Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jul 2005 20:16 UTC
Debian and its clones Two companies previously mentioned as being involved with the project, Mandriva and Turbolinux, appear to not be participating at this time. Progeny Linux Systems continues to leading the way.
Order by: Score:
What a surprise
by dukeinlondon on Tue 12th Jul 2005 20:34 UTC
dukeinlondon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Guess it's still "jokeying for position" time in the linux world..... But whether these guys want to see it or not, Debian is the only practical standard apart from RedHat, with added advantage that Debian doesn't seem to foster nearly as much fragmentation as the RedHat base.

Reply Score: 1

Makes sense
by Fred on Tue 12th Jul 2005 20:36 UTC
Fred
Member since:
2005-07-06

This makes sense as Turbolinux and Mandriva are both RPM based while Debian (and all their derivatives, like progeny) are DPKG based. What's in a package format you say, well, compare them and see. It's not easy to "merge" the two and still be able to keep the system in a sensible state.

I didn't understand the first announcement in the firsplace. A couple of the least likely distribution vendors starting to work on something common?

Reply Score: 2

v hmm
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 20:56 UTC
RE: hmm
by The Baron on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:23 UTC in reply to "hmm"
The Baron Member since:
2005-07-06


i use to brag to everyone that Ian formed debian for a community, for the fun, for a common goal.... what happened?


Perhaps he grew up and is trying to run a business?

Reply Score: 1

RE: hmm
by rm6990 on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:33 UTC in reply to "hmm"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

always selling arent we, always promising the next big thing right around the corner arent we... I STILL have not seen a source cd from you'll....

ftp://130.94.123.237/

I'm not sure about u, but I didn't find it very hard going to their site and clicking Licensing and then Source Code.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hmm
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"source CD"

notice the CD part....

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: hmm
by rm6990 on Wed 13th Jul 2005 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

notice the CD part....

Ummm, is it that hard downloading the source code? And even if it is, the GPL doesn't require Linspire to redistribute a source CD with their product. Just to have a written offer to send the source via mail if you request if they choose not to distribute the source with the installation media.

A quote from www.linspire.com :

Alternatively, you may obtain CD(s) with the source code of the open source programs we distribute by emailing your name and address along with the names of the products for which you are seeking source code to sourcecode@linspireinc.com. As a condition to sending you the CD(s), we may charge you our costs for providing you with the CD(s).

They are following the GPL to the word.

So what's the problem???? Why would they waste money burning and pressing source code CDs when 99.99% of their target user base won't ever request them??? They do have employees to feed u know.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Just to have a written offer to send the source via mail if you request if they choose not to distribute the source with the installation media.

ok, show me a scan of the written offer that someone received, wasnt in my box...

"They are following the GPL to the word."

offering, is not the same as doing. GPL requires doing that not just posting that... So if I showed you a statement from linspire support that specifically said "we do not provide source code cds, we only offer the ftp site" would you still think they are following it to the word?

"Why would they waste money burning and pressing source code CDs when 99.99% of their target user base won't ever request them???"

Doesnt matter who or what or where their users are they picked a license which requires certain criteria and one of those is a cd of source code...PERIOD!

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: hmm
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hey id10t!

Read the GPL. The GPL says that if binaries are provided, source must also be available.

a) it doesn't say that a GPL distributor must provide source to *Everyone*
b) it doesn't say anything about how that source is to be provided

Linspire has followed the letter of the GPL - the source is available. Simply go to that site, download the source code CD, and you have the source.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: hmm
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---
"Step Back"?
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Nice description for the previous eWeek hoax.

"Mandriva and TurboLinux appear to not be participating at this time."

Reply Score: 0

Just hype!
by Morty on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:11 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think all this talk has been just hype from the Progeny guy, Ian Murdock. Since neither Turbolinux or Mandriva has made any statements supporting such a move, and Mandriva now clearly says no. And it does not make any technical or commercial sense for Turbolinux and Mandriva to change to a Debian base. There are no gain made by such a move, only additional cost.

