Submitted by SimplyMEPIS, a very popular desktop Linux,
is going to change back to using Debian Linux for its core from Ubuntu. In March of 2006, MEPIS founder Warren Woodford, decided to switch to Ubuntu from Debian for the next version of SimplyMEPIS, version 6.0. The plan was to use Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Long Term Service), a.k.a. Dapper Drake, as MEPIS’ foundation. Things have changed.
MEPIS To Switch from Ubuntu to Debian
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I always found it strange to base a distro off of Ubuntu, which is itself based off of Debian. It seems more sensible to use Debian, which has proven itself to be a great “base” distribution from which to build specialized derivatives (such as Ubuntu, Linspire, etc.).
Yeah, Ubuntu doesn’t seem to have anything in the middle. 6.10 LTS is frozen and 7.04 is cutting edge. 6.10 is good for servers and office workstations cause you know it’s solid. But you can’t install newer applications and they are not providing newer applications so I think on servers where you don’t have to change a lot.
(Like I use 6.10 for my mail servers cause all I have on them is mail and unless my mail software has a major upgrade I almost never have to make changes to the base OS.)
It would be cool if they could figure out a middle road where they could have a stable almost frozen secure base like 6.10 that could run newer apps like 7.04!
That would be magic! LOL!
6.06 is LTS – 6.10 was a normal release.
Sorry. You are right about that. Damn point releases. LOL!
They should do away with the decimal point, and use something more distinctive.
6-6 or v6.JUN spring to mind
Edited 2007-07-30 22:35
I think he even hit on something important that’s missing from even cutting edge Ubuntu, which is the ability to update to externally stabilized code bases (like Firefox and OpenOffice.org).
In Ubuntu, the version of Firefox, OO.org, Pidgin, etc. are all tied directly to the release version of those apps, and the release version of Ubuntu. When it comes time to upgrade to Firefox three, it will likely take a whole distro upgrade to get that, instead of just updating the major upstream vetted version of Firefox by itself.
It would be nice to get stable releases from external sources more easily in Ubuntu than having to wait for the next distro upgrade.
I suppose Mozilla could set up an apt-repo for that matter (others too).
Yes that’s right. Some software just isn’t meant to be blocked by package managers. You can get some things from http://www.getdeb.net but the quality varies. I think some programs should either be put into a special category for updating, or simply, users should get an easy option to switch sources of packages to get latest versions.
Eg: nvidia drivers or openoffice is a nice example.
But one thing that may be a good in intended side effect of not being able to install things willy nilly is that security stays at a higher level.
So you can’t just rush out and go to the next released version of something. Yet they do provide security patches etc for the current released version (Of say Firefox)
Hummmm, interesting.
One could take a contrary view that rather than employ resources to develop Mepis and Ubuntu separate from the Debian “base”, that instead, these same resources be employed to strengthen Debian and abolish the idea of fragmented inheritance.
Consolidate resources (time, devs, money)…
Focus effort (on the base, not the fragments)….
Reduce Market confusion (the # of distros is confusing)…
That Ubuntu is that popular says, to me, Debian is that solid, otherwise, Mepis wouldn’t be going full circle. So why stop at the seeming logic of using Debian as the base. Debian could be more than the base.
I’ll bet there are some Debian purists out there saying, thanks for your help now go away! But what is the goal? The Desktop or (to borrow a phrase)
“To have a lot of fun?”
Winning the Desktop would be a lot of fun. It won’t happen watching major distros jockey for position like this.
That might not happen with Ubuntu but I think some of the other debian based distros should try to do this. Ubuntu is too damn big, its gotten to the point where if you see some kick ass revision of another distro come out you see like 500 different posts of people singing Ubuntu’s praises. I’m an Ubuntu user and I’m probably never going to switch barring a deal with MS, but I don’t have to shout my buntuphelia from every rooftop. Anyway I though it was obvious that Dapper doesn’t get much more than security updates, I think that’s been clear since release. Ubuntu isn’t Debian, it’s goal is to release a new version every six months, dapper was for those who don’t need the latest and didn’t want to upgrade every six months. I do think that Ubuntu should think about fixing this issue as doing a refresh every six months is getting annoying (not really I find it exciting since they usually add some pretty cool things, and I like to be surprised with the new artwork).
the Ubuntu 6 month cycle is a good trade off between the lingering “always updated, never finished” of Debian unstable and the box & bow then no more updates for years that Red Hat does. I think the 6 month cycle is starting to have the effect of pushing the maintainers to tidy up projects to a usable state in time for the Ubuntu release. Keeping the calender as much as possible helps train developers and users to work predictably, without trying to tell them what to do. Project like Debian Unstable are always held back by the slowest person to commit updates. Ubuntu is about drawing a line in the sand and dealing with it.
