Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC, submitted by Danijel Orsolic
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."
Thread beginning with comment 37225
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: My Response
by rm6990 on Wed 28th Sep 2005 00:46 UTC in reply to "My Response"
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

I think Ubuntu could piss less people off by making their packages compatible with Debian. And there's no reason they couldn't do that.

That being said, its not like they are obligated in anyway to be compatible. We're talking about GPL-licensed software. Ubuntu is not breaking the license, and they are better-than-most at keeping only Free software in their standard install.

It seems like the original article was trying to suggest that Ubuntu, Mark S, and Canocial are planning some shadowy corporate evil in the future, and frankly as long as they stay rooted in GPL software, they can't do anything that Users won't have the last say in.

This how argument is mostly pointless. The maintainers of Debian have a right to feel slighted by the popularity, and (to some extent) snubbing of their work, but frankly, tough noogies, nobody Owns this stuff.


Shuttleworth and the Debian team had a discussion about this. Ubuntu WAS compatable with Sid when Hoary was released. When Ubuntu makes a release, they completely freeze all packages, with no version upgrades. Even RHEL has version upgrades for certain apps (Gaim is one that comes to mind). Debian upgraded libc to fix some problems with some of their architectures, and thus it was Debian that broke compatability, not Ubuntu. Shuttleworth was actually incredibly reasonable, he said that neither team should hold the other back and if they need to diverge for a period to acheive their own goals, then thats what should be done. He said he wouldn't feel right forcing Debian to stray from their goals to maintain Ubuntu compatability, just like Debian shouldn't force Ubuntu to stray from his goals.

Source : Deb Conf videos (can't remember URL, google for it). I watched the one on Ubuntu cause I was interested, the other ones seemed boring so I didn't download them.

I don't see what the big fuss is. Ubuntu could be a real pain in the ass and release all of the source code in one huge tarball at release time, much like Xandros and Linspire do. Instead, they make it very easy for Debian and Ubuntu to maintain compatability. All patches are sent to Debian in real-time. They even have a webpage with changes information to make it easy for the changes to be merged back into Debian. So why don't we see articles about Linspire vs. Debian or Xandros vs. Debian?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: My Response
by Angryanderson on Wed 28th Sep 2005 11:06 in reply to "RE: My Response"
Angryanderson Member since:
2005-07-11

Shuttleworth and the Debian team had a discussion about this. Ubuntu WAS compatable with Sid when Hoary was released. When Ubuntu makes a release, they completely freeze all packages, with no version upgrades. Even RHEL has version upgrades for certain apps (Gaim is one that comes to mind). Debian upgraded libc to fix some problems with some of their architectures, and thus it was Debian that broke compatability, not Ubuntu. Shuttleworth was actually incredibly reasonable, he said that neither team should hold the other back and if they need to diverge for a period to acheive their own goals, then thats what should be done. He said he wouldn't feel right forcing Debian to stray from their goals to maintain Ubuntu compatability, just like Debian shouldn't force Ubuntu to stray from his goals.

Debian sid (and etch) now have the same glibc version as Ubuntu, so that should be no problem.

A good example of Debian and Ubuntu choosing different roads to a common destination is the introduction of X.Org in Debian after the sarge release and their way towards the modular X.Org release (7.0). Ubuntu helped to make Debian's transition to X.Org quicker but Debian decided to diverge from Ubuntu's way with the modular X.Org. However, once X.Org 7.0 has been released and they've both got it packaged, there are plans to converge Debian's and Ubuntu's packages so that the collaboration and sharing of patches between these two distros can continue.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00865.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00882.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00888.html

As it seems, Ubuntu will release breezy badger with X.Org 6.8.2 and introduce X.Org 7.0 in dapper drake. And Debian has already X.Org 6.9RC0 packaged and available in experimental. So independence and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1