Murdock is trying to create hype around Progeny and Debian, to counter the success of Ubuntu. Ubuntu are fast making Progeny irrelevant and minimizing his opportunity to make commercial gain of it. Progeny has been a failure for years, and the slow pace of Debian releases has not helped any. More or less all media and Linux news sites has ignored Progeny lately, until Murdock started writing/talking about Mandriva switching to Debian.

Reply Score: 2

great
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

this could be the ultimate step for linux, just depends on if all these guys want to play nice or not.

they dont want to loose there indiviuallity.

Reply Score: 0

v Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:15 UTC
RE: Ubuntu
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:39 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Unfortunately Ubuntu is splitting up the Debian world heavily with its fork"

They must have seen it happening from the very beginning.
So it begs the question: "why?"

Reply Score: 1

Stressing a few points
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:22 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

Firstly, Mandriva and Turbolinux taking part sounded just as a scoop, dismissed by a Mandriva official rep:

http://forum.mandrivaclub.com/viewtopic.php?t=38020

"Unlike other efforts to build a well-defined notion of Debian, most notably Ubuntu, this effort is very Debian-centricówe're not trying to replace Debian with something else, said Murdock."

I absolutely agree. I know many won't.

"We're also doing this in a community-centric way," Murdock said."

Agree, again.

"Looking at the business side of the matter, Murdock is "confident the story will be very attractive, because if you look at the installed base of Debian plus all the Debian derivatives, that represents a huge market worldwide."

"We undoubtedly dwarf Novell/SuSE in terms of volume, and for ISVs and IHVs, it's all about volume," Murdock said.

Some analysts think he makes a good point."

I believe that too.

"The question has never been whether Debian has the volume. It's always been, what does it mean to support Debian when there's so many different notions of what Debian is," Murdock said."

Dead-on, again.

Concluding, I very much hope they succeed. I hear too many irresponsible people talking about "the death of Debian"
Being Debian + its derivatives by far the most used distro and, IMO, the one with the best potential (thanks to its extreme flexibility), only the worst linux enemies can even consider the end of Debian.

Reply Score: 1

v Re:Re: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 21:49 UTC
RE: Re:Re: Ubuntu
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:21 UTC in reply to "Re:Re: Ubuntu"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

*Very* unethical, in that case. But, call me paranoid but I have been fearing something even worse.
And to think that so many people believe Ubuntu is the best thing after sliced salami.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu
by Morty on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:32 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately Ubuntu is splitting up the Debian world heavily with its fork

I'd guess the main reason for Ubuntu to start deviate more and more from Debian, is caused by the lack of progress on Debians part. The major failure of Debian regarding releases and keeping up to date, forces the user centric distributions to fork more heavily. This seems to be caused by the lack of will, among parts of the debian comunity and the leaders like Murdock, to actually deliver a distribution. Insted they engage in some unproductive exercises in patting themselves on the back and self-righteous celebration of their community.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

What doesn't add up here, IMO, is that it is perfectly possible to take a branch of Debian (normally testing or unstable) and patch it for your own needs without forking. Even the heavily criticized Linspire is still 98% Debian compatible (I dist-upgraded it to Sid with very few problems).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ubuntu
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Because Ubuntu uses it's own repositories (with packages existing in their own "namespace"), not the offcial Debian ones, which is the only reasonable way to release a "freeze" of the unstable branch that can then be maintained with security patches over the course of the 18 months Canonical has committed to.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ubuntu
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 12th Jul 2005 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ubuntu"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, while I wrote my comment you posted your reply. I type very slowly.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This sort of thing is precisely why Mandrake split from RedHat so long ago. Redhat was getting slow and sloppy in updating their core OS and Mandrake wanted more...

Reply Score: 0

Re: RE: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"
I'd guess the main reason for Ubuntu to start deviate more and more from Debian, is caused by the lack of progress on Debians part."

