PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu should be based on Debian Stable!



icett
March 21st, 2012, 12:46 PM
I like Ubuntu but I have only one wish. And that is that Ubuntu should be based on Debian Stable instead of what it is based on presently; Debian testing or unstable. I am saying that because an operating system representing Linux which is becoming one very popular OS alongside Windows and OS X should be more stable than these two Oses. Presently its less stable than these two and have many bugs. It should be stable!:)

sffvba[e0rt
March 21st, 2012, 01:06 PM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.


404

ccrs8
March 21st, 2012, 03:36 PM
I like Ubuntu but I have only one wish. And that is that Ubuntu should be based on Debian Stable instead of what it is based on presently; Debian testing or unstable. I am saying that because an operating system representing Linux which is becoming one very popular OS alongside Windows and OS X should be more stable than these two Oses. Presently its less stable than these two and have many bugs. It should be stable!:)

Not sure if you are serious. Debian stable can get pretty long in the tooth. Sid is not like some OS teetering on the edge of usability - it's pretty stable most of the time, and once the Ubuntu devs get their hands on it, the kinks are worked out.

snowpine
March 21st, 2012, 03:45 PM
You can use Ubuntu 10.04, the current Long Term Support release, which is equivalent to Debian Squeeze, the current Debian Stable.

SemiExpert
March 22nd, 2012, 03:52 AM
With all due respect to the Debian community, Debian stable releases are invariably too old to usable for users with recent hardware. It's one reason why I'm using Ubuntu, not Debian.

nickbailey
March 26th, 2012, 11:13 PM
it's true the stable release has always been quite far behind, not much good if you want to try recent versions of many packages, you'd only end up in dependency hell, not sure about ironing out the kinks though, Debian testing has always been more solid than Ubuntu on my machine.

wolfen69
March 27th, 2012, 05:35 AM
Ubuntu has been stable for me since the first release. And I've used/built many different pc's since 04. I guess I'm just lucky. :rolleyes:

wolfen69
March 27th, 2012, 05:40 AM
if you want to try recent versions of many packages, you'd only end up in dependency hell

Are we back in '94? wow.

mamamia88
March 27th, 2012, 06:40 AM
Meh if you are trying to be as stable as windows 7 good luck. I haven't had a single crash locking up the entire system and only apps for about 5 seconds. all the major operating systems are pretty much perfectly stable for me at least. linux has a harder time because drivers are not a priority. macs are built entirely around the os and pcs get drivers because they need too. linux is left out in the cold alot of the time. it's sad but it's true.

zombifier25
March 27th, 2012, 11:38 AM
Ubuntu is only based on Debian Unstable. Ubuntu is not Debian Unstable. The packages has gone through testing by the Ubuntu devs before they make it into the repositories. The devs don't just import all the Debian packages into Ubuntu and hope they work all by themselves.

nickbailey
March 27th, 2012, 01:09 PM
@ wolfen69

No I mean if you want to use cutting edge software you'll find you need to update one library that isn't in stable yet, then that triggers off a whole series of dependencies, for my music software I like to keep things as recent as possible and I found that impossible with Debian stable, with recent Ubuntu versions it's totally possible, wasn't always the case.

Peripheral Visionary
March 27th, 2012, 03:47 PM
Ubuntu is only based on Debian Unstable.

The LTS versions are built on Debian Testing, not Debian Unstable. All the other releases are built on Debian Unstable.

snowpine
March 27th, 2012, 04:01 PM
Debian Stable is also based on Debian Testing/Unstable... just a thought. :)

BrokenKingpin
March 28th, 2012, 06:49 PM
Um... no. I don't think Ubuntu is more unsable because of the base, as Debian Testing is more stable than Ubuntu lol. Ubuntu's issues are the 6 month release cycles, they are just too short, especially when introducing something like a new DE.

angryfirelord
March 28th, 2012, 10:11 PM
The problem with basing it off of stable is that the packages aren't going to be updated to newer versions. So, you'll then have a lot of complaining about hardware not being supported or old software.

If you're having stability problems, you can run an LTS release or if you need something newer, run the previous Ubuntu release. I've found that a lot of the kinks with the non-LTS releases get worked out in about 1 to 2 months. Non-LTS is still supported for 18 months, so you'll still be getting security updates.

The best thing though is that if you do see a problem, report it! No one is going to know if there's problem if no one says anything about it.

lykwydchykyn
March 28th, 2012, 10:40 PM
Funny thing about Debian stable, I have rarely found a Debian user who uses it apart from servers. They all seem to be using Sid or Testing on their desktops.

I suspect if Ubuntu went for a long release cycle and based its releases on Debian stable, the vast majority of experienced users would be running the development version.

snowpine
March 28th, 2012, 10:44 PM
My Debian (crunchbang, actually) desktop runs Stable.
On the other hand it is not connected to the internet, so tracking Sid would be difficult at best. :)

Roasted
March 29th, 2012, 12:20 AM
Presently its less stable than these two and have many bugs. It should be stable!:)

As somebody who has worked in an environment with 2,000 Windows systems and 4,000 Mac systems, I would beg to differ.

Don't get me wrong, Windows and Mac OSX are respectable operating systems. Love or hate them, they work decently. But when it comes down to it, the amount of kernel panics I've had on my Macbook and BSOD's I've had on my Windows boxes far surpasses the amount of kernel panics, or even catastrophic issues at that, on my Linux systems.

To each his own. Everybody's mileage varies.