MEPIS recently released the latest beta of its lightweight Linux distribution MEPISLite 3.3.2-test01, thus making it the first vendor to release a Linux based on the Debian Common Core.
First Beta Linux with Debian Core Arrives
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2005-09-29 12:01 pmJonO
Have any changes been made to the Mepis 2.4 kernel to make it standrds compliant with the DCC?
I don’t use or need 2.6.
If they are truely using the Common Core, than the only kernel installable is probably a modified 2.6.12. Ian Murdock’s blog contains a summary of the modifications they made to Sarge: http://ianmurdock.com/?p=273
> to assemble a common, standards-based core for
> Debian-based distributions.
I still don’t get it.
The common, standards-based core already exists — it is called “Debian Stable“.
2005-09-29 2:51 pmCharAznable
Yeah, that’s an excellent point. How is not Debian Stable a standard in itself? I always thought of Debian as a meta-distribution more than anything else. I think the term “distribution” involves not only compatibility between packages but the choice of packages as well. A base system plus a repository with 14k or so packages is more of a meta-distribution than anything else. Select a set of packages for a specific purpose and stick them on a CD and then you have a distribution. Plain Debian comes closer to being a distribution when it gives you the option of using predefined package sets when you install it.
Now, if you want to come up with a standard defining a specific subset of Debian packages that would be expected to be present in an enterprise class distribution, that would actually make sense. But from what I gather, the DCC goes further than that.
Debian is an ancient word meaning “I can’t install Slackware” 😉
2005-09-29 7:00 pmczarker
I looked up in my dictionary. It tells right the opposite…
From the DCC FAQ:
The Linux Standards Base (LSB) is a set of standards to assure compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to install and run on any compliant system.
The DCC Alliance aims to complement and strengthen existing Linux standardization efforts by collaborating on a single, Debian-based implementation of the LSB standard that will be deployed worldwide via the Linux distributions of Alliance members. This way, ISVs and IHVs may certify to a single, vendor-neutral standard platform and at the same time extend their reach into under-served geographies and markets.
The DCC is not a Linux distribution; it is a “base” Debian system composed of essential programs or “packages” from Debian GNU/Linux, combined with member additions to attain LSB certification and achieve broad commercial acceptance and support.
DCC Alliance members draw from a single software repository with a common posting of enhancements, fixes, and security updates. Each member of the Alliance can decide what further components they wish to add to their particular certified distributions. The benefits from this approach include a pooled development effort, enhanced security, and one standard set of components that third party application providers can support.
…. reead the FAQ
I think it’s very interesting so developers ensure their apps will run in all the distros DDC/LSB based. Same for drivers.
Debian Sarge 3.1 r0a complies with the DCC and LSB.
BTW: I am going back to Debian Sarge from Ubuntu since Ubuntu choosed not to join. (Of course they are free to do it, but I prefer the standard)
2005-09-29 6:40 pmAnonymous
“BTW: I am going back to Debian Sarge from Ubuntu since Ubuntu choosed not to join. (Of course they are free to do it, but I prefer the standard)”
You’d think that after all the discussing, flaming and trolling going on about Ubuntu and Debian and whatnot, you would have realized by now that Ubuntu is not based on Sarge and does not pretend to be. There would be no purpose in Ubuntu joining, as they are shooting for completely different goals.
So that seems to me like a pretty bogus reason to use or not use Ubuntu. If comformance to Debian Sarge is important to you, maybe you shouldn’t have considered Ubuntu in the first place?
2005-09-29 7:35 pmAnonymous
You are right (I am who have just gone back to Sarge), I shouldn’t have considered Ubuntu (and i am not trolling saying this) I really didn’t thought about it that way ( that Ubuntu is not based on Sarge and does not pretend to be.
Sorry if seemed I was trolling about Ubuntu, it wasn’t my intention. But it’s true I missinterpreted them and their goals.
2005-09-29 8:36 pmCharAznable
No offense taken, not that I work for Ubuntu or anything!