I dont think so at all although one easily respects the developers attempts…I see many instances of what would be considered unstable features ( and some staples of said OS ) getting into ‘releases’ to believe this 6 mo. cycle is all that smart longterm. I realize windows has the market share going for them and all, but they have thousands of developers working daily on their OS’s and they take several years to make them. I wont accept that they are inferior coders thats obvious, so I”d love to hear views on why linux is so adept that 6 month cycles are deemed doable and wise.
Maybe if linux as a whole were less fragmented ( we have how many distros now ? ) a 6 mo cycle would make a tad more sense albeit I still doubt it.
cheers
nl
I’m pretty sure Ubuntu devs send upstream patches, so they *do* help strengthen Debian…
“””
One could take a contrary view that rather than employ resources to develop Mepis and Ubuntu separate from the Debian “base”, that instead, these same resources be employed to strengthen Debian and abolish the idea of fragmented inheritance.
Consolidate resources (time, devs, money)…
“””
I’ve often thought the same about hemoglobin in red blood cells. Rather than fold into that complex, confusing shape that it does. Why doesn’t it just stretch itself lengthwise and form the longest protein that it can? That would be better, wouldn’t it?
Dude, normally I find your posts are well articulated and argued but, come on… I mean seriously, as far as ironic analogies go, don’t you think this is a bit over the top?
“””
I mean seriously, as far as ironic analogies go, don’t you think this is a bit over the top?
“””
I’m taking a brain holiday. 😉
OK, I get it, I think. One size doesn’t fit all purposes/needs. It’s a familiar argument but at least your metaphor is unique!
“””
but at least your metaphor is unique!
“””
Well, there are actually a couple of things that I was thinking about.
1. The complexity of the shape turns out to be more useful than something simpler.
2. The shape is not, literally, taken on for any intended purpose, but simply because the protein is being what it is.
Odd analogy, I’ll agree. But it is what came to mind.
The OSS community cannot be anything but what it is. A certain degree of cooperation is inherent and beneficial. But aligning everyone in one way is just against its nature.
Saying, “Hey, we should *all* team up and…” is nice, but that’s just never going to happen.
The freedom to fork means that when the disagreements grow large enough, development can split off into another distro, compiler, X Server, etc.
I used to think that it would be good if we could focus our resources on a single project in each category. Over time, I came to realize that was impossible and I was sad. Later, I realized that it was not even desirable, and that embracing diversity was our best strategy.
Right or wrong, it’s all we can do, really. Because the hemoglobin is not going to unfold itself, and we probably wouldn’t want it to in any case.
Edited 2007-07-31 04:09
against its nature: you must be kidding
…thats like s aying because someone is rich they never donate to charity cause well its against their nature 
….palease 
this whole we wont ever team up is a ridiculous and non proveable theory..you should really keep such pecimistic viewpoints to yourself as they only do you benefit and even that is argueable
cheers
nl
No, it wouldn’t. A protien molecule’s functionality is in part determined by its folding geometry.
Great analogy, in both cases one would say “it doesn’t work like that”
BTW, this gave me an idea: no more manual packaging. Let’s have users’s computers do the job in their idle time. All they have to do is install the packaging@home program
The goal of the debian to be “the universal operating system”. debian is a mouldable “substance” that can transform to anything you want.
Currently, I’m using it as my desktop system. our company uses it as servers and somebody embed it to somewhere while others distros use debian as a base.
If debian changes to desktop oriented, we lose so much things. Also debian serves as a “high profile” distro for old school people (or hardcore or you name it). I for one don’t like ubuntu or whatever distro that uses major gui tools for everything because I write my config files, I read man pages and I like to struggle with my PC and the general result is a system which works in the way I like most.
If I need to polish my distro I can do it from top to toe. If I don’t, I use icewm or no Xwindow system. If I want something special I can use vanilla kernel with any patchset. You cannot do it in suse for example.
So, debian is a huge underlying platform which makes development of desktop distros possible. why convert it to something lesser than itself?
I bet that MEPIS will be back to Ubuntu next summer, shortly after the next LTS release. Warren doesn’t want to maintain his own distribution, he just wants to do his value-add. From this perspective, why stick with Dapper when Etch is significantly newer? Next summer, why stick with Etch when Gutsy+1 is newer?
