Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Feb 2006 19:11 UTC
Debian and its clones MEPIS, one of the more popular Debian-derived distributions, may be moving in a new direction soon. MEPIS founder Warren Woodford is considering building future MEPIS releases from Ubuntu sources rather than from Debian. SimplyMEPIS 3.4-3, which is scheduled for release today, has been quite a challenge to build, according to Woodford. "It's taking up all my time, fighting the Etch pool... We've had a lot of trouble, because the Debian community has become so active, it's been difficult to get this out, so I'm looking at alternatives to getting out stable releases."
Order by: Score:
fun stuff
by l3v1 on Thu 9th Feb 2006 19:25 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, I find this quite funny, crowd spits on debian saying they are slow and old and it's good for nothing, and the guy comes complaining about debian developers' recent fairly high level of activity ;)

You know what ? Everyone should do what they wish, build your distro on what you wish, it doesn't really matter. Most [of ordinary] users don't eally care for anything besides a fancy installer and an easy package manager. Is it based on debian, ubuntu, slack or fancypantix, nobody [of ordinary users] cares.

Anyway, mepis is great. Ubuntu is also great. As a fact, all debian-based dsitros are great. If they can make their lives easier by combining sources, efforts, whatever, hey that's just wonderful.

In my world debian is the king, gentoo is a good friend, others only form the crowd of the coolest party of the realm ;) But without the crowd the party would suck big time ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: fun stuff
by Michael_Valentine on Thu 9th Feb 2006 20:20 UTC in reply to "fun stuff"
Michael_Valentine Member since:
2005-07-22

Warren continues "SimplyMEPIS used to be built on packages from the Debian unstable (Sid) pool and that worked well because the Debian pool changed slowly. Then the rate change increased in Sid and for this release we switched to Debian testing (Etch). But even Etch is becoming too unstable for our users needs. It took months of extra work to get this release out the door. We'll have to find a different solution for the future." "I do not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with Etch or Debian--quite the contrary. The Debian team is working very hard to build the next stable version of Debian. But they have no obligation or reason to consider our needs for a package pool that is stable on a 6 month cycle."

Reply Score: 5

RE: fun stuff
by korpenkraxar on Fri 10th Feb 2006 21:21 UTC in reply to "fun stuff"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

>In my world debian is the king, gentoo is a good friend, others only form the crowd of the coolest party of the realm ;) But without the crowd the party would suck big time ;)

Oh! So we're all friends now eh? Well I know what you said last summer!

/Grumpy offended Debian/Ubuntu fan

Reply Score: 1

Impact on DCC?
by viniosity on Thu 9th Feb 2006 19:26 UTC
viniosity
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder what the impact of this is going to be on the DCC. Mepis was one of the founding members I believe. Seems like Ubuntu may have been wise to take the wait and see approach.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Impact on DCC?
by kragil on Thu 9th Feb 2006 20:03 UTC in reply to "Impact on DCC?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

DCC has lame ducks like Userlinux in its ranks. I think they are beyond careing ;-)

Reply Score: 3

Kubuntu +..
by Emil on Thu 9th Feb 2006 19:40 UTC
Emil
Member since:
2005-06-29

Maybe they could marge forces with Kubuntu? The 3.5.1 packages are rolled out at kubuntu.org servers.

Reply Score: 4

It's just a matter of time
by rain on Thu 9th Feb 2006 19:48 UTC
rain
Member since:
2005-07-09

before debian switches to ubuntu ;)

Reply Score: 5

I think it will be a good idea
by Jankdc on Thu 9th Feb 2006 19:50 UTC
Jankdc
Member since:
2006-02-09

I've been using Mepis for over 2years now, and it would make upgrading a lot easier. I'm a "computer is for working" user and don't care what sources Warren uses. It doesn't have to be set in stone either. If things stabilize with Debian, or the DCC gets it together, and Warren wants to switch, then that would be fine also.

Reply Score: 1

Same name?
by Michael_Valentine on Thu 9th Feb 2006 20:13 UTC
Michael_Valentine
Member since:
2005-07-22

Or Mebuntu?

Reply Score: 1

morgoth
Member since:
2005-07-08

This is exactly why I said Ubuntu was a bad bad thing. Ubuntu will eventually kill off Debian, and any Debian based competitors. Monopolies are always bad for business, whether they're Linux based or not.

Dave

Reply Score: 0

Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Could you please enlighten us as to why Ubuntu is a monopoly? :-)

Reply Score: 3

cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

1. Ubuntu is not a monopoly by any sane definition.

2. Debian could easily suck some wind from Ubuntu's sails by fixing their broken release policies. Ubuntu is really nothing more than Debian with a release policy appropriate to desktop use.

