Why still need Debian at all?

[iraenius]

This is probably a naive question, but why does Ubuntu still need to be tied to Debian? Is it because its packages are Debian packages? I get an impression as a newbie that Ubuntu packages are somehow reengineered and feel very native and not kludgy. I also get an impression that Debian is increasingly less friendly towards Ubuntu, and that the so called DCCA (or whatever it is) appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to either constrain Ubuntu or capitalize on Ubuntu's success. Unlike Mark, who is a philantropist, I get a sneaking feeling that Ian at Debian is somewhat greedy, and maybe resentful and jealous of Ubuntu's success. Well, if he is, all I can say is he had a lot more time to get it right but did not. That being said, I think I speak for most people that my loyalties lie with Ubuntu because of the end result, rather than Debian just because it happens to be the "base" -- if Ubuntu were to move away from Debian and be its own from-scratch distro, I'd have no qualms. As a finished product, it is really a lot better than the much touted lots-of-potential-because-it-can-be-so-flexible Debian; its "limitless" potential resulted in a paralyzed common denominator end result, IMHO.

[lakcaj]

Why do you even care? Why redo all the work that the debian devs do, when it is obvious that they are quite good at what they do?

[endy]

I find it hard to understand that anyone at Debian could be annoyed with Ubuntu due to the fact that the GPL encourages sharing and reuse of code. What did they expect, no one to ever fork or port any of their stuff?

[KingBahamut]

If what the above poster were to have posted as true, then Progeny, Murdocks redux of Debian or however you want to look at it , would never exist. Of course Murdock would have that right more than anyone.

Debian Devs could possibly get annoyed at watching a product other than their own succeed to a higher level. Its happened in other cases as well. Knoppix, Xandros, Linspire....they are all debian reduxes of the same code. Should debian be annoyed by them as well.

Honestly what really should happen is Debian should maintain a base dist, and let the companies that want to use it , use it, rather than be concerned about distributing a full distro , say like Progeny.

[iraenius]

Why do I care? Well, as is obvious, Ubuntu is succeeding wildly not because of Debian, but because it espouses and embodies certain characteristics that make it very appealing many types of users. For example, it feels truly and refreshingly free. This is amazing considering it originates from a non-Western developed country. Debian has an air of unfnishedness about it, so much so that in order to make it "real" even peopl elike Ian has a need to spin off a separate distro like Progeny. Contrast this with Ubuntu's implication that the product is great enough, hence one pofits from expert support of it, not from trying spin of a "more real" version. In a sense it is a classic example of a more capitalistic model versus a more social model (hence the Ubuntu namesake). The market is both cruel and honest, Debian and even its reduxes like Knoppix have in no way been as visible or as rapid in its acceptance as Ubuntu. And they have had a head start of years. Why do I care? Because the things that make Ubuntu successful transcend Debian, and are so in spite of Debian, and I wouldn't like to see Ubuntu unnecessarily hampered or hindered in the future by by a slavish dependence on Debian. Especially when there is an -- agenda questionable -- external movement to "certify" Debian-ness.

[endy]

Why do I care? Well, as is obvious, Ubuntu is succeeding wildly not because of Debian, but because it espouses and embodies certain characteristics that make it very appealing many types of users. For example, it feels truly and refreshingly free. This is amazing considering it originates from a non-Western developed country.

What? Does the west have a monopoly on anything free? I wouldn't be surprised if the exact opposite were true.

[Kvark]

This is probably a naive question, but why does Ubuntu still need to be tied to Debian?
Sure, the Ubuntu project could in theory do all the work from scratch, there is really no need to be based on Debian or Gnome or even GNU/Linux. But it would be a lot more work, a lot of reinventing the wheel, just to reach the same end result. The easiest and smartest way to reach a desired end result is to be based on the work of others as much as possible and add as little own work as possible. So my guess is that Ubuntu rides on the work Debian (and Gnome, GNU, Linux the kernel and countless others) does and just polishes it into a neat end result twice a year.