Not really. Libranet for example manages to be more updated than Debian while being 100% compatible. Ubuntu is forking it deliberately. I find that very dangerous and disappointing trend

Reply Score: 0

uh yea
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

ubuntu - throw money around like candy and people will follow...

i personally dont feel like Ian speaks in any way shape or form for DEBIAN anymore, he can of course speak about debian the same as I can but he cannot speak for DEBIAN itself!

Reply Score: 0

Ubuntu is NOT splitting up Debian
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 12th Jul 2005 22:48 UTC
cr8dle2grave
Member since:
2005-07-11

The only antagonism which exists between Debian proper and Ubuntu resides solely in the minds of over enthusiastic Ubuntu users with a poor grasp of the underlying technical issues and their equally ill informed critics. Ubuntu is Debian! More exactly, it is a freeze of Debian/unstable with some custom packages and backports from Debian/experimental as well as some custom configuration appropriate for a general purpose desktop.

Also, Ian Murdoch isn't opposed to Ubuntu. He's expressed some concern about the future possibilities of fragmentation between Debian and its derivatives. In an perfect world Ubuntu should be derived from Testing and not Unstable, but the log jam surrounding the Srage release made that impossible. In the end, I would too would like to see Ubuntu eventually move to using Testing for their base, but if they don't it's hardly the end of the world.

Also Progeny doesn't compete with Ubuntu/Canonical, as they are in a very different market. Those of you looking to turn this into some petty melodrama need to educate yourselves about what it is that Progeny actually does (and some investigation into the Debian release processes work would be advised as well).

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"In an perfect world Ubuntu should be derived from Testing and not Unstable"

But *there are* distros based on unstable, and yet they are still Debian compatible.
Two examples which just came out of my mind are Kanotix and Linspire (according to a Linspire moderator)

Reply Score: 1

cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Because they use the official Debian repositories, but they quite notably DO NOT and CANNOT (under their present scheme) provide security updates.

Reply Score: 1

ubuntu splitting
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 00:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Ubuntu seems to be doing its best to kill debian. It draws away developers. There is only really one active member of the security team left, the others are with Ubuntu. With fewer developers, Debian moves slower, so Ubuntu leaves it farther behind. The current ABI change in Debian is crawling along.

It is a vicious cycle: Ubuntu moves ahead, users nd devs go to it so Debian slows, so Ubuntu has to move farther ahead. All the while Ubuntunuts crow with glee about survival o the fittest and how Debian should just die.

This would be fine (and the way things work) if Ubuntu weren't based on Debian. Without Debian, Ubuntu is a lot smaller. Debian maintains far more packages. I'd think about moving to Ubuntu myself if they didn't have such a small fraction of the number of packages Debian has. To use so many of those packages in Ubuntu, you get them from Debian, which Ubuntu is busy killing.

I'd have loved to see Debian go about their ABI change differently than Ubuntu did and just completely split things. I'd love to see Ubuntu stand on its own two feet, so when i hear about survival of the fittest it is at least true.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ubuntu splitting
by 3kirt on Wed 13th Jul 2005 01:44 UTC in reply to "ubuntu splitting"
3kirt Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not as if the people that Canonical employs cannot work on Debian anymore.. They were already doing it in their spare time anyway, if anything they'll have more time to spend on Debian now that it's actually part of their jobs.

Reply Score: 2

Re: ubuntu splitting
by Syntaxis on Wed 13th Jul 2005 00:54 UTC
Syntaxis
Member since:
2005-07-11

Your post makes it abundantly clear that you do not know whereof you speak. In the future, please do at least *some* background research before submitting a comment.

"There is only really one active member of the security team left, the others are with Ubuntu."

This is not true. http://www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the members of the security team as being Martin Schulze, Wichert Akkerman, Daniel Jacobowitz, Michael Stone, Matt Zimmerman, Noah Meyerhans and Steve Kemp. Of those, only Matt Zimmerman is a Canonical employee (he is Chairman of the Technical Board, among other things).