Reply Score: 5

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

2. Debian could easily suck some wind from Ubuntu's sails by fixing their broken release policies. Ubuntu is really nothing more than Debian with a release policy appropriate to desktop use

Well... *I* dont think that the Debian release policy is broken. Actually, I like their approach of "its done when its done". It might not matter that much for kids running the latest gimmicks on their computers on their mommas basement but it surely is appreciated by the sysadmins around the world and people that use their desktops to work, not play.

Thats just one of the aspects where I consider Ubuntu being overhyped. After all, their repositories are nothing more than frozen snapshots from Etch where their developers can do the (admitedly heavy) work on the packages so that they can suit their needs. But what most Ubuntu fans forget is that _this_ work depends on the _heavier_ work done by Etch mantainers and that Debian have much more manpower (over 1000 developers/maintainers last that I heard) than Canonical have at the moment. Ubuntu just takes advantage of the wonderful infrastructure put in place by Debian.

While I have nothing against nor torwards Ubuntu, *I* think that it is a dangerous idea to consider Ubuntu as the base for developping anything related to Linux as a standard since, in my eyes, it is just another fad. If the ISVs coming from other platforms are not targeting RedHat to develop commercial software, then they oughta be targeting Debian. Period. Ubuntu might be good for desktops, Debian is good at everything.

That being said, Id like to play a little bit with Kubuntu mainly because it usually is bleeding edge on KDE but before that Id like to ask to the Ubuntu-ers if that sudo thing can be changed to a proper root account without breaking too much stuff (I know about sudo -s, but I want a proper root account). Thanks in advance.

(Disclaimer: Im a current MEPIS fan/user)

Edited 2006-02-10 06:03

Reply Score: 2

AndyJ Member since:
2005-06-30

You can easily have a "real" root account for Ubuntu/Kubuntu. You simply use passwd explicitly to set a password for root.

Edited 2006-02-10 06:08

Reply Score: 1

moleskine Member since:
2005-11-05

It might not matter that much for kids running the latest gimmicks on their computers on their mommas basement but it surely is appreciated by the sysadmins around the world and people that use their desktops to work, not play.

Ah yes, the unspoken motive behind a lot of Debian users: snobbery. Only real men run Debian Stable, everyone else is a frivolous fellow-traveller, etc, etc..

If the ISVs coming from other platforms are not targeting RedHat to develop commercial software, then they oughta be targeting Debian.

In that case you have to ask, why don't they? Might it have something to do with the fact that if you have millions of dollars and a lot of jobs on the line, you are going to go with the grown-up, standards-compliant company that runs a tight ship and has the largest market share in the enterprise? Or are you going to have to explain to your stockholders why you are betting the farm on the crew from, say, Debian Planet with their "it's ready when we say so, forget deadlines" approach and personal grooming challenges?

There is an awful lot of BS talked about Linux. A lot of different distributions will do pretty much what anyone needs, including SuSE and Red Hat (and probably Ubuntu, Gentoo and Slackware though I've never used the last two). Pulling out better and worse is just a waste of time, other than choosing the most appropriate tool for the job.

Reply Score: 2

cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Actually, I like their approach of "its done when its done". It might not matter that much for kids running the latest gimmicks on their computers on their mommas basement but it surely is appreciated by the sysadmins around the world and people that use their desktops to work, not play.

I mostly agree with you here. Ubuntu is not a replacement for Debian. That said, I must take exception to your characterization of Ubuntu and Ubuntu users. I've been using Debian and Debian derivatives since 1998. Debian is, imho, the best overall Linux distro available.

So, considering my very high opinion of Debian why do I use Kubuntu? Beacause Debian's release policy is not geared to the needs of desktop users. Stable has a tendency to get very, very long in the tooth a year or so after release. After the 3 years, it's positively archaic from the point of view of desktop users. This fact is what drove me, along with most other people using Debian a desktop OS, to start tracking Sid rather than stable, which I did for years.

For the most part this works rather well, but there are the occasional gotchas (usually updates to GCC, glibc, multimedia libs, or X) when things break for a week or so. No biggie for me, I have a reasonably good undertanding of how Debian packaging works and I can generally fix things when they break. The other major downside to running Sid is the huge amount of package churn. After all, it's a development branch! Often this means 1 to 2 GBs of updates a week for a desktop type install.

While I can deal with the shortcomings of using Sid, I'd prefer not to if possible. And for less experienced users (not to mention those without broadband) tracking Sid just isn't a workable solution. (K)Ubuntu fixes these problems. For most most server installations though, I personally use and recommend Debian stable. That being said, I do think Debian should move to dependable schedule for its release, preferably 18 month cycles.

*I* think that it is a dangerous idea to consider Ubuntu as the base for developping anything related to Linux as a standard since, in my eyes, it is just another fad.

Who's considering Ubuntu as a base for a standard?

f the ISVs coming from other platforms are not targeting RedHat to develop commercial software, then they oughta be targeting Debian. Period. Ubuntu might be good for desktops, Debian is good at everything.

