First off, I had no intention of getting into a distribution war. I
don't think that this forum is the right place, not that there is a
right place, for that type of topic. That being said, can we keep this
to Ubuntu's model -vs- Debain's?
Regarding the fork of repositories, I believe the issue was that Debain
is set in their methodology. Test everything! How could Ubuntu do what
they do if they were locked to Debian's repositories? Yes, they could
create an "ubuntu" package that points to all the different Debain
official locations pulling from stable, unstable, testing.... but that's
not a solution. How else could Ubuntu have done what they needed to to
make their distribution what it is today?
If you ask me, Debian's militantly free attitude is what drove this
split. Debain is a small organization that does what it does very
well. Unfortunately, they do things only the way they have done things
and will never do things any differently. I agree totally with their
philosophy on freedom, and I'm not in the least going to say that what
they have is anything less than a fantastic distribution. I do not;
however, agree that their development cycle fits my needs.
Ubuntu hasn't broken anything. They are simply placing some files in
different locations and changing some of the prerequisites, from my
understanding. They've not "extended" dpkg and released it as the
orriginal. It is the original. This is not even close to the same
thing. You've got to be a democrat. ;o) (Was that the can opener I
heard? I smell worms.)
Could they have changed the extention for their packages? Absolutely.
Should they have, probably. Why didn't they? Because most stuff works.
Maybe this could be a topic. Lets tear apart a "problem" package and
look at why the two are not interchangeable.
Mike K.
Chuck Stickelman wrote:
M. Knisely wrote:
No; however, they are pushing fixes up the stream.
Ok, good. Then Debian should be moving along at a much faster pace.
Yes, there are issues in the way in which packages are installed. No, those two statements are not true. I am not qualified to argue the merrirts of which way is better, but I will agree having the two is stupid.
Yes, two is less than 1. Look at what happened to Red Hat packages - there is no "one" .rpm that will work on all of the RH-based distributions. Now we get to relive that with Ubuntu's misguided approach.
Now someone sees a .deb and assumes "Hey, this is a Debian package, I can install it on my Debian system." then when they do and things break, they blame Debian...
To me, it seems nieve to hold onto one just because that's the way it has always been done. Just because someone made the wheel first doesn't make those who change the wheel in a way that makes the old no longer fit wrong.
Funny, that was the same argument Microsoft made when they took Kerberos and "extended" it to the point that it was incompatible with the official Kerberos...
I say that the one who invents the wheel owns the rights to the wheel and if someone else wants to change it to the point it's no longer compatible with the original MUST publish that their product isn't the original. An example would have been that Ubuntu should have called their packages .ubu or something, anything other than .deb.
Debian is great, but it is very slow to respond in a very fast industry. I hope that Ubuntu will work to make your two statements true. God knows Debian won't.
Debian has always been focused on building the most stable distribution. Now look at the distribution with the most packages - Debian. Look at the Distribution with the largest platform support - Debian. Look at the fastest growing Distribution - Debian. Now tell me that Debian isn't going to fix the problem created by others... Of course they aren't going to fix it, they didn't create it...
I understand people's frustration with Debian. It does move slowly; sometimes painfully slowly. However, I find it truly incomprehensible to take a great project that's moving "too slow" and attempt to fix it by forking a new project. Wouldn't Ubuntu's efforts have been much more rewarded by spending their time fixing those issues. The specific complaint against Debian being that packages aren't kept up-to-date; more developers working on keeping those packages up is the solution... Too bad Ubuntu's developers didn't see it that way.
Mike K.
On 6/5/06, *Chuck Stickelman* <cstickelman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cstickelman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
So I can take any Ubuntu machine and install ANY generic Debian package without problem? I could even take a generic Debian GNU/Linux system and install ANY Ubuntu package without problem? If these two conditions are true, then I'll retract my earlier statements. However, if BOTH of those two are not true then Ubuntu has broken the entire point of Debian.
Chuck
M. Knisely wrote:
> Chuck, > > Ubuntu does pass their fixes upstream. Check Debian's website > concerning their new installer if you doubt this. > > " Our thanks to everybody who has contributed to this release. Special > thanks go out to our friends from Ubuntu who laid the ground work for > the first two improvements mentioned above." > > It is my understanding that the Debian team has chosen to dig through > all the available patches and decide what "works for them." This is > called, apropriately, the Utnubu Team. > As for Ubuntu, their goal is clear: > > ########## > > > Development community > > Many Ubuntu developers are also recognized members of the *Debian* > community. They continue to stay active in contributing to *Debian* > both in the course of their work on Ubuntu and directly in *debian*. > > When a bug is reported in the *Debian* bug tracking system > <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/> and then later fixed in Ubuntu, the > fixes are communicated back directly to the *Debian* developers > responsible for that package in *Debian* and record the patch URL in > the *debian* bug system. The long term goal of that work is to ensure > that patches made by the full-time Ubuntu team members are immediately > also included in *debian* packages where the *debian* maintainer likes > the work. > > In Ubuntu, team members can make a change to any package, even if it > is one maintained by someone else. Once you are an Ubuntu maintainer > it's encouraged that you fix problems you encounter, although we also > encourage polite discussions between people with an interest in a > given package to improve cooperation and reduce friction between > maintainers. > > ############### > > Regarding Ubuntu's change of file locations, I agree with you on that > one. Why cause all the grief? The system worked for Debian, why > change it? All it does is cause confusion. > > > Mike K. > > Chuck Stickelman wrote: > >> Henry Keultjes wrote: >> >>> http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/01/1421208&from=rss <http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/01/1421208&from=rss> >>> >>> Chuck Stickelman: >>> >>> You have always been a brave defender of Debian and I mut say that I >>> have never disagreed with you. >>> >>> However, if we are trying to get Linux and Open Source software more >>> widely adopted, would not that next circle of adopters be more >>> likely to switch if they can pay for commercial support for their >>> free product? >>> >>> Henry Keultjes >>> Mansfield Ohio USA >> >> >> There are many who want to pay someone else to support their >> resources. I have no problem with people having the freedom to >> choose to support their IT internal, externally, or in some mixed >> environment. Debian has always had people willing and able to >> provide support for the free Debian GNU/Linux solution. Check out >> the Debian Consultants Website < http://www.debian.org/consultants/> >> to find a list of those who are currently providing commercial >> support to Debian. >> >> Now, I don't many problems with Ubuntu; I wish they'd not made their >> packages differ from Debian's without changing the package's >> extension. Using the .deb extension should obligate them to using >> the Debian locations of ALL files. Period. The second issue I have >> with the Ubuntu developers is that they should be pushing their fixes >> upstream. (If they have found an inadequacy in a package requiring >> them to make a change, then they should pass that change upstream so >> everyone benefits from their efforts -- which is what everyone's >> doing in the Open Source world...) >> >> I see what Ubuntu is doing as no different from what the Red Hat guys >> did when they abandoned the Debian project; and the results are just >> as devastating to the larger Linux community. Imagine where we'd be >> if all distros were based on the same underlying packaging scheme... >> >> Chuck
To unsubscribe send to ncolug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.