[xequence]

I do find it interesting how you say Ian -insertlastnamehere- is jelous of ubuntus success... I wouldent know, but after installing ubuntu I realised exactly how popular ubuntu is. Distrowatch.com, ubuntu is the most viewed page. Debian is 7. Also someone refered to ubuntu as "The Mighty Ubuntu" on a review of linspire...

[iraenius]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian? Again, pardon my naivete, but in my primitive view of the Linux distro universe, we appear to have the "first tier" types who do not seem to be (significantly and constantly) based on another distro (e.g. Red Hat, SUSE, Slackware, Turbo Linux et al). While they are building on the work of others, they do so at a lower, closer to the metal level; they do not carry that same degree of "dependency" perception that is reflected when we say Ubuntu is based on Debian. Why is that? If the only argument is that it is too much work, well, have Ubuntu developers not already invested a substantial amount of work to make it so uniquely Ubuntu? Are we saying the Debian elements are the lion's share of the work? I find that hard to believe considering the many other distros out there that are not based on some other. Would it be too much more work to make it "first tier" too and unreliant of Debian? It sometimes appears to me that Debianites exhibit a certain amount of arrogance in wanting recognition that Ubuntu is dependent on (seemingly only) Debian, and appear to be in some sort of denial that Ubuntu's strengths have less to do with Debian (an incidental choice of convenience in my opinion) and more on the philosophies behind Ubuntu. Like I said before, Debian has had a good many years to be as successful as Ubuntu insofar as success is measured as being readily accepted by the great unwashed. Unfortunately it hasn't. Whatever it is that is causing Debian's anemia, I would prefer it not to (ultimately) affect Ubuntu. I know this must seem like heresy to Debian lovers. But like I said before, my fan loyalties lie with Ubuntu.

[stoffe]

What? Does the west have a monopoly on anything free? I wouldn't be surprised if the exact opposite were true.Heh, exactly my thought as well. Unless you mean free as in "free, the now empty and meaningless word overused in certain parts of the west".

[Knome_fan]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian?

Theoretically, yes, practically, not really.
And I simply don't get why Ubuntu should even contemplate such a thing.
It would be extremely stupid, it wouldn't be practical and Ubuntu being based on Debian is one of the things that attract people to it.

[npaladin2000]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian?

To put it quite bluntly: No.

[Knome_fan]

Must read about the subject:
http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html

[poofyhairguy]

I get an impression as a newbie that Ubuntu packages are somehow reengineered and feel very native and not kludgy.

If you get that feeling, then you must really not like Ubuntu. The stuff you call kludgy IS the distro. Everything in main.



I also get an impression that Debian is increasingly less friendly towards Ubuntu

I don't know where you got that from. Debian is an organization, they are only unfriendly to those that don't obey the license. Some in the community of Debian might not like Ubuntu, but they have no real power or say. The DCCA is not officially connected to Debian in any way.


its "limitless" potential resulted in a paralyzed common denominator end result, IMHO.

The potential of Ubuntu is to stabilize Debian's Sid (aka Unstable). Thats all Ubuntu is. You know those hundreds of distros on Distrowatch that are like "Jim's Distro" or "Mary's distro?" Ubuntu is "Mark's distro." Same as the rest with more money. His focus is to stabilize Sid. Thats what Ubuntu does. Without Sid, there would be no Ubuntu.

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian?

Yes, but then it would die. Like cutting off the roots of a tree.


Again, pardon my naivete, but in my primitive view of the Linux distro universe, we appear to have the "first tier" types who do not seem to be (significantly and constantly) based on another distro (e.g. Red Hat, SUSE, Slackware, Turbo Linux et al).

I can't pardon it, you are too naive. I don't know if I would call Slackware and Turbolinux top tier. I would say top tier workstation distros are Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Linspire, and Gentoo. The only two of those that aren't based on another distro is Gentoo and Red Hat. SUSE and Mandrake are based off of Red Hat 9. Ubuntu and Linspire are based on Debian.