MEPIS will keep bouncing back and forth between whichever project has the newest long-term repository.
Personally, I think that Warren’s arguments are disingenuous. There should be no confusion about package updates in long-term repositories. That’s the fundamental trade-off. You either get incremental package updates or long-term support, not both. As the leader of his project, he should educate his users.
By using the EXPERIMENTAL code, each and every time, the Ubuntu code tree is inherently less stable than the Debian code tree, which contains additional levels of testing and vetting and fixing of code.
I guess he conjured this “Debian EXPERIMENTAL” thing from nowhere. I always thought that Unstable was a term that erred on the side of caution, but the use of all caps really drives it home that by using Ubuntu, you are effectively playing with napalm. Debian also uses “EXPERIMENTAL” code each and every time. They just have a much longer development cycle.
So while Etch is looking rather spry right now, it could be two or more years before Lenny is stabilized. Warren’s users will no doubt demand newer applications before then, so he will once again come face to face with the new packages vs. long-term stability trade-off. Since he isn’t inclined to say no to his users, he will have to find another argument for ditching Debian for Ubuntu.
This was not obvious over a year ago, but it is very obvious now.
Yeah, yeah. Just rephrase that one for the next switch.
This is a wonderful thing from the point of view of improving the Debian EXPERIMENTAL code.
This is Warren’s perspective on the merits of Ubuntu’s development cycle. Sure, it’s great for Debian, but what about my users? Well, as great as he thinks his embellishments might be, there would be no MEPIS without Debian. No, he isn’t required to consider Debian’s well-being, but he’s hurting his users in the long-run. He’s the guy sucking on the end of the still while everybody else is feeding it grain and firewood.
It’s ironic that, seeking to provide stability with the minimum amount of work, his solution is to drag his users back and forth between mother distributions. Is that stable? Is this the long-term outlook for MEPIS?
Edited 2007-07-30 22:56
Debian Unstable (Sid) and Debian Experimental (Scut) are two completely different branches of the Debian GNULinux distribution.
Yes, they eventually use it. That’s why the code was written… However, to go from experimental to stable – or even to testing – is a long road. A much longer road than from experimental to ubuntu.
Very true! It’s a shame that many distributions act more like parasites; it appears to be a symbiotic relationship between Debian/Ubuntu and Mepis but if Warren is gaining so much just by switching bases and the world is left wondering “why does Warren switch? Which is best?”, it can’t be good.
Personally, I’m a bit fed up trying to explain the “differences” between Debian and Ubuntu, and people like Warren aren’t making it easy. I mean, picking Etch just because it’s fresh now is not a long term solution! I agree with those that have said that Ubuntu will be the base again in a short while when Etch is “old and obsolete”,
From the article:
“””
Things have changed. “Dapper was not updated in the way our users expected,” Woodford said. “Personally, I think the Ubuntu people spoke sincerely and accurately, but perhaps ambiguously. So there was a misunderstanding among users. The fact is Dapper was updated with security fixes, but not with new versions of the applications.”
“””
News flash! Mepis devs discover that stable, long term support distro release is not Rawhide or Sid. Film at 11.
Canonical never stated, even in an ambiguous way, that Dapper was going to be the ongoing crest of the wave.
That Mepis devs thought so is nearly unbelievable.
Agreed.
I don’t use Ubuntu, but it seems to me any distribution release that advertises 3 or 5 years of long term support is not going to have _any_ updates at all other than security fixes. Same goes with RHEL and other distros that are specifically geared for long term support. Isn’t that the whole point of a stable LONG TERM release?
Besides, Warren half pointing the blame at his users is not fair to the users. It’s not up to the MEPIS users to make these decisions and determinations. It’s up to the developers to determine how they are going to build their distro, and if they are going to use another distro as a base, then they better know that base in and out.
The bottom line is this: either someone didn’t do their homework, or someone changed their mind and is now trying to put a positive spin on things.
Edited 2007-07-30 22:54
Well, in fairness if we’re going to use that anology, the enterprise distros like RH and Novell do release service pack-type upgrades that contain more than bug fixes. But AFAIK they are optional, though supported.
I agree with your sentiment though, it was a mistake basing a popular community distro on an intentionally stable non-evolving release. Perhaps Warren though that there would be “supported” backports or something to that effect for LTS, but that was wrong.