(I was anonymous because I forgot to log in)
I just like Ubuntu for what it is: Debian Unstable, stabilized and frozen every six months in an easy to install and use package. I’m starting to see Ubuntu as sort of a gateway distro: I was unfamiliar with Debian before, having been a Red Hat user, and having Ubuntu on the desktop immediately made me see the benefit of Debian on the server, so I switched all server my stuff over to Debian Sarge. The Ubuntu model makes perfect sense for a desktop: 2 years from now I want to be running Gnome 3.x or whatever is out at the time, and not 2.8 with a bunch of backported fixes. However, in the server, I do want a stable base that will remain consistent for the next few years, and nothing better than that than Sarge.
What I don’t really see is a need to standarize beyond the standard that Sarge is by itself already. Can someone please comment as to what the need to standarize beyond Sarge is?
2005-09-29 11:37 pmAdamW
“Can someone please comment as to what the need to standarize beyond Sarge is?”
As far as Ian Murdock is concerned, he has a MIGHTY NEED to be important…
2005-09-29 11:38 pmAnonymous
> Can someone please comment as to what the need
> to standarize beyond Sarge is?
Ubuntu follows the release cycle of Gnome which is every 6 months, DCC follows the release
cycle of LSB which is every 18 months and Debian have no set release cycle.
So Ubuntu bases it’s core on Debian sid (unstable) and the DCC core is based on Debian sarge (the current stable version) and etch (the next stable version, which is working on LSB 3.0 compliance).
For any distribution to maintain a core for 18 months without breaking binary compatibility for neither native applications or LSB applications it takes a lot of effort. (e.g. backporting the kernel and glibc in order to take advantage of security updates and new drivers)
The DCC Alliance has joined in this effort and develop their core together, also achieving binary compatibility with each other. So simply put they have standardized amongst each other because they have a common goal.
If for instance Ubuntu and a few other distributions based on Debian which follows the release cycle of Gnome wanted to, they could also standardize on a common core between them.
So to be fair if it’s not Debian’s common core it is just a Debian derived common core.
On a sidenote though, it is possible for a distribution using the DCC to be just as bleeding edge as Ubuntu. All they have to do is backport all the good stuff to the DCC and release every 6 months (using the same updated core for three consecutive releases).
Slackware is an ancient word meaning “I have no girlfriend and I’m an acne filled flat a** uber geek”
2005-09-29 6:28 pmAnonymous
>Slackware is an ancient word meaning “I have no girlfriend and I’m an acne filled flat a** uber geek”
LOL! This or “I can’t run BSD” ;P
2005-09-30 12:51 amAnonymous
Why bash Slackware on a debian subject?
Don’t see where this post fits with the subject at hand
2005-09-30 11:05 amAnonymous
should have left out the flat a** part.
That’s the whole point of the standard, that if you go and download some random *.deb from the web made for sarge(not from the repositories) things don’t break(much).
And yes, I’ve read that sarge and ubuntu warty and hoary are not binary compatible with sarge in many ways, but you must also remember that by the time Warty and Hoary were released the Debian Stable release was _not_ Sarge but Woody. So expecting Warty or even Hoary to be compatible with Sarge would be stretching the goals of both Debian and Ubuntu projects too much…
And I use a couple of Debian Sarge Repositories in my Breezy install without problem…
Why people like to make a big fuss about Debian and DCC? For some reason, I hate Debian for its difficult installation, poor support and slow update. You guys stubborn Debian developers and maniac out there should wake up and look straight to the fact that Ubuntu has all things that Debian lacks. If joining DCC make Ubuntu slow down their pace in development, then Ubuntu should NEVER and EVER join DCC.
I have spent a lot of time using Debian Woody and Sarge (a long with some risky attempts at Sid). I’ve also used many Debian derived distros (Ubuntu, MEPIS, Linspire, XandrOS, Knoppix, Xfld, Beatrix, many flavors of Morphix, and more). I even worked on a Progeny based distribution that never saw the light of day called Paragon Linux. I only mention this so that my fellow OSnews readers will realize that I atleast have some experience.