Which distros ISVs target is always going to be determined by install base and, at this time, there are a lot more desktop users of Ubuntu than Debian. Thus ISVs selling desktop, packages will likely target Ubuntu and not Debian. I'd prefer to see strong compatibility between Ubuntu and Debian, but that cannot happen until Debian streamlines its release schedules. In a perfect world, all Debian derivatives would be based off of testing, but testing needs to recieve regular security patches and binary compatibility needs to be ensured for specified windows of time (like 6 months). The other option is to do essentially what Ubuntu has done and set up a separate desktop release tree which still feeds from Sid, but where the release schedule makes sense for desktop use.

Edited 2006-02-10 19:37

Reply Score: 1

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

I agree with pretty much everything that you said except that I don't think that it is that easy to specify a timeframe for release policies for a project as big as Debian is as people here seems to think. Ubuntu's official repository is just a very small subset of the Debian repository, with over 16000 packages.

It's easy for them to select a small collection of desktop oriented packages and say that they'll put out a new release every six months. Meanwhile, they can just go ahead and say that everything that outside this collection is unsupported. You're free to install them and do whatever you want, just don't bug us when stuff get broken later.

Who's considering Ubuntu as a base for a standard?

If you follow the thread carefully, you'll see a handful of Ubuntu proponents suggesting that we should ditch everything else and that Ubuntu should be the defacto standard on Linux land.

Again, I have nothing against Ubuntu per se. But the fact is that Ubuntu is not even that different from other desktop oriented distros to be considered a Linux standard. What the hell, Mark Shuttleworth has stated several times that they don't want to be tied to decisions coming from a comitee nor anything like that as that could hinder their development and I kinda agree with him considering their goals, but I can't see that working as a truly Linux standard. You know, something that would push Linux forward. They're more interested in do the best that they can, and I wish more power to them.

If you're going to suggest that the ISVs should consider something to use as a base to develop their desktop stuff upon, I think that they should look at FreeDesktop.org. Granted, fd.o still doesn't cover everything that it could but I think that it would be a better foundation than anything that could come from the Ubuntu camp. Debian is another story, though. It has a solid foundation that could truly have something built upon it. And I'm not saying this out of arrogance as some other poster accused me, as I'm not even a proper Debian user on my desktop (I prefer SimplyMEPIS for that). I'm saying this because that's how I perceive these things. I can attest Debian stability, flexibility and functionality because I used to administrate some web/e-mail/dns/traffic shapers servers on a ISP sometime ago.

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Dearie me...comprehension is exceptionally bad today. Read my reply to the other poster. Saves me having to repeat it.

1. Not a monopoly - yet.

2. Debian does not have broken release policies. Slow, yes. But not broken. Please choose your words more carefully. Debian's main issue is that it supports so many arches. imho - too many arches. In reality, only PPC, i386, amd64 and sparc should be supported, the rest should die like the dinosaurs that they are.

Please note that Debian doesn't have millions of dollars donated to it. It does what it does on a much smaller budget than Ubuntu. Money does help. Maybe Mark should have donated a few million to Debian eh?

Dave

Reply Score: 0

cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

You most certainly did imply that Ubuntu is a monopoly. You further asserted that this will eventually "kill of Debian". I'd suggest you pay more attention to what you write if you wish to be understood more precisely.

I choose to call Debian's release policies "broken" because that is what I believe them to be. They need to to be fixed. Luckily most of the Debian maintainers realize this and efforts to this are underway. FWIW, I agree with you that Debian needs to reasses its support of obscure platforms. My recommendation would be make only PPC and the x86 family release critical, all other architectures would remain supported so long as there are maintainers interested in doing the work, but problems getting X to build on Spark would no longer be able to hold up the release schedule.

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: This is exactly why I said Ubuntu was a bad bad thing. Ubuntu will eventually kill off Debian, and any Debian based competitors. Monopolies are always bad for business, whether they're Linux based or not.

Dave"

Read my f--king post again dimwit. Jesus. Are you guys that f--king thick that you can't f--king read and comprehend basic English?

As to broken, I don't consider Debian broken, slow, yes, but not broken.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Boy, you're an offense little f--kwit aren't you? Improve your facilities with the english language if you wish to be understood.

Edited 2006-02-10 22:44

Reply Score: 0

sirwally Member since:
2005-07-19

"This is exactly why I said Ubuntu was a bad bad thing. Ubuntu will eventually kill off Debian, and any Debian based competitors."

Please explain? Why is Ubuntu a "bad, bad" thing? If Ubuntu killed off Debian, Debian would still live on as Ubuntu because Ubuntu _is_ Debian. For arguments sake let's say Debian was killed off, and Ubuntu tooks it's place. Why would that be a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? I would assume that most Debian users would then be using Ubuntu (or one of its derivatives) and I don't really see why that would be a bad thing. Perhaps it's just because you don't like Ubuntu because it's popular, and because it is encroaching on Debian's turf. Perhaps I am wrong. However, I see this sort of lame argument so much from the Linux crowd, and it's _really_ sad.