Most distros are based on another. Its the way of the Linux world. That point of yours was WAY off.


If the only argument is that it is too much work, well, have Ubuntu developers not already invested a substantial amount of work to make it so uniquely Ubuntu? Are we saying the Debian elements are the lion's share of the work?

I must admit, when I say the title I thought I was going to have to close the thread. I thought someone with an axe to grind was causing trouble. This is not the case. You are just a person that is very ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene in general (not a bad thing, most Linux users are at some point), but I must set you straight.

MOST of Ubuntu is Debian. MOST. Almost EVERYTHING is the Universe is ripped straight from Debian Sid. That is most of the packages right there. The rest (the MAIN part) is ripped from Sid every six months then is changed to be "uniquely Ubuntu." There are only 15 or so Ubuntu developers and hundreds of Debian developers. Debian does most of the work. Many things you probably like about Ubuntu are because of Debian. If Debian died....Ubuntu would too. They are connected at the hips!

So yes, Debian does most of the work. All Ubuntu is is a stabilized Sid. No Sid, no Ubuntu.


I find that hard to believe considering the many other distros out there that are not based on some other.

Now that you know you are wrong about that you can see how easy it is to believe.

Would it be too much more work to make it "first tier" too and unreliant of Debian?

Why do it? Without Debian, all those packages in the Univese would never change -they would stop working as their libraries would fade away. So Ubuntu would be reduced to about 3000 packages. Also all the work that the Sid developers do is offered free of charge to Ubuntu- why not take it? Just because Ian (who does not represent Debian) is jealous? Why do it? You have not made a good reason, because one cannot be made. Ubuntu and Debian are closer than you can imagine.


It sometimes appears to me that Debianites exhibit a certain amount of arrogance in wanting recognition that Ubuntu is dependent on (seemingly only) Debian, and appear to be in some sort of denial that Ubuntu's strengths have less to do with Debian (an incidental choice of convenience in my opinion) and more on the philosophies behind Ubuntu.

In any group that includes hundreds of people, you will find someone that is mean or ignorant. Almost every Ubuntu developer is a Debian developer. Many debianites like Ubuntu. Don't let the anti-Ubuntu crowd lead you astray.


Like I said before, Debian has had a good many years to be as successful as Ubuntu insofar as success is measured as being readily accepted by the great unwashed. Unfortunately it hasn't.

Depending on who you ask, Debian is the second most used Linux in the world and IS the second most used server. If thats failure, then success must taste bitter.

If you really support Ubuntu, please do some research and try to understand it better. Ubuntu would be almost nothing without Debian. Ubuntu was created to fix the problems of Debian on the desktop. It was intended to work with Debian from the start. Its a core philosophy of Ubuntu.

If Ubuntu stopped syncing with Sid, development would slow down A LOT. Instead of using someone else's base and worry about things like Xorg and GUI tools, Ubuntu would have to waste time doing boring "to the metal stuff." It would not make Ubuntu better.

The reason Ubuntu has gotten so popular isn't because there are tons of developers or they drink magic tea...its because Ubuntu took Debian and ran. To leave Debian behind would kill Ubuntu. Both you and I do not wish to see that.

I hope your eyes are opened. If not, ask me things and I'll answer the best I can. I read A LOT about Ubuntu (tons of free time) so I think I have most of these sorts of answers. So please....

