Don't forget what it does to Debian aside from helping...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| devnet Jun 13, 2005 6:38 PM EDT |
Like harming...by sprinting out in front of Debian so fast that you can't install Debian packages on it. Can you revert? Yes. But why? Why take something so far ahead of things that you're running in front of unstable? To me, that's silly...you're essentially rendering Debian useless...which means you're gnawing on the hand that feeds you. There are many reasons why I choose to NOT hop the bandwagon that is Ubuntu...this is just the major one. |
| sbergman27 Jun 14, 2005 2:42 PM EDT |
Hmmm. I think I would have to turn that around and say that the real problem is that Debian is plodding along so slowly. Not to mention unpredictably. When will Etch be released? Does anyone really know? (No.) Actually one can make a guess by looking at the last few data points, and the answer is not promising. It's taking longer and longer to get a release out. Debian needs to pick up the beat a bit or risk becoming irrelevant. Ubuntu is Debian's wake up call, IMO. |
| SFN Jun 15, 2005 7:30 AM EDT |
I guess I have a third point of view. I think of Ubuntu as just an extension of Debian as are many others. Want a solid livecd for demoing the capabilities of Linux and KDE? Knoppix! Interested in testing the boundaries of what can be done with multimedia on Linux? DeMudi! Want a regularly updated, easy to use desktop Linux machine based on Gnome? Ubuntu! Thakfully, the possibilities go on and on. The only problem I can see with having Ubuntu (or any other variant) around would come from the advances that these variants make not being funneled back into Debian. That problem can come from two different points of origin: the variants' developers and Debian's developers. Developers for the variants need to make their work available to Debian's developers. Debian's developers need to take that work and incorporate it into what they are doing. Does this problem actually exist? If so, what is the point of origin? |
| tadelste Jun 19, 2005 8:43 PM EDT |
SFN: The developers employed by Canonical came from the debian team. They continue to work with debian and submit their patches to the various debian package maintainers. In addition, many of the Canonical developers continue to work as developers on debian. Canonical developers, of course, produce Ubuntu. In addition, Ubuntu+Canonical are the only people I know that contribute back to debian. Whereas, Xandros and Linspire do not - as I understand it. I'm not sure about other debian based distributions. |
| devnet Jun 20, 2005 3:27 AM EDT |
SFN, What I look at is this. Many of those employed by Canonical don't have enough time to work on Debian. I know that being a package maintainer is quite a daunting and time consuming task in itself let alone being a top dev. They no doubt contribute code back to debian...but I doubt they develop as much as your post describes. Time just doesn't permit it. Not to mention that half of what they develop for canonical isn't compatible with Debian so it prevents them from giving it back...it's just too far out in front and hasn't even made it into testing. |
| richo123 Jun 20, 2005 5:12 AM EDT |
There is an interesting exchange on this subject between Ian Murdock and Matt Zimmerman on the Ubuntu developers board (eg http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=41595&page=3). I think the basic point is that Ubuntu breaks binary compatibility with sarge because it is synched with experimental every 6 months but makes substantial source contribution to experimental. This is my superficial take on the situation only ;-) read the exchange for yourself. The way this is panning out is that Ubuntu needs Debian and synchs every 6 months. Debian on the other hand I think gets a very nice desktop oriented cousin. The developers need to sort out their egos I suspect. A lot of this acrimony is due I suspect to the phenomenally rapid success of Ubuntu plus the money poured in by Shuttleworth to pay Ubuntu dev salaries. The fact that it is Murdock who is upset suggests some feelings of threat on the Debian side. |
| SFN Jun 20, 2005 5:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:In addition, Ubuntu+Canonical are the only people I know that contribute back to debian. Whereas, Xandros and Linspire do not - as I understand it. I"ve heard that about Xandros and Linspire as well. Can anybody confirm that? If that is indeed the case, they seem to be better vitriol targets than Ubuntu. At least Canonical isn't charging for Ubuntu. Quoting:They no doubt contribute code back to debian...but I doubt they develop as much as your post describes. Actually, I didn't suggest that they were contributing at all (although I do believe that they do). I was stating how a problem between Ubuntu and Debian could exist then asking if that problem did indeed exist. Quoting:Not to mention that half of what they develop for canonical isn't compatible with Debian so it prevents them from giving it back...it's just too far out in front and hasn't even made it into testing. I do know that Ubuntu, at least in the beginning was supposed to have been based on testing. But let's consider this: Quoting:I think the basic point is that Ubuntu breaks binary compatibility with sarge because it is synched with experimental every 6 months but makes substantial source contribution to experimental. Assuming that is the case, would their contributions to experimental be viewed as positive? If so, would Canonical simply restating that Ubuntu is based off of experimental make everything good? BTW, I have to say that I enjoy the way most conversations on lxer can stay civil even when we disagree. Such a refreshing change from most online experiences. |
| devnet Jun 20, 2005 8:58 AM EDT |
richo123 I don't think it is egos. Ian has a great distro in Debian and he's watching someone come in, break parts of it, and go against many of the standards that are employed by Debian. He has every right to be ticked off. |
| richo123 Jun 20, 2005 11:21 AM EDT |
What do you mean "break parts of it"? This assumes Ubuntu is Debian which it isn't. What is broken is complete binary compatibility. Binary packages are nowhere near being the most important part of open source collaboration. From the (admittedly limited) amount I have read of this debate there is presently very active source code collaboration going on between the two sets of developers particularly in connection with gcc4, gnome and xorg. Binary compatibility is going to be hard to maintain if one distro has a 6 month release cycle and the other an indefinite one. Periodic source synching would appear the best approach here. |
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!