"Wah! My Linux distro is better than yours, and yours is becoming so popular that it threatening the longevity of mine. It sucks! Instead of embracing the more popular distro, I'm going to bite my nose to spite my face and switch to another unknown distro! See how you like that!" Quite frankly, I couldn't give a rats. Use what you want, but believe this -- Linux will _never_ succeed (at least in the desktop world) being so damned fractionalized. I don't know how many distros there are these days, but probably way more than when I last checked, and _way_ more than there should be. I think it would be _far_ more constructive for people to work on existing, popular distros than to create their own, because unless they do something _really_ special, it will only ever be used by a relative handful of users, and effectively go nowehere. Sure, it was a good learning experience, and probably a lot of fun, and that's great, but at some point the less popular distros have got to die out and allow the more popular ones to live on.

It will all work out in the end.

"Monopolies are always bad for business, whether they're Linux based or not."

Monopolies are _not_ always bad for business. Monopolies are bad for business when they start abusing their monopoly position to better their position at the cost of their competitors. That is why there are laws against that sort of business practice. Making monopolies flat-out illegal (because they are a "bad, bad thing" would be insane. This would stifle growth and innovation because companies would be in fear of becoming so popular and inadvertently crushing all their competition because their product was better, so putting themselves in the position of being a monopoly.

Reply Score: 5

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

For arguments sake let's say Debian was killed off, and Ubuntu tooks it's place. Why would that be a bad thing in the grand scheme of things?

Yes, for those who use architectures supported by Debian but not by Ubuntu. Debian also officially supports a lot more packages than does Ubuntu. Debian (stable) is also a lot more stable, something business users care about. Ubuntu isn't exactly positioned to take over Debian's server segment. And you know there would be some people who wouldn't be happy with being beholden to Canonical, though the creation of the Ubuntu Foundation should help.

Anyway, Ubuntu does not have the same focus that Debian does, so in the end Debian croaking and being replaced by Ubuntu would be imho a loss.

Reply Score: 3

g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Have you considered that part of the reason Etch is changing so quickly is because Ubuntu is feeding changes into Debian, and this in turn is making it easier for Debian maintainers to keep up to date?

Ubuntu's success doesn't mean the death of Debian any more than Fedora means the death of RHEL or openSUSE means the death of SUSE Enterprise. Quite the contrary. These bleeding branch distributions provide an important role in experimenting and stabilizing new technologies so that the old workhorses can be solid.

If you're going to deploy and be responsible for 1000 desktops, the last thing you want to do is to upgrade every 6 months or risk a supposedly minor bug shutting down your company. You may want the flash and glitz of the bleeding edge distros for your own desktop, but when you're head is on the line, you'll likely go for the low risk boringly stable. That's what Debian, RHEL, and SUSE enterprise are.

There's no way the bleeding edgers are a threat.

Reply Score: 5

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "Have you considered that part of the reason Etch is changing so quickly is because Ubuntu is feeding changes into Debian, and this in turn is making it easier for Debian maintainers to keep up to date? "

Sure. Some stuff is going back into Debian. You're trying to imply that all of the Etch changes are a sole result of Ubuntu. That's a load of codswallop. Keep dreaming your rosy Ubuntu glasses.

Quote: "There's no way the bleeding edgers are a threat."

Of course not, since on the workplace desktop, most users will have very cut down desktops for a variety of reasons. Having the latest and greatest in that type of scenario was never going to be a real issue, even before the release of Ubuntu.

Dave

Reply Score: 0

AndyJ Member since:
2005-06-30

I'm sorry but what kind of subjective, unsubstantiated, unexplained, biased crap is "Ubuntu is very bad"??? I also have used Ubuntu since before the first version was released. It revitalised my interest in Linux after being put off by Red Hat. I since moved to Mepis and tried a bunch of others but have both (K)ubuntu and Mepis running on various boxes. (K)ubuntu supports my AMD64 machine nicely and Mepis runs good on my other x86 boxes. I like the cleanness of Kubuntu and the comprehensiveness of Mepis.

Now tell my just why hundreds of satisfied Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu users are so dramatically wrong in thinking these distros are so good, and why in fact, they are just plain "very bad"???

I have seen so much FUD being spread around Ubuntu: from people who just "know" that Mark Shuttleworth has evil, monopolistic ulterior motives to those who are just plain upset that Ubuntu threatens to bring some stability and popularity to the Linux world on a scale previously unseen. There are Linux purists of some kind who despise the fact that Ubuntu brings Linux within the grasp of "average Joe" users removing the uber-geek mystique (although I would argue that Mepis and other distros also have their share of non-techie users).