As to whether there should be supported backports to LTS might be a different point of debate, but chacun son gout. You get what you pay for, and I don’t recall Ubuntu at any point claiming that there would be an effort to keep LTS stable *as well as* modern.
This may be OT, maybe I missed something, but someone was just modded up to 7?!
Sorry if I’m the only idiot on OSN that missed a news item…Or is just making a big deal out of a bug…
It’s a feature. Check conversations under OSNews v4 or wait for the announcement…
“Check conversations under OSNews v4 or wait for the announcement…”
I would have expected such a statement on the primary site but what do i know.
I’m afraid OSN will regret this feature soon. If readers are able to mod up comments, they’ll be probably also able to mod down in such high numbers.
For a couple of months we have a similar system on a national site (www.webwereld.nl) which uses the same system. And it’s a horror!
Almost every discussion ends up in an mass flame war, because of the damn mod system.
All this time I used OSN as an example for a functional mod system. Unfortunately I lost that argument by now 🙁
Hope you still have the option to turn back the clock, when it gets out of hand 😉
And, oh this www4 styff, looks really darn cool Wow!
The way Ubuntu was described–basically, that it’s a completely different release every 6 months with Dapper only having security updates is really something to consider.
Ubuntu is a great OS–I run it at the present; but, I believe that having a completely different OS release every 6 months with no overlap or very little overlap between versions could be problematic for those wanting a smoother transition. Why should one have to upgrade their whole OS just to get a newer version of Open Office?
This is a good move for Mepis.
There are the Backports to cover this.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=40291
If you want a newer version of some app, chances are, someone has packaged it. You have to find it. Every stable release of Debian, or any other distro, has this policy.
Considering the non-LTS versions are supported for 2 years, I think there is plenty of time to let a release settle out before making the very smooth upgrade between releases. When feisty came out, I upgraded about 8 systems within the first week of the release. I had zero problems. Remember, apt allows us to upgrade without having to put in a full install disc.
If you want a newer version of some app, chances are, someone has packaged it.
You haven’t really checked the contents of the dapper backports repo, have you? I just took a peek and there doesn’t seem to be many packages in there.
Debian etch has been out just a couple of months and it has already more stuff than dapper in its backports archive.
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/dapper-backports/main/binary…
http://www.backports.org/debian/dists/etch-backports/main/binary-i3…
non-LTS releases (that come out every 6 months) are supported for 18 months, not two years. LTS releases come out every 2 years and are supported for 3 years on the desktop (so you have a year to upgrade to the next LTS release). Basically, whenever there is a new release in a series (LTS or non-LTS), the previous version will be supported for 1 more year after that (on the desktop, longer for the server).
My mistake. The last time I looked at it, I was looking at the server support. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that it was two years for releases. Sure enough, though, the current release for desktop and server on the Ubuntu download page says support through 2008. That would certainly fit the 18 months for Feisty. Thanks!
“Woodford explained that Ubuntu is rebuilt almost from scratch every six months using source packages from Debian EXPERIMENTAL”
This isn’t true. By default packages are built from the contents of Debian unstable. It’s possible that code from experimental will occasionally be imported, but that’s not automatic and would only make up a tiny proportion of the distribution.
What do you guys say? New distro each release? What exactly is “unstable”??
I’m using Ubuntu since Hoary and I don’t get you. First you say that you want latest or at least recent versions of many programs, but then you say that using latest Ubuntu version isn’t “stable enough” and that you should have some sort of base system which is “old and tested” but backport new programs from elsewhere?
That’s the biggest bull* I’ve heard in long time. While new kernel and base system (Linux btw doesn’t have a “base system” like FreeBSD, but let’s pretend) does change each release of Ubuntu, there are rarely problems with it. In fact, I dare say that for most users it’s stupid to stay with older releases as lots of things got fixed by new kernel or new compiler (and yes I know sometimes they also break, but there’s much less regressions).
I just don’t get what Mepis really wants, but judging by how long it took them to figure out that Ubuntu only serves security patches, I’d say they don’t know themselves.
Ubuntu breaks predictably and reliably every 6 months, that’s just one of its main selling points, rather than upgrading apps on top of a stable system they rip your machine to shreds and replace it with something completely different.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, it seems to be a very popular approach and works fine for a lot of users, it just feels uncomfortable for the rest of us who might have expected something more elegant.
I will not criticize you if you explain yourself…
Do you know what you’re talking about? What would you like to not “update” or how you put it “rip to shreds and replace”? The kernel? Then ACPI will be crap, and many drivers. The “base” eg: gcc and gnu stuff? Then security and other patches will have to be kept in line.