"With fewer developers, Debian moves slower, so Ubuntu leaves it farther behind. The current ABI change in Debian is crawling along."

Please read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00364.html and the rest of the thread. As Colin Watson, speaking as both a Debian developer and Canonical employee, said:

---
The outline for this C++ transition was run past debian-release@ well before anything happened in Ubuntu, precisely to avoid painful desynchronisation between the two distributions, and to make sure that everyone could have a say before anything happened in either distribution. The people doing the work were pretty much the same people who did the work last time, anyway; I can't see how you'd do a C++ transition without having, say, the lead gcc maintainer involved ...

In mid-April, very little active development was happening on Ubuntu due to conference timings, so it's likely that the transition would have taken place in Debian first if we hadn't been in the middle of a deep freeze (which thank God is finally coming to a close). The Ubuntu development team took the decision not to wait, because it was clearly better to make the change as close to the beginning of a release cycle as possible in order to have as much time as possible to clean up any resulting problems. This had nothing to do with fictional business models and everything to do with straightforward practical release management.
---

"To use so many of those packages in Ubuntu, you get them from Debian, which Ubuntu is busy killing."

No, you get them from Ubuntu's Universe repository, which is maintained by the MOTU, or Masters Of The Universe (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU). Sure, the majority of packages in there came from Debian's own archive to begin with, but that's true of almost *all* of Ubuntu's packages, Universe or not.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 02:20 UTC
hmm
by speel on Wed 13th Jul 2005 03:25 UTC
speel
Member since:
2005-07-11

"Progeny and more than half a dozen other Debian Linux distributors are working toward forming a common Debian Linux distribution for the enterprise based on the next version of Progeny's Componentized Linux."

ah good to hear that ;)

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: ubuntu splitting
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 03:28 UTC
g
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 03:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

the article mentions debian so many times it is misleading, debian has nothign to do with this! please say "based on debian" or soemthing...

DEBIAN has nothing to do with this...how about this

Progeny and more than half a dozen other Linux distributors that use Debian as their base are working toward forming a common core Linux distribution that is debian compatible for the enterprise based on the next version of Progeny's Componentized Linux.

Reply Score: 0

great journalism!
by AdamW on Wed 13th Jul 2005 05:09 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow, fantastic journalism from eWeek.

First, they post a story:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1834942,00.asp

Attributed to 'sources close to Mandriva, Progeny and Turbolinux' (ah, sources close to, that old chestnut), claiming that they will be involved in developing this whizzy new distribution - with absolutely no official confirmation from MDV or Turbolinux. A couple of days later, they post another story:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1836184,00.asp

headlined "Mandriva, Turbolinux Step Back from Debian Core Project" (the title of this story on OS News), as if the previous story had been corroborated fact, and we (MDV) and Turbolinux were now changing our minds. Then, to try and cover up this great piece of journalistic fudging, they change the headline to "Details Emerge about Debian Linux Plan", without printing a proper apology or correction or anything. Bang up job there, eWeek - gives me great confidence in your journalistic smarts. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say this whole thing has been Ian Murdock stirring the rumour pot, again. Just look at his quotations in the second story, which read remarkably like an attempt to backtrack on something he said earlier but which was not directly reported. Pity eWeek fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Reply Score: 1

Package sallad
by pel! on Wed 13th Jul 2005 07:12 UTC
pel!
Member since:
2005-07-07

I don't get what they're thinking (if this ever happens).

* Use debian as a core - check, good thing
* Give debian commercial support - check, good thing
* Support third party products - check, good thing
* Give third party support by supporting .debs AND .rpms - WTF!!?

Ok, so their plan was to provide a distribution that would eventually - without question - eventually corrupt itself into something horribly broken?

I know people do use rpms from other distributions and port packages from other package types by using alien; I also know those people actually think reinstalling a computer is a common and needed thing to do.