It is absolutely high time that people who claim to support Linux stopped encouraging the separation between distros and started realising that keeping distros apart in small pockets all pursuing different aims and agendas will never be good for Linux.

And if people are so paranoid and naive as to think that a single person could wipe out the combined efforts of the many contributors, testers, users, in short the whole community that makes up the Linux world, then fine, go ahead and have your anti-Ubuntu, anti-Mark Shuttleworth witch-hunts. But the rest of us will continue to live in the real world and hope that increased cooperation and sharing of resources between distros will continue to improve Linux in all it's various guises.

Reply Score: 5

historyb Member since:
2005-07-06

Your post demonstrates why ubuntu is a bad thing. As I said about when it first came out, there is something very distributing about it and while I can't place my finger on it.

It may well be Mr. Suttleworth, those of us who use Linux have been burned by a millionaire and maybe some are not ready to retread the path of the herd mentality. It could have been the fact that when it took the Linux world by storm there were better distros out there and where ubuntu came from was not put out for the public to see right away.

And FYI I am not a "Linux Purist" I want to see Linux take over the market. Just not under one person, that would be no better than Windows.

In fact, the more I think about it the more it smacks of MS. When one gets Ubuntu it's not ready to go, you have to download some stuff to be able to use .mp3. There are distros out there that are that ready PCLinuxOS and Mepis are just but two.

This all reminds me of a scene from Pirates of Silicon Valley where Steve Jobs tells Bill Gates We make better stuff! and Bill Gates looks back and tells him That's not the point!. Microsoft as well as ubuntu is good at marketing but falls short everywhere else.

Reply Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft as well as ubuntu is good at marketing but falls short everywhere else.

Have you even ever used UbuntuLinux for more than ten minutes? Ubuntu works beautifully and UbuntuLinux is Free in every sense of the word.

The reason that Ubuntu doesn't ship stuff like MP3 codecs is because those technologies are proprietary and legally shady. Any distribution which hasn't licensed them with the proprietor is tainted and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Reply Score: 1

historyb Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you even ever used UbuntuLinux for more than ten minutes? Ubuntu works beautifully and UbuntuLinux is Free in every sense of the word.

No and I don't intend too. Ubuntu is not good for the Linux Community and may end up taking it down th wrong path. I can see it fast becomin another MS, just because it's free now doesn't mean it always will be.

Reply Score: 0

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

How can you dislike something you have never tried, ubuntu is bringing the linux experience to people who might never try it, or try a less user-friendly distro and not like it, so they switch back. Being closed minded and choosing to believe the worse about an organization when they have made no actions that backup your feelings are bad for the whole OSS movement

Reply Score: 2

historyb Member since:
2005-07-06

IMHO no it's not. That's a silly saying going around that if you haven't tried it don't criticize it. That's like saying a person can't say jumping off a building is bad unless you did it.

One can form perfectly valid opinions about things even if they never have used it or done it. Experience is not everything.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

When you get Fedora core, you have to install multimedia support, most distros come like that it is not a corporate issue, it is a liscense issue.

Reply Score: 2

d0nk3y Member since:
2005-12-15

You can't kill a way of thinking or a philosophy. That's my understanding of what Debian is - it's not some 'company that can go under' or anything.

(BTW, I use Ubuntu because it's Debian based and easy to maintain. That and it has most things I need on a single CD installation - and it works for me.)

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

It works for you, but it doesn't work for me. I don't have to like Ubuntu, and I most certainly don't have to support it. People love fads. Ubuntu is a fad, just as Gentoo was 4 or so years ago.

Dave

Reply Score: 0

d0nk3y Member since:
2005-12-15

And that's absolutely fine by me. It's totally up to you what you like and don't like - that's the groovy thing about linux and highlights what I think it's all about.

Choice.

Good on you!

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Exactly. But now we have the ubuntuites dictating that I must like Ubuntu, that I must use it, and if I dare even speak out that I dislike it, I'll get moderated down. Again, we have a spate of my comments being f--king moderated down by dimwit f--king idiots, for no apparent reason at all. We have the osnews.com spineless f--king staff doing f--k all. I might just continue to keep swearing all the time just to piss them off, because in reality, I want my account removed. This website has become so f--king useless, so f--king lawless that it's a waste of time even visiting it, let alone trying to make a sane comment.

I asked the staff a few weeks ago to remove my account, and they haven't even done so. Do I have to formally serve a subpeona on you guys to make yo do it? I can't stand this site anymore, and I can't stand the inability of the staff to ensure that things are done right.

Dave

Reply Score: 0

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Then don't come to the site

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Exactly. But now we have the ubuntuites dictating that I must like Ubuntu, that I must use it, and if I dare even speak out that I dislike it, I'll get moderated down. Again, we have a spate of my comments being f--king moderated down by dimwit f--king idiots, for no apparent reason at all. We have the osnews.com spineless f--king staff doing f--k all. I might just continue to keep swearing all the time just to piss them off, because in reality, I want my account removed. This website has become so f--king useless, so f--king lawless that it's a waste of time even visiting it, let alone trying to make a sane comment.