I don’t get it, unless you can explain what you really expect I think you all have some fuzzy understanding of how things work in a distribution, and what the kernel and “base system” encompasses, and what it means to live on old versions.
If you mean the “user experience” then yes, I can agree that Ubuntu did some changes on the top, but they were relatively small, and I think are going to be smaller each release as it stabilizes and best choices become apparent.
But please clarify so we can continue
I still can’t figure out what you guys really expect.
Call me a troll but as I said before when the hype ends people discover that debian is more solid and bug less than ubuntu… (the windows like os!)
Mario
I wouldn’t even go that far, because deep down I think alot of people already know this. It’s a simple fact as the current ubuntu releases are based off of debian unstable releases. In terms of core stability, I would say they are pretty close…at least as far as Debian Stable vs Ubuntu LTS. Both are great platforms for development.
But I wouldn’t put Debian Stable and ubuntu’s 6month release of the day in the same category. Debian Stable vs Ubuntu LTS is really the only fair comparison for the 2 distros, in which case I call it a draw.
“””
Call me a troll but as I said before when the hype ends
“””
You’re a troll. 😉
Debian Unstable is, indeed, a better “distro” to use as a base for other distros. It is an ongoing development process which is exactly what they need.
Yes. Debian Stable is solid as a rock. Unpolished. But solid. And less suitable for Mepis’ purposes than Dapper.
It never occurred to me, when Woodford announced the switch to Ubuntu as a base, that he was planning on basing his ongoing releases on a single Ubuntu release.
Call me a troll but as I said before when the hype ends people discover that debian is more solid and bug less than ubuntu… (the windows like os!)
Who ever said that Ubuntu was more solid with less bugs than Debian? I never heard that claim anywhere.
I believe he was saying that Ubuntu was ‘as buggy as Windows’, and inferior to Debian.
“””
Who ever said that Ubuntu was more solid with less bugs than Debian?
“””
http://tinyurl.com/3al68m
I agree. I was a long-time Debian user who switched to Ubuntu for about a year (6.06, 6.10, and 7.04.) What I liked about Ubuntu is that it required less work to get it to my liking following installation to the hard drive. Ubuntu failed to be perfect, however; there was always something that was lacking. I grew impatient waiting for “the next big release” and I didn’t want to use the “herd” or whatever Ubuntu calls its interim betas. Each new Ubuntu release whets the appetite but fails to satiate the hunger. I realize that Ubuntu simply limits choice in different ways than Windows but still limits nonetheless. With Debian, I find that isn’t the case. I’ve recently switched back to Debian in the form of Sidux. This is a rolling distribution that’s completely up-to-date as often as I care to run aptitude dist-upgrade. I highly recommend it to Debian users who’ve tried Ubuntu but find that it leaves them wanting more.
“I’ve recently switched back to Debian in the form of Sidux. ”
Welcome Home
I know how you feel. I’ve tried many distros of Linux and even a BSD, but the stability and reliability of my Debian Etch box is too attractive.
debian IS more stable than it, but that windows like comment was uncalled for
So, the main (only?) developer of Mepis completely switched package pools without even knowing that 1) LTS is a long term support release and only gets security and bugfixes and 2) Ubuntu is synced with unstable, not experimental? This speaks volumes on it’s own about Mepis’ development. Switching back to Debian will probably not help much. Warren doing his homework, however, might.
Ditto…simple as that, just plain scary
SimplyMEPIS, a very popular desktop Linux
This is the first I’ve ever heard of it…
I really liked Mepis at one point…I found it stable and easy to use.
But…I think I’m beginning to feel that MEPIS is simply living off other distros. Maybe adding a bit and tweaking a bit…but if it’s just customized *buntu/debian…why bother?
A derivative you mean? That is what most distros are, and often more popular than their parent distros:
1)PCLinuxOS, a Mandriva derivative
2)Ubuntu, a Debian derivative
3)Sabayon, a Gentoo derivative
All of them are more popular than their parent distros.
“All of them are more popular than their parent distros.”
Given that there is no reliable measure of popularity, I really don’t know how you can make that statement.
And no, Distrowatch does not count as a reliable measure of popularity.
There isn’t indeed any scientific method, but it is hard to deny, for instance, that Ubuntu is more popular than Debian.
No, not a derivative. A derivative makes major changes afaik – there’s something special, unique.