[az]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian? Again, pardon my naivete, but in my primitive view of the Linux distro universe, we appear to have the "first tier" types who do not seem to be (significantly and constantly) based on another distro (e.g. Red Hat, SUSE, Slackware, Turbo Linux et al). While they are building on the work of others, they do so at a lower, closer to the metal level; they do not carry that same degree of "dependency" perception that is reflected when we say Ubuntu is based on Debian. Why is that? If the only argument is that it is too much work, well, have Ubuntu developers not already invested a substantial amount of work to make it so uniquely Ubuntu? Are we saying the Debian elements are the lion's share of the work? I find that hard to believe considering the many other distros out there that are not based on some other. Would it be too much more work to make it "first tier" too and unreliant of Debian? It sometimes appears to me that Debianites exhibit a certain amount of arrogance in wanting recognition that Ubuntu is dependent on (seemingly only) Debian, and appear to be in some sort of denial that Ubuntu's strengths have less to do with Debian (an incidental choice of convenience in my opinion) and more on the philosophies behind Ubuntu. Like I said before, Debian has had a good many years to be as successful as Ubuntu insofar as success is measured as being readily accepted by the great unwashed. Unfortunately it hasn't. Whatever it is that is causing Debian's anemia, I would prefer it not to (ultimately) affect Ubuntu. I know this must seem like heresy to Debian lovers. But like I said before, my fan loyalties lie with Ubuntu.



*Please* do not post a single paragraph. It is very very trying to read. Please split your ideas up into paragraphs.

Yes, you are naive. I would venture to say that your criticisms of debian are misunderstandings. I presume that you feel mor confortable with Ubuntu because it is aimed at desktop users and that is the category of user you happen to be.

Debian is a general-purpôse distribution which means that it is not geared to one type of user, but *all* of them. This has the side-effect of making things less flashy and strightforward for anyone wanting a superspecialised distribution.

Speaking of which, I beleive that Suse and Turbo linux originaly were forks of Red Hat. I may be wrong.

The fact is that Debian stands for free software a lot more than just about any of the distributions you can think of (including Ubuntu - Ubuntu ships binary drivers, those are available to debian in the non-free repository).

As well, you cannot compare a company of a few dozen developers to the thousand debian developers and thousands of other members of the debian community. Canonical delivers that to you. Do not mistake that with them equaling it.

So, no, they could never supercede debian.

Be carefult of what you read about Debian. There are many voices, but really only take the one voice of the Debian Project Leader to truly represent debian.

Any old DD can rant on their weblog about something. It does not mean that they are representative of debian. Ian Murdock founded Debian years ago, but as it is, he does not represent the opinion of debian in any significant way.

As it has been pointed out, the DCCA has very little to do with debian. They (debian) even objected to the use of the word "Debian" by that project. The matter was brought to the SPI trademark lawyer and I do not think there has been an anouncement on the matter.

[iraenius]

Dear poofyhairguy

Based on your comments, especially ...

"I can't pardon it, you are too naive."

...and...

"I must admit, when I say the title I thought I was going to have to close the thread. I thought someone with an axe to grind was causing trouble. This is not the case. You are just a person that is very ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene in general (not a bad thing, most Linux users are at some point), but I must set you straight."

...I am both shocked and saddened by the brusqueness and the less than subtle personally hurtful intent of the posts. Essentially they imply that I am too stupid to voice my opinions that I would have liked to have discussed in a civil way. In all my posts, I have clarified both my newsness and the fact that all my information were perceptions. Perhaps I may be incorrect, but a number of these perception I have gleaned from colleagues at work who similarly have tested out Ubuntu. I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.

A simple "No it is not possible" would have answered my question without resorting to character assassination. I find it hard to believe that this sort of response can be found on a product named after the ideals of Ubuntu.

The response appears to indicate that poofyharguy is a person of some responsibility within Ubuntu. If this is truly the case, I am appalled at this sort of response in a chat portion of a community forum.

As for the others who have taken the trouble to reply to me, I thank you.

Have a good day.

[az]

I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.



I truly and honestly think that you are. Any person whom I have met in the past who has even come close to thinking that way had turned out to be grossly misinformed. I think that is what everybody on this thread has been trying to tell you and you were, to be honest, quite resistant to the fact that it is your perception that may be in fault.

Sorry.

[iraenius]

Actually, I am the one who is very sorry to have read such a response from even the super moderator. I'm afraid I've had no choice but to print this thread for reference.

[poofyhairguy]

Dear poofyhairguy

Based on your comments, especially ...