I asked the staff a few weeks ago to remove my account, and they haven't even done so. Do I have to formally serve a subpeona on you guys to make yo do it? I can't stand this site anymore, and I can't stand the inability of the staff to ensure that things are done right.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

Ever heard of Chicken Little?

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

And your off topic reply's point is? Amazing how an off topic reply doesn't get moderated down.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

Wow, you're so dense I'm surprised other stupid people don't orbit around you!

I'll find a link to the story of Chicken Little and include it, but essentially it's the story of a little chicken who ran around crying and flailing their limbs about in anticipation something that wasn't really happening, which they only became convinced of because they had such a slanted and limited viewpoint in the first place.

Does that sound at all familiar to you?

Here's a pleasantly presented version of the story, as promised...
http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/

Reply Score: 0

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Oh, personal insults now. I can see the moderators have been so busy, that they just couldn't moderate you down! Well, f--k you. f--king moron.

Dave

Reply Score: 0

da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

Ever heard of Chicken Little?

Oh, yeah. :-D

Reply Score: 1

This is funny
by viator on Thu 9th Feb 2006 23:14 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

So mepis will take ubuntu as its base hmm so theyll take kubuntu and slap a mepis logo on everything wow that WILL speed up "development" So the only difference between mepis instead of kubuntu will be that itll have the non free stuff in it. Instead of mepis just TAKING from debian and bitching about bugs etc why dont they work on fixing debian and GIVE somthing back to the community

Reply Score: 3

Mepis should be based on Debian stable
by JeffS on Thu 9th Feb 2006 23:50 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Frankly, I think pure Debian stable is better than any of the Debian derivatives basing themselves off unstable or testing, both as a desktop and as a server. The new Debian installer is great (Ubuntu's is s slightly modified version of it), and it's very stable, fast, clean, and easy.

But I've always wanted a good, solid version of Debian Stable that had some of the "niceties" that Mepis brings to the table - that is, boots live, then has an easy live installer, then includes java and media codecs. But the core and most packages would be pure Debian stable. That would be an awesome combination - the stability and quality and stable Deb repos of pure Debian, with the extra luxury of a Mepis.

Reply Score: 2

Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, you may like stable. I, for one, need to have access to software that was released this year. Being a project manager I should know what new sits in PgSQL and if we should move Subversion to next version. I've been running Debain SID but it's fun, when it's fun. But when it's broken, it's just fcuked. And if I can have polished, new packages, without being exposed to SID -- I'm all for it.

I bet Mepis owner took the same path. :-)

Reply Score: 2

gary1979 Member since:
2006-01-31

There already an OS such as this, it is Genie OS (formerly Debian Pure).

http://genieos.toluenterprises.com/

Reply Score: 1

da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

There already an OS such as this, it is Genie OS (formerly Debian Pure).

http://genieos.toluenterprises.com/


Still, an easy-to-install *live-cd* based on Debian stable would be nice... but apparently Mepis is not interested in providing something like this.

Reply Score: 1

da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

Frankly, I think pure Debian stable is better than any of the Debian derivatives basing themselves off unstable or testing, both as a desktop and as a server. The new Debian installer is great (Ubuntu's is s slightly modified version of it), and it's very stable, fast, clean, and easy.

But I've always wanted a good, solid version of Debian Stable that had some of the "niceties" that Mepis brings to the table - that is, boots live, then has an easy live installer, then includes java and media codecs. But the core and most packages would be pure Debian stable. That would be an awesome combination - the stability and quality and stable Deb repos of pure Debian, with the extra luxury of a Mepis.


My thoughts exactly. :-)

There are several alternatives, none of them perfect.

There's Kanotix, built on Debian unstable. But at times, when development in Debian is fast, sticking to Sid will break your toys...

Then there's Ubuntu. Canonical employed some of the best Debian developers and they've done a terrific job on the officially supported software in Ubuntu. You get the latest desktops (KDE, GNOME) faster than in Debian proper plus you get security updates for the officially supported packages and you can use also the officially unsupported software from the "universe" repo. And you get CD's shipped to your home, free of charge.

The downside of Ubuntu is that only a fraction of the software from Debian unstable is officially supported in Ubuntu. And there's no software upgrades (except security updates) in-between releases -- which means that most of the software in Ubuntu tends to be older than in Debian unstable (or even in Debian testing). And some of the software in Ubuntu's "universe" is horribly broken, like in Debian unstable. Plus you don't get security updates for the software from "universe" -- which means that you don't want to run the "universe" stuff on a production machine.