Sabayon adds an easier installer and gets you set up more quickly
PCLinuxOS includes all the proprietary stuff, and uses the Mandriva tools. It’s known for being up to date.
Ubuntu, is well, Ubuntu. Debian is great, but Ubuntu made it SO friendly…
Mepis though? What did they do with ubuntu? Anything special? I can’t tell. Haven’t used it though
PCLOS also diverges from Mandriva in some major packages (most significantly the kernel and KDE, but also some others). Most proprietary stuff for Mandriva (nvidia and ATI drivers, wireless firmware, Java (but not Flash), winmodem stuff etc) is available in the public non-free repository since 2007 Spring.
Or is that a fork?
Didn’t MEPIS switch from Debian to a Ubuntu base before?
Anyway… what advantage does MEPIS offer? The packages are outdated, according to distrowatch.
I use Fedora exclusively but I wonder anyway.
I’m seeing comment scores going above 5.
One of my comments got a 6 and I’ve even seen an 11.
Is the scoring system broken or something?
http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?259529
Edited 2007-07-31 01:23 UTC
Interesting Adam.
So part of the code base is shared between the upcoming OSNews 4 and the present one?
not being able to go beyond ‘5’ in my opinion is broken…
so if a reply is scored/rated as 12, it’s OK. Having a ceil at 5 is bad. It would even be possible to have 40 people being ositive and 5 negative, making the score ‘0’ instead of 35. Wold that be cool? Don’t think so. It’s better now.
I used to like Mepis a lot. When it first came out, it took the Knoppix concept – that is, running live, with great hd detection, and tons of apps, based on Debian. But Knoppix was only good for running live, and made a bad hd install. But Mepis took that concept further and made it great to install, and added a great installer, and some nice themes, and some nice GUI config tools.
That was around the time of Mepis 2003.10, then the mid releases of SimplyMepis.
Then Warren discovered that it’s tough being based on Debian testing and unstable (at the time, Mepis was hybrid between testing and unstable), and the volatility of those repos would make it unstable for end users. But being based on Debian Stable would quickly make Mepis obsolete.
So Warren decided to go Ubuntu based. This made sense because Ubuntu stabilizes the Debian unstable repos (it freezes them), and adds it’s own tweeks.
But obviously Warren did not understand the LTS base (security updates only). And I always wondered why he based it on LTS rather than the latest release. The latest release is plenty stable for most desktop users, and it’s very up to date.
And since Warren obviously does not understand the nature of Ubuntu, he’s going back to Debian … back to the original dilemma – base it on stable hand have stability but obsolescence, or on testing or unstable and be up to date but have unstable repos that potentially hose unsuspecting user’s systems.
I don’t see a bright future of Mepis, unless it does stuff like Sidux (provide warnings when doing upgrades/updates/installs of new software).
Warren Woodford needs to find a viable plan, and just stick with it. This jumping around is only going to turn off users.
He also needs consistent release schedules and naming conventions, both of which have constantly changed.
Consistency is part of the reason for Ubuntu’s popularity. Ubuntu brings sanity to a very vast, confusing realm of Linux packaging.
Warren Woodford needs to learn that lesson.
First, I have to agree with those that wonder why Mepis was actually using Ubuntu over debian. I know they explained it, but it just seems more logical to get your source closer to the original core.
I don’t understand this. There is no overhead in using a distribution based on another distribution, so why is it important to stay close the original core? If one of the derivatives is making things easier and makes it take less work to do everything, it seems to me that it would make sense to base yourself on the derivative, right? I’m not saying this is the case with Ubuntu vs Debian, but making that generalization doesn’t seem true.
If you aren’t even close to Ubuntu’s release cycle or are looking for at following a very stable release with your own, radically different cycle then the project you want to follow (1 year instead of 2 for example), then yeah, it doesn’t make much sense to necessarily follow Ubuntu. I don’t know much about MEMPIS, so I don’t know if this is the right decision for them, but I don’t think this really has to do with Ubuntu’s “coolness factor” dying down or anything like that.
Well, I said it *would seem* logical for MEPIS to stay closer to the core source.
I suppose I look at debian as being more of a core system and not something designed for every Linux newbie or casual user. That may be a totally wrong assumption on my part though.
I view Ubuntu as being geared toward Linux newbies and casual Linux users as well as Linux pros. So in my head, if I were to build a distro, I think I would want to start from the original core.