Let's hope this is some sort of PR-crap they're trying to pull.

Reply Score: 1

Debian/Ubuntu
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 09:17 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

People, people, really, even IF Ubuntu is "killing Debian" (which is utter nonsense), than you'll just have to learn to live with it! It's the evolution of distro's that's responsible. This evolution is created by the open-nes that we all like. Some distro's die, others rise.

If Ubuntu wants to fork away from Debian, than it's their good right. Nowhere is it said in the law that "Thou shall not fork Debian". If then that fork becomes more succesful than Debian itself, than it means Debian is doing something wrong, and the fork is doing something right. Simple as that.

Deal with it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Debian/Ubuntu
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 13th Jul 2005 11:37 UTC in reply to "Debian/Ubuntu"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that Debian is not your typical "almost unknown, one-man distro"
Debian is the basis for more than 120 distros.
If Debian disappears it is the beginning of the end for linux.
If somebody hated linux, what would they do for a start? Weaken and eventually kill the most used distro.

Reply Score: 1

Re:Debian/Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 09:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"People, people, really, even IF Ubuntu is "killing Debian" (which is utter nonsense), than you'll just have to learn to live with it! It's the evolution of distro's that's responsible"

Nope. Its entirely the responsibility of Ubuntu and Canonical which is doing this. Ubuntu feeding off Debian means that if Debian dies Ubuntu goes down with it. You along with the rest of the Ubuntu users need to understand that first

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re:Debian/Ubuntu
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 10:29 UTC in reply to "Re:Debian/Ubuntu"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nope. Its entirely the responsibility of Ubuntu and Canonical which is doing this.

Yes, and why does Ubuntu/Canonical exist? Exaclty, because there is an ever-moving evolution in the world of distro's that's fed by the fact that everything is open, in all senses of the word.

Ubuntu feeding off Debian means that if Debian dies Ubuntu goes down with it.

Pure nonsense. Ubuntu's community is so large now, that they'll have no problems finding package maintainers. And IF Debian ever goes down (which it never will, so this discussion is irrelevant anyway), what do you think that those Debian devs are going to do? Stop working? Of course not; they will be going to Debian deriratives, including Ubuntu.

You along with the rest of the Ubuntu users need to understand that first

1) I'm a SuSE user since quite a while now;

2) There is nothing to understand, as explained in the above.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Re:Debian/Ubuntu
by g2devi on Wed 13th Jul 2005 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:Debian/Ubuntu"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Exaclty, because there is an ever-moving evolution in the world of distro's that's fed by the fact that everything is open, in all senses of the word.

Just a bit of support.

I used to be on Red Hat Linux and Fedora. I evaluated Debian several times and tried to work with stable, testing, SID, and the various backports. I also tried Libranet. I've always found the Debian experience wanting. SID had always been too unstable (at the time sI tried to work with it, it broke my repositories a few time), and it still wasn't good enough because it lacks security patches and it was often still out of date (especially when it came to GNOME -- it was 2 releases behind). As the Debian FAQ warns, SID is so named because SID in "Toy Story" broke all the toys.

I tried using testing with some backports, but got frustrated and went back to Fedora. As imperfect as Fedora was, it worked as advertised with few real issues.

Then Ubuntu came on the scenes. It promised to be the Fedora of Debian. It would stabilize SID every 6 months and add and stabilize experimental packages like X.org to keep Ubuntu from being as stale as SID. It would provide security updates, and it would provide access to stabilized SID through the universe repository.

Ubuntu gave me something Debian never did. It fullfilled a need for me, and many other people, otherwise it would just die off. Debian is like Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's great for servers with it's slow releases with security patches. Industries love never having to change unless absoletely necessary. But Debian does not make the greatest desktop distro. If Ubuntu didn't exist, I'd probably go back to Fedora, not Debian.

