ian's response in the interview on this point.
2. Ian's response to LXF's "Do you think that's a failure of the process, though, or a particular failing of Debian?...." is that he thinks the Debian development process is -- if anything -- almost *TOO* transparent.
3. Hinted-at that developers are employed; DuncTank project was unsuccessful. As Ian writes "there is almost a prediction among certain developers that it's never going to work because you've introduced money into the equation with the DuncTank project and that it's doomed to fail"
4. Ian writes in his response to Ubuntu inquiry "One has to remember how completely groundbreaking Debian was. This whole idea of open development, distributed development... it was a model that Debian truly pioneered. Linux really pioneered it, but Debian was the first attempt to explicitly build something this way." He then goes on to describe how Ubuntu has now laid claim to the distro that is most enacting disruptive goals. As he writes it "Are there things that Debian can learn from Ubuntu and the extraordinary uptake that it has seen and frankly all the things that it is getting right? Absolutely. I think that's the single biggest positive impact of Ubuntu."
5. Hinted at in Ian's second paragraph of his response "passive aggressive actions by those same developers to make sure that their prediction comes true - that sort of exposes the worst part of the open source development process". ...... i.e., *most probably* some flaming and incivility!
6. Ian does not comment on a clear license in this interview, as far as GPL2 vs GPL3 or including open-source vs. closed-source binaries.
7. Ian writes "I think the fundamental mistake [of Debian] was this adoption of a democratic process, which happened after my time and I was opposed to." In fact, Ian's overall point of the Linux Format interview is that a major failure of Debian has been its NOT having a benevolent dictator! Most telling on this are Ian's comments to the LXF question "You were against it ?" (against the democratic process). See the few paragraphs of Ian's response to this.
...and yet Ian *does* address the current state of Debian leadership. As he writes "You know, I've been pleased with the current leadership at Debian: I think Anthony Towns has done a very good job and certainly hasn't been afraid to make unpopular decisions; DuncTank being one example. At this point it is more of an institutional problem. Hopefully the strong leadership will continue."
8. and 9. Not much from Ian here directly regarding Documentation and Commercial Support. Ian does remark that Debian is one of the three big successful distros worldwide, insofar as it has been used by itself and as part of Ubuntu and other distros.
Ian addresses points 1-2, 4 and 7 most of all, as far as his views regarding the current success of Debian.
A nine-point tick-tack-toe checklist of some of the major points of the Information Week article can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjasay/378550703/ and a straight list of the same at http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/how-to-spot-a-s... Here is the basic checklist: 1. A thriving community 2. Transparency 3. Employed developers 4. Disruptive goals 5. Civility 6. A clear license 7. A benevolent dictator 8. Documentation 9. Commercial support
I believe that Ian in the Linux Format interview directly addresses many of these points.
1. The Debian developer-community is definitely thriving. The Etch installer R2 is out, and the full Etch release is coming out soon, but much-too-delayed (as others have remarked upon *very* strongly all over the place!) See also the first two paragraphs of Ian's response in the interview on this point.
2. Ian's response to LXF's "Do you think that's a failure of the process, though, or a particular failing of Debian?...." is that he thinks the Debian development process is -- if anything -- almost *TOO* transparent.
3. Hinted-at that developers are employed; DuncTank project was unsuccessful. As Ian writes "there is almost a prediction among certain developers that it's never going to work because you've introduced money into the equation with the DuncTank project and that it's doomed to fail"
4. Ian writes in his response to Ubuntu inquiry "One has to remember how completely groundbreaking Debian was. This whole idea of open development, distributed development... it was a model that Debian truly pioneered. Linux really pioneered it, but Debian was the first attempt to explicitly build something this way." He then goes on to describe how Ubuntu has now laid claim to the distro that is most enacting disruptive goals. As he writes it "Are there things that Debian can learn from Ubuntu and the extraordinary uptake that it has seen and frankly all the things that it is getting right? Absolutely. I think that's the single biggest positive impact of Ubuntu."
5. Hinted at in Ian's second paragraph of his response "passive aggressive actions by those same developers to make sure that their prediction comes true - that sort of exposes the worst part of the open source development process". ...... i.e., *most probably* some flaming and incivility!
6. Ian does not comment on a clear license in this interview, as far as GPL2 vs GPL3 or including open-source vs. closed-source binaries.
7. Ian writes "I think the fundamental mistake [of Debian] was this adoption of a democratic process, which happened after my time and I was opposed to." In fact, Ian's overall point of the Linux Format interview is that a major failure of Debian has been its NOT having a benevolent dictator! Most telling on this are Ian's comments to the LXF question "You were against it ?" (against the democratic process). See the few paragraphs of Ian's response to this.
...and yet Ian *does* address the current state of Debian leadership. As he writes "You know, I've been pleased with the current leadership at Debian: I think Anthony Towns has done a very good job and certainly hasn't been afraid to make unpopular decisions; DuncTank being one example. At this point it is more of an institutional problem. Hopefully the strong leadership will continue."
8. and 9. Not much from Ian here directly regarding Documentation and Commercial Support. Ian does remark that Debian is one of the three big successful distros worldwide, insofar as it has been used by itself and as part of Ubuntu and other distros.
Ian addresses points 1-2, 4 and 7 most of all, as far as his views regarding the current success of Debian.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
"I think the fundamental mistake was this adoption of a democratic process, which happened after my time and I was opposed to."
I'm awfully glad he left when he did....