*However*, after writing this I’m now understanding your point. Since were really not talking about a copy of a copy of a copy I am seeing that their probably is no reason for another distro to not be based of Ubuntu as long as it fits their needs.
what about the ‘one maintainer’ mentality per package…I dont dev for debian but if that is true and if that means you find it harder to get maintainers to make more compatable releases then thats really a shame..can someone verify ?
cheers
nl
The sad thing is, expect for OpenSUSE, there is not really a distro with great KDE integration; most distro’s use ‘vanilla’ KDE, Kubuntu slaps on a KDE but certain tools are Gnome which is confusing and which e.g. means you cannot use Restricted Drivers Manager (I could not get it to work anyway).
What’s happening with Mepis does not inspire trust either, but we’ll see. I did use it at one time and was quite happy with it though, 2 or 3 years ago. But the menu was too cluttered and upgrading packages tended to break things… I hope it’s better now, but if they change architectures every two weeks (so-to-speak)…
What I just want to say is; I’d like to see other distros with a great implementation of KDE. But it’s saddening to see so many distros missing the ball on it. Or maybe I have just gotten too used to one particular way of working. That said, there is no excuse for the frustrating problems in Kubuntu (Feisty)…
Edited 2007-07-31 08:32
How does OpenSUSE have better KDE integration?
OpenSUSE has its fair share of bugs associated with KDE.
Unless you mean the theme? You can slap on any theme you want on any distro.
Anyway, I use Gnome and like it very much. Maybe KDE 4 will change that but the screen shots don’t look very promising yet. Maybe 4.1 or 4.2 will have the plasma stuff with a new and unique environment; Us non-developers will just have to wait and see.
Edited 2007-07-31 09:28
There’s a difference between packaging the DE with customized defaults, and investing in development to improve the implementation.
The openSUSE team created key components such as kpowersave, knetworkmanages, kerry, kickoff etc. They have also in the past implemented custom patches for performance improvements or upstream fixes/improvements ahead of the next version release. This is the kind of thing you can only accomplish and properly support when you have a number of KDE developers as part of the team.
It’s no different than the way people wax poetic about the beauty of Ubuntu’s Gnome desktop or the functionality of Fedora’s Gnome desktop, which is understandable given how many more Gnome devs they each maintain on their teams compared to KDE resources.
Looked at objectively, you can slap any DE on any distro and run any app. fdo and other standards have made that fairly easy, much more so than in the past. In fact KDE is fairly easy for even a single maintainer to compile and package, hence it’s historical popularity with smaller, resource-constrained distros (though I understand Gnome has improved significantly in this area?).
Looked at subjectively, people will always have their preference. If you like Gnome, chances are you’re going to prefer an environment with consistent, well-integrated Gnome/GTK apps. If you like KDE, chances are you’re going to prefer an environment with consistent, well-integrated KDE/Qt apps. Is it mandatory? Nope. Will it matter to everyone? Nope. But it will matter to many.
Having strayed off topic there, I’m not sure why Warren doesn’t join forces with Jonathan Riddell and work towards improving Kubuntu, they could certainly use the support. Working upstream would make it likely much easier to maintain his own spun version. But then, I’ve only played with MEPIS a bit, and must confess I’m not all too familiar with the history there.
What about Mandriva? They’ve been KDE’ing from the start!
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. It’s good and it was my first distro; sadly, a lot of versions turn out to be quite buggy, at least until a number of updates appear over time. E.g. Mandriva Spring/2007 was on review here and a couple of other places, and the general tendency was: quirky/buggy… not that (Open)Suse is flawless, but usually it’s better (except with the broken package management in 10.1!)
I prefer real open source apps/libraries if possible because of what OSS means to me. I understand people have preferences and all such as kde and gnome, but if the zealots out there usesd what was truly OSS kde would not even be in the running…’totally ‘free means useable by anyone without a fee of anykind and qt/kde does not quality. I heard rumblings at one time about kde going to a lgpl toolkit base but faik that never materilized..go fig.
I am not a zealot just a realist and gnome to me is the one true OSS library.
cheers
nl
“Ubuntu LTS isn’t updated enough, so we are switching to Debian Stable”
Yes, I know that is paraphrasing.
Because Debian Stable gets new apps every month or so?
The reasons stated for this decision make no sense.
It does maken sense. Old(er) stuff does bite some people now and then and it’s a legit reason those users have.
And then I’ve built a nagios system with ubuntu 7.04 and I’m not really impressed by that kind of stuff either.
Why a distro based on a distro that is already based on another distro?
Because a good idea is better shared perhaps?
Why not?