Anyway, I'm curious why people think that Ubuntu is harming Debian. If you look at the mailing lists, you'll see that great care is made to ensure that security patches to Ubuntu are also sent to Debian. Care is also given to starting each new release with SID and only freezing it late in the release testing cycle. It's stabilized X.org and helped it move from Debian experimental into SID. It maintained the latest version of GNOME and helped GNOME 2.8 move into Sarge. It employs Debian maintainers who contribute to Debian as well as Ubuntu. The regular predictable release cycle highlighted a need in the Debian world, and it now looks like Debian will release once every 1-3 years (I'm not sure what's been decided be the statement was that it's going to be predictable).

So as far as I can see, Ubuntu has been nothing but good for Debian, which is appropriate since Debian's roots and it's repositories has done nothing but for Ubuntu. Each exists and will continue to exist because they server very different but real audiences.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Re:Debian/Ubuntu
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 13th Jul 2005 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re:Debian/Ubuntu"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Debian is like Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's great for servers with it's slow releases with security patches. Industries love never having to change unless absoletely necessary. But Debian does not make the greatest desktop distro."

Indeed, not out of the box. But you can make Debian anything you want it to be: from the 100 MB Sarge installer which provides a fully working OS, to anything with an incredible choice of DEs and Windomanagers as well as apps.
You have 2 possibilities: do it yourself or chose one of the many derivatives: Kanotix and Libranet are my favorites because they are 100/% Debian compatible.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 10:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Ubuntu is splitting up the Debian world heavily with its fork"

Yes. I am using Ubuntu & loving it, but I have seen many cautions about not using non-Ubuntu Debian packages. It is said they will cause havoc within Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re:Debian/Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 11:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Yes, and why does Ubuntu/Canonical exist?"

I am not questioning existence.


"
Pure nonsense. Ubuntu's community is so large now, that they'll have no problems finding package maintainers."

Nope. Ubuntu is completely relying on Debian to feed off. Its users are going to be maintain anywhere near the amount of packages or architectures Debian is maintaining currently. The risk is that Debian community is getting split up due to Ubuntu and the resources are being scattered

"1) I'm a SuSE user since quite a while now; "

You are well known to nudge questions away. When people question your usage of GNOME, you will come back with claims of using XFCE. When people question your usage of Ubuntu, you are claiming its SUSE now. When they question that as Linux usage it will be Windows XP or Mac OS X. good luck with that

Reply Score: 0

v who gives a poop?
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 11:43 UTC
Reality , money , Strategy
by Moulinneuf on Wed 13th Jul 2005 11:45 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

Time to take out the trash once and for all.

"Progeny Linux Systems continues to leading the way."

Progeny is *NOT* even a big player in the Debian field, unless there whas a Ubersomerrslamball lottery with 1 gazillion USD that whas won by a Progeny backer nothing as changed. Debian Core , Ubuntu , Mepis , Knoppix , Xandros , Linspire and hundreds of others are bigger and more important.

I will add that the only reason this got started and published is because Ian Murdoch of Debian Fame used and included the Mandriva good name. Its not even a Debian news BTW.

"based on the next version of Progeny's Componentized Linux."

Well whoop ti doo , I call this a Fork of Debian Core , changes to be applied to all Debian have to start from inside Debian. Everything those Commercial loosers and bozo will say will be entirely meaningless until Debian core joins in. This means ask Branden Robinson who is the current Debian Leader , he is the one currently in charge. My bet is he will welcome the new effort of spreading Debian GNU/Linux but will not integrate unproven technology into the Debian core until those new software have a working proven track record.

Got it news outlet ? TALK TO Branden Robinson everything else is at this time meaningless.

"Debian is dying"

Debian aint a living entity so it cant die , also there are too many Debian developper and user to see it stop to a grinding halt ever.

Debian Commercial may die but the Debian core is eternal.

"Ubuntu is forking Debian"

Yes right , unlike some Debian commercial they contribute real code and contribute it back to Debian core , this notion came from the same place this news came from Ian Murdoch and the loosing Debian Commercials.

"Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth are Trying to kill Debian "

Yes right until they came along Debian commercial where doing a realy fine job a this themself. Lets not forget the Debian core wich is unresponsive at time.

"The one joining are Linspire, credativ GmbH (site in German), LinEx (site in Spanish), Sun Wah Linux Ltd., Xandros Inc."

I tought this whas a *server* news , all those new group are not even expert or winning on the Desktop and are spreading there area of competence to server now ? Off course this time they asked the people they named before mentionning them right ?

"The market has spoken, and we're 100 percent focused on this new Debian-centric core now."

Yes , Everyone is on Mandriva , Red Hat and some are still on Novell/SuSe. Analyst can say it , or anything they whant that only for them would make some sense , this dont mean they will start making it happen.

"One, we are talking with Debian companies and nonprofits about adopting a common core to make Debian more viable in the enterprise"

Do you know how many commercial made Debian promise and failed , it not even funny anymore , Debian core and the Debian non profit could care less about enterprise , they work so that everyone get more GNU/Linux software.

"Progeny will be announcing the next version of Componentized Linux at LinuxWorld."

No Progeny will be annoncing there new server offer. They are also hopping everyone will use it so that they start generating some revenue and sales.

"Conceptually, I support this idea a great deal, and am working with Ian and the others on more details Kevin Carmony, president and CEO of Linspire."

They use Red Hat and Suse for server internally , Also I guess Desktop GNU/Linux and new user are not Linspire target anymore.

"Linspire Professional] is being used by a couple of very large enterprises now, so we're excited to introduce it "

I tought Linspire whas about normal Desktop users , I guess the two company who use it cant be named ( Linspire and sub 300 ? ), If I where there partners I would be pissed that they dont deploy this for all the partner to test and be current on it so that everyone is ready and have some experience on it when it come out.

"On the technical points, Componentized Linux 3.0 is a well-defined subset of Debian Sarge"

They removed tons of uselfull software for server and replaced them or tottally removed them with no replacements , but this unproven method work better then Debian who is in use globally ...

"this effort is very Debian-centric"

No , since its Progeny making it ...

"We see ourselves as simply delivering an implementation of the LSB "

LSB is not about Debian , its about standard. Only Mandriva as add is product fully LSB certified all the time , Progeny dont make that cut , yet LSB will change everything now to accomodate only them ...

"because if you look at the installed base of Debian plus all the Debian derivatives, that represents a huge market worldwide."

NO it represent a huge user base , for there to be a market you have to be able to sale something , Server are already very well covered in Debian.

"We undoubtedly dwarf Novell/SuSE in terms of volume"

Everyone does , Mandriva more then everyone else they kicked SUSE out of the market.

"Some analysts think he makes a good point."

The same people who declared Mandriva a small player and dead ... They still cant explain the two acquisition by Mandriva , *but but but there supposed to be dead, how can they be acquiring other profitable company.*

" "Debian is often the third one supported," Dan Kusnetzky, program vice president for system software at IDC" "

No , Mandriva is by Default its RPM compatible. RPM that work on Red Hat and SUSE work on Mandriva too.

What Ian Murdoch and The clueless analyst forget to mention is that Mandriva is bigger in community then Debian Core and Red Hat ( fedora is a spin off its not the same thing and is eating at Red Hat income ) , its a bigger corporation with a proven and profitable business then the extremely loosing money everyday GNU/Linux branch at Novell/Linux.

Debian Core drive Debian , not Progeny or Ian Murdoch

Mandriva is driven by its community and its paying users and loyal contributors.

BTW HP is starting to see that Mandriva product only in France are outselling 10 to 1 the offer they make for Red Hat and Novell/SUSE product worldwide , exept for Red Hat server in the US.

Reply Score: 1

Split!!!
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 13:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Unfortunately Ubuntu is splitting up the Debian world heavily with its fork"

err... how come... I mean, didn't mandrake (mandriva) and even suse derive from red hat... I did not see red had vanishe... linger away in any form... yet this two are not compatible with many redhat RPMs in a %100, whats the big deal...