And then there's Debian testing, an incomplete development branch. Packages are only accepted to testing after the serious bugs have been fixed -- which means that some of your favourite software may not be always available or installable in Debian testing. But Debian testing has newer packages than stable, plus it gets security updates nowadays, and that is nice. :-)

Then we have Debian stable that consists of tried and tested and relatively bug-free software, which means that it rarely has the latest versions of anything. Oh yeah, there's the constantly updated backports from backports.org (like Xorg 6.9, Firefox 1.5, OpenOffice 2.0, etc.) but that's not an official part of the stable release and you don't get security updates for backports.

So, none of these alternatives is perfect. Still, I'd very much like to see a distro (Mepis or some other distro) to build an easy-to-install live-cd based on Debian stable. This distro could also have an "unstable" branch that would include the latest backports from backports.org. I think it's only the uber-geeks who always like to use the "cutting/bleeding edge" versions of software that cuts them and makes them bleed from time to time. The big bulk of "normal" desktop users would no doubt greatly appreciate the stability and reliability of Debian stable.

Reply Score: 3

Windows Millenium Edition
by WinME on Fri 10th Feb 2006 05:07 UTC
WinME
Member since:
2006-02-10

Well I Prefer WinME.
It is the best system who ever had been created.
My little brother dont like it.
But it is very stable and I neved had any problems with krashing and so on.
So forget about linux and Windows XP.
WinME really ROCKS!!

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Windows Millenium Edition
by windowsispoo on Fri 10th Feb 2006 09:51 UTC in reply to "Windows Millenium Edition"
Reinventing the wheel
by dark child on Fri 10th Feb 2006 05:47 UTC
dark child
Member since:
2005-12-09

Sometimes I think some of these Debian based distros waste a lot of time and effort by reinventing the wheel. I mean how many distros out there are simply repackaging Debian Testing or Unstable, together with a few latest apps and call it a new release. I wish a lot more of them would work on Debian proper so that Debian has more developer power and the release cycle can improve.

I am not saying that the derivatives are not good, but there seems to be duplication of effort in many of these projects.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Reinventing the wheel
by cerbie on Sat 11th Feb 2006 08:08 UTC in reply to "Reinventing the wheel"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

I think some kind of regular snapshot for Debian would let this work better. There is a lot of duplicate work, but little to do about it. If Debian made snapshots they could all easily use, then that would work well. They do not.

But, how do you keep the current stable release cycle and philosophy, yet still have scheduled releases? If someone figures it out, it will work. Until then, repackaging Debian, then doing similar fixes to the other distros doing the same thing, will continue.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel
by leech on Sat 11th Feb 2006 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Reinventing the wheel"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

They do have weekly snapshots of Debian Testing (I think they have some for SID as well) http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/ Maybe if Mepis had just grabbed one of those, and ran with it for stabilizing, they woulndn't have to switch to Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Reinventing the wheel
by cerbie on Sun 12th Feb 2006 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

Good observation. I wonder how much it differs in time it takes to get things working well?

That is, from time of getting the sources you're going to use to the time of release, is there an appreciable difference? As long as MEPIS has taken for the last version, they've lost having the latest-and-greatest of everything.

I'd love to see this sort of thing well worked out, because the combination of new work going in to unstable, and quality work in testing and stable, offer sets of packages only really rivaled by Gentoo, while also being easy to use.

If it were properly worked out, we might see more going back into Debian proper, because less time would be taken working kinks out (and now, both Ubuntu and MEPIS folks have noted that that is taking far more time than they'd like--MEPIS officially).

Reply Score: 1

desktop
by Mr. Tan on Fri 10th Feb 2006 08:49 UTC
Mr. Tan
Member since:
2005-07-08

ubuntu is linux's answer to the desktop, am no fanboy, but i have just tried some of the tools from ubuntuforums, like automatix, hell i bet windows users haven't had it that easy!

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Windows Millenium Edition
by WinME on Fri 10th Feb 2006 09:54 UTC
dimosd
Member since:
2006-02-10

Ubuntu gives me a smooth Gnome desktop. I appreciate that. But, the real reason I switched to Linux (and Debian - before Ubuntu) was so that I could easily access thousands of open source programs. Otherwise, I might as well be a satisfied SUSE user. Not many people care about SBCL, for example. I know Canonical Ltd doesn't. But I do!

In Debian every package gets about the same amount of attention - that's both a strength and weakness. That's why I don't think Ubuntu could successfuly replace Debian's organization, and if this happenned, it could hurt OSS.

Reply Score: 1

why
by Zedicus on Fri 10th Feb 2006 17:41 UTC
Zedicus
Member since:
2005-12-05

what is it with the '6 month release cycle' that entices so many peeple?? debian unstable is always newer then 6 months, build yur distro off of it... wait, what do u know, ubuntu does that. sumones still gunna hafta explain why not just run DEBIAN!?!