I think both OSs are rock-solid, stable. For me one of the things I like better about Debian is that it runs lighter and uses less system resources than Ubuntu. I run 9 Debian work stations at work on older boxes ( Ubuntu is a bit sluggish on these units).
I run 9 Debian work stations at work on older boxes ( Ubuntu is a bit sluggish on these units).
Hardly a problem for someone who uses linux professionally.
it looks like the first 2 posts in this discussion has a score of 25 and 28. What’s up with that?
Nevermind
It’s too bad there isn’t some kind of deal or merger that would make Mepis the KDE branch of Ubuntu. At the moment, KDE gets second-rate treatment from the Ubuntu crowd, imho.
That’s one reason I use Debian in preference to Ubuntu. Another is the creamy-smooth, incremental apt upgrades that keep me abreast of recent developments. No update hassles here on Testing and Unstable! Finally, Debian has a nice broad base with hundreds of devs, not a handful as one surmises of Mepis, and a complete absence of the hype and rather embarrassing adulation that seems now to accompany everything Ubuntu does.
I’m no Debian purist or even particularly knowledgeable about computers. But once you’ve found your way around Debian, you’ve found your way around the king of distros, imho. No more need to worry about what the next lot are up to – it won’t be much, very likely.
Here are my recommendations for making Mepis unique and relevant (for what it’s worth):
1. Stay being based on Debian stable, with configured backports repos, as well as manage a Mepis backports repo, for being up to date on some of the most popular packages. This will give Mepis a rock solid base, with an extremely stable repo that won’t hose users’ systems, but with backports repos kept fairly up to date (which can help satisfy users who want the latest goodies).
2. Maintain 100% compatibility with Debian stable repos. This way all Mepis users have 100%, full working, access to Debian’s 20,000 packages. This includes fully working Gnome and Xfce, if users want those.
3. Maintain Mepis’ already awesome hardware detection.
4. Maintain Mepis excellent installer – the fastest, and one of the easiest, installers in the Linux world.
5. Improve look and feel. Mepis’ look and feel isn’t bad, per se, but it’s rather gray-blueish metallic look and feel leaves a lot of users cold. Mepis should use richer, warmer colors.
6. Add support for Klik, so if users want even more up to date packages then the backports repos provide, they can get them safely.
7. Extend Mepis’ already decent collection of GUI config tools. Mepis already has some pretty nice GUI config tools, but they could be better. Just look at what PCLinuxOS provides (the Mandriva Control Center), and what Linux Mint has. If Mepis had it’s own full Control Center it would really help propel Mepis, and help differentiate it from the many other desktop oriented distros.
8. Provide full legal access to proprietary codecs and file formats. Some can legally be shipped, with a license agreement from the distributor, in the distro. But others, at least in the USA, want legal payment. Mepis should provide easy point and click access to where those things can be paid for and downloaded easily. With Ubuntu and Automatix, there is a legal gray area (at least in the USA), and that makes some users nervous. And doing all this would not require signing patent agreements with Microsoft (such and action would be the death of Mepis). This is another way Mepis could differentiate itself.
9. Maintain 100% consistent release schedule and naming conventions. To date, Mepis has been all over the map with these things. Let’s face it, users like consistency and predictability.
10. Once again, stay being based on Debian stable, with configured backports repos (and Mepis backports repos). Debian stable is rock solid, efficient, light on resources, and actually easy to install and use. And adding backports, to get latest goodies, plus the extra Mepis goodies (runs live from cd, fast, easy installer, great hd detection, support for codecs, good gui config tools, etc), would all make an excellent combination.
to see that comment about Ubuntu using Experimental.
I didn’t even know that. I just thought Ubuntu had crappy quality control.
Now I realize it is DELIBERATELY crappy quality control.
They want the latest and greatest but they also want to be the “new Linux user’s distro”.
Sorry – can’t have both. What you can have is a crappy distro that turns people OFF Linux.
And that’s what Ubuntu is.
I don’t recommend Ubuntu for new users. Use Mandriva or openSUSE or PCLinuxOS. New users need any distro that has comprehensive GUI front end tools that work, and that has somebody stepping up to the plate to fix bugs and do quality control. It doesn’t matter whether that distro is a company-driven one like Mandriva or a community-driver one that takes a decent company-driver one and tweaks it like PCLinuxOS.
Either is better than a company-run distro devoted to screwing up like Ubuntu.
For power users of Linux, Ubuntu is fine. It’s NOT for new Linux users.
It’s that simple.