So how come that Ubuntu is now critizise about its practises... and if debian manages to restructurize themselves maybe Ubuntu wont have the need to become like mandrake or suse in that they are not (in their present form, and since a long time) %100 Red Hat compatible... not even mandriva and suse have such compatability with one an other! What gives if Ubuntu ultimatly finds that they will have to do what those did...

This is ridiculess... hopefully ubunto wont need to become there own base... but if they do... thats no big deal in the long run... debian needs to worry about themslve... and stop worrying so hevilly about ubuntu's desisions...

Reply Score: 0

Re: Split!!!
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 15:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"
err... how come... I mean, didn't mandrake (mandriva) and even suse derive from red hat...:"

Mandrake never had any goals to cooperate with Red Hat in forming a distribution based on it. SUSE wasnt derived from Red Hat Linux at all

"So how come that Ubuntu is now critizise about its practises..."

Ubuntu's repositories are directly derived from Debian. They originally said they would cooperate and be compatible. Now they are completely forking up and telling people that Debian is not of use for them anymore which is not true since all of the packages are derived from Debian. Biting on the hand that feeds you is a bad strategy

Original plan

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8286

"At its core, Ubuntu *is* Debian. Our six-monthly releases are based on Debian's "sid" development branch"


fallout:

Ian (Debian founder's) comments

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10256

Improper credit

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10474

Security problems for Debian

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11088

Now see Ubuntu people's comments that Debian isnt necessary anymore. Judge for yourself

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re: Split!!!
by Syntaxis on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:18 UTC in reply to "Re: Split!!!"
Syntaxis Member since:
2005-07-11

"Ian (Debian founder's) comments - http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10256"

That was a terribly poorly written piece. Ian says of Ubuntu:

---
It's diverged so far from Sarge that packages built for Ubuntu often don't work on Sarge. And given the momentum behind Ubuntu, more and more packages are being built like this. The result is a potential compatibility nightmare.
---

How is this new? Debian isn't compatible within its *own* branches. As the Stable distribution ages, packages built for Testing and Unstable won't work on it either, and sites such as backports.org will once again have to step in to fill the void.

"Improper credit - http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10474"

This was addressed in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00257.html. As Matt Zimmerman pointed out, this issue is hardly Ubuntu-specific:

---
"I think all other distributions based on Debian do change the Maintainer field."

Having looked only briefly, I can say that this is not true in general. If you examine only the distributions I mentioned above, you will find source and binary packages, modified and unmodified, rebuilt binaries or Debian binaries, with modified and unmodified Maintainer fields.
---

If you read the whole thread, you'll see there are pros and cons to each approach. If they keep the maintainer field as-is, they risk the Debian devs' ire when Ubuntu users contact them about packages that, despite what the Maintainer: field says, they do *not* actually maintain; if they change it to avoid this, others scream about stealing credit. It's a lose-lose situation.

"Security problems for Debian - http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11088"

This has nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu.

"Now see Ubuntu people's comments that Debian isnt necessary anymore."

Please indicate which Ubuntu developers said this, and where. As indicated in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00262.html, the Ubuntu devs themselves are keen to be informed of any examples of such hostility:

---
"some package maintainers are not too happy about Debian"

Is this judgement based on some experience you had with an Ubuntu developer? I'd like to hear about it, because this is certainly not the common case, and there is an unfortunate amount of myth and rumour on this subject.
---

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Wed 13th Jul 2005 17:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"This sort of thing is precisely why Mandrake split from RedHat so long ago. Redhat was getting slow and sloppy in updating their core OS and Mandrake wanted more..."

Oh dont bother rewriting history. Red Hat didnt include KDE because the QT license was then a proprietary one. Mandrake's differentiation point was that they included KDE even with a proprietary base. It had nothing to do with being slow or sloppy

Reply Score: 0