Reply Score: 1

It's Too Bad...
by gary1979 on Fri 10th Feb 2006 19:55 UTC
gary1979
Member since:
2006-01-31

It's too bad that some people will not try Ubuntu before talking about the negative aspects. Ubuntu is what first got me into GNU/Linux. Keep in mind that I knew nothing about GNU/Linux, but it just worked. Since then, I have tried Simply Mepis, and currently run Kanotix. The more I read and experience GNU/Linux, the more I realize that Debian Sarge is for me (a shared opinion about free software and the like).

I think there must be something good about Ubuntu, because I am not the only one who got turned onto GNU/Linux because of it. Ubuntu made me realize that GNU/Linux is not that difficult. This is not just Debian based distros either; I have messed with a few others as well. In fact, I am looking forward to tackling Gentoo.

Some people may try Ubuntu and never look back, there are people like me who learn GNU/Linux on Ubuntu, but move on to other things.

Reply Score: 2

About Morgoth. Ubuntu Evil?
by leech on Sat 11th Feb 2006 12:30 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that he wants to have the OSNews staff remove his account? It's as if the fact that he has an account here forces him to read the site and post to it.

I will admit that I use Ubuntu, in fact I'm one of those crazy bleeding edge people that use the development cycle most of the time. I am also an extreme fan of Debian. In many ways I like Debian more. They have far less breakage in Sid than Ubuntu's Dapper has.

Here is a quick run down of the difference between Ubuntu and Dapper;

1) Package priority. Debian tends to have newer packages for the underlying OS faster. Example of this is mysql version 5 (packaged at least a month before Ubuntu), udev (0.84 vs 0.79). Ubuntu usually has newer desktop oriented packages, such as Gnome, X.org, etc.

2) Packaging is much better in Debian. I know that a lot of the package maintainers are the same for Debian/Ubuntu, but the Debian packages break a whole lot less. Especially since Debian is more encompassing for it's library of supported packages, whereas Ubuntu has a limited set (these will generally all work great, but Breezy had quite a mess of broken packages that just won't install from the universe/multiverse repositories)

3) Philosophy. Ubunut is free free free. Debian is more about Stable stable stable.

4) This is the most obvious, Release schedule. Ubuntu is fairly new and started much later than the major DEs, so they could tune their release schedule to Gnome, which is every 6 months. Debian on the other hand was there long before KDE was ever around, let alone Gnome. Debian has always been a fully volunteer project.

Ubuntu does give back some patches to Debian, if it weren't for Debian, Ubuntu (not to mention many other linux Distributions (not to mention Mepis which is the topic) are based on Debian.

My question to this is, HOW THE HELL COULD UBUNTU KILL OFF DEBIAN? It's impossible, because if all the Debian developers stopped producing packages for it, Ubuntu would also die off, since as stated in the Ubuntu release schedule, they take software packages from Debian Sid, stabilize them and then do a feature/version freeze, then release. They do it every 6 months. If Debian disappeared, where would they grab new packages from? So even if Mepis starts using Ubuntu (which just means most of the newer packaging is done for them) then it is still in essence basing their distro off of Debian.

If anyone really thought about it, the only true way to kill off Debian would be to have a conference of all the Debian developers and then have the place nuked. Oops, I shouldn't give MS any plans ;)

How could it be possible that Ubuntu could be a monopoly? I seriously wonder? If they started charging for it (which they could, under the license of GPL, BSD, etc.) then people would either pay, or they wouldn't and go with something that is still free. It is stated in their mission that they will ALWAYS remain free. Of course they could change that, but it'd be like shooting themselves in the foot. Most people would just say screw you (including their developers!) and go to straight Debian, or some other Distro like Mepis, Kanotix, Fedora, etc. It's not like there aren't a 1000+ distributions to choose from.

I'm not sure how Ubuntu is a Fad either. Gentoo wasn't even a fad, it's just what people who want to feel like they're bad ass hackers install. I know a few people that got into Gentoo. All I said to them was "Cool, I have been down that road already back when I first ran linux and had to compile XFree86 by myself and just about every application. Sorry, just don't have the patience to watch GCC outputs anymore." Ubuntu is popular for several reasons. 1) It uses apt/dpkg, 2) Comes on 1 CD (not many Distros do anymore), 3) Easy to install for just about everyone, 4) Free CDs shipped directly to your house (I think this is one of the biggest ones), 5) The newest Desktop software out there.

Really I think the last two are the biggest reasons. It's not a fad, otherwise you could say Debian is a Fad. Look at Distrowatch.com, out of the top 10 distros on there 5 are Debian based, 3 are rpm/redhat based, and then there is Slackware and Gentoo.

Guess I've ranted enough, some people are just spreading FUD here and have no idea what they're talking about.

For Mepis, I think it could be a good move to move to using Ubuntu as a base. I haven't ever used Mepis myself because I really don't like KDE, but then that's for another discussion.

Leech

Reply Score: 2