Many of the distributions promising to participate in DCC are desktop solutions that have six month release cycles. If DCC is promising compatibility with a standard that is only updated every 18 months, and a distribution that is only released every three years then a tremendous amount of resources will be spent to try and maintain compatibility. This is why Ubuntu has all but officially thumbed their nose at Ian.
Let’s take a look at whose participating:
Linspire: They have wandered so far away from the Debian repositories that it’s not even funny. I believe this is intentional as Linspire wants you to use CNR. I’m not complaining, CNR is probably one of their best revenue generators. Don’t expect DCC compliance from them for the same reason. Them providing financial support to the DCC is just a PR move.
Progeny: Their name is listed by default, since Ian runs both the DCC and Progeny. My last foray into Progeny was wrought with disaster when I tried using some Sarge debs with a Progeny based distro I was working on (I was promised at the time that it was based on Sarge, oh well).
User Linux: Certainly Bruce Perens has realized by now that he laid an egg with that. User Linux doesn’t even have an official site any more (or atleast the last time I looked they didn’t). Instead, Canonical delivered what Bruce promised with Ubuntu.
XandrOS: I think XandrOS is an interesting distro, but look at how much they varied their KDE code base away from the official KDE. With that in mind, I would be surprised to see them follow a code base that will rapidly become outmoded.
MEPIS: Warren has created a first class distro while living off slim margins on BoDunk, West Virginia, but he has already upset many of his free community developers by breaking compatibility with one of their repositories that they had maintained to extend the usefulness of MEPIS. If Warren broke compatibility with them (his established users and FREE package maintainers) then do not be overly surprised when in 6 to 12 months he gets tired of constantly backporting to a deprecated release.
Knoppix: Klause has created the first and best live distro, but I’m not sure how important the DCC is to a distro that is usually ran live, and rarely installed (yes it happens, but it’s not the norm).
Other Distros: While I have heard of some of the other distros supporting DCC, they are not exactly the market leaders that are going to attract commercial vendors.
Here’s my suggestion as a standard …. Ubuntu!
“Why Ubuntu?”, you may ask. The answer is that most people like Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu (all one code base). It is rapidly growing, has predictable release cycles, is very stable (despite being cutting edge), and has a very transparent development model to give vendors sufficient lead time in porting apps. After my recent disappointment in another distro I was working on I debated about rolling my own YALD, but instead decided that Ubuntu does almost everything right, the things that I would change really just a lack of some compatible binaries that I needed from outside the Ubuntu repositories. Most of them I can build myself, but that defeats the point of telling all my friends how easy GNU/Linux is (especially when I’m trying to convert them). So my newest resolve is to build a repository that is binary compatible with Ubuntu Breezy (and later I’ll extend it to the Dapper Drake). Now when I’m setting up my friends with a new box, all I have to do is add one repository and then if they say they want an easy program for downloading podcasts I just need to run:
sudo apt-get install gpodder
I honestly wish the best of luck to those involved in the DCC, but I’m not holding my breath.
BTW, I’m not giving out my repository location as of yet, as I still consider it in beta.
What does this do to CNR? So if they conform to the DCC then you should be able to install software from other DCC compliant repositiories WITHOUT breakage? This makes CNR only useful to the ones who REALLY need it, if there are any… Some users use CNR because to do otherwise is to risk breakage NOT because it is so much easier than synaptic…. Sounds like Linspire would be shooting themselves in the foot…
Well done MEPIS, then. Nice to hear of a Debian outfit that doesn’t involve the U- word. And of a user-fiendly distro that will run on only modest hardware.
But … it’s interesting how almost everyone seems to think that the DCC is really the echt Debian Common Core Alliance and runs the Debian swirl logo when the subject comes up. Slashdot does the same. According to the DCC website, though, they are not (or not yet) an official part of the Debian Project. I wonder what might happen if they and the Debian folks are unable to reach an agreement …