"I can't pardon it, you are too naive."

...and...

"I must admit, when I say the title I thought I was going to have to close the thread. I thought someone with an axe to grind was causing trouble. This is not the case. You are just a person that is very ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene in general (not a bad thing, most Linux users are at some point), but I must set you straight."

...I am both shocked and saddened by the brusqueness and the less than subtle personally hurtful intent of the posts. Essentially they imply that I am too stupid to voice my opinions that I would have liked to have discussed in a civil way.

No. I clearly said that I would not pardon your naivity (and therefore would put forth the correct knowledge). To pardon it would be to not correct you and show you the correct answer. Correct?

As far as the ignorant thing goes, I said that this is not a bad thing. Most humans are ignorant about most things. I am very ignorant about cars and chemistry. Is that bad? No, thats why you learn! Ignorance has a bad connotation to some, because they think that it means "stupid." I promise they are not one and the same! Ignorant means "lacking knowledge of something." Not a shameful thing....you posted this to find out. That is good!

I tried to give you the best answer I could. I meant not to malice. I obviously offended you. I feel really bad about that. I sometimes have trouble on the internet because I use words very literally and I often forget about the many common connotations for certain words. I apologize. Seriously I do. I'm sorry I offended you. I was just trying to assume a serious (not angry) tone, but tone is hard to get across on the web. Sorry again.


In all my posts, I have clarified both my newsness and the fact that all my information were perceptions. Perhaps I may be incorrect, but a number of these perception I have gleaned from colleagues at work who similarly have tested out Ubuntu. I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.

Sure. They weren't all bad assumptions. If I had seen what Ian has written about Ubuntu without my knowledge and context I would have thought the same thing.


A simple "No it is not possible" would have answered my question without resorting to character assassination. I find it hard to believe that this sort of response can be found on a product named after the ideals of Ubuntu.


No, it is not possible is not a good answer. Not even close. I tried to get this point across, but I failed. I'll try again:

The title of this thread scared me. There is a real anti-Ubuntu movement and I was fearful of the possibility that this thread was created by such a person.

Instead I found someone truely questioning Ubuntu. Someone that liked it and simply wanted to know more. I resolved to give the best answer I could, in a serious tone so that I might seem more credible. To help a fellow ubunter.

Unfortunately its hard to control tone on the internet (or emocons would have never been invented) and you saw my post as being a "character assassination."

I feel really bad about this. I don't want someone to think ill of me, but I REALLY don't want my words to come off that way. I have learned a lot on this forum when it comes to netiquette. From Mr. Hearn I learned to say "this is my opinion" when it is. From Knome-Fan I learned to be careful when creating groups for classification. And today I learned from your response that I should force myself to keep a jolly lightheated tone because a serious tone is too hard for me to pull off and it might offend. I thank you for this as I thanked the others.

I'm sorry that you will think less of Ubuntu and myself because of my post. I just wanted to help....to make it so that if you needed to ever defend the position you would have all the tools. I failed. Badly.

Time out for me as punishment.

Have a nice day.....

[matthew]

...I am both shocked and saddened by the brusqueness and the less than subtle personally hurtful intent of the posts. Essentially they imply that I am too stupid to voice my opinions that I would have liked to have discussed in a civil way. In all my posts, I have clarified both my newsness and the fact that all my information were perceptions. Perhaps I may be incorrect, but a number of these perception I have gleaned from colleagues at work who similarly have tested out Ubuntu. I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.
I would like to respond in poofyhairguy's defense by gently reminding you that ignorant does not equal stupid. Ignorant means lacking in knowledge, stupid means incapable of the acquisition of or comprehension of something. You were never called stupid and I am certain that you were never intended to be called stupid. What was being reacted to was that in your post you made some assumptions, apparrently based on things you heard that have unfortunately turned out to be erroneous. Poofyhairguy I believe was trying to help you understand where you had valid questions and where the foundation of your thoughts was shaky. Sorry it offended you, but really, we are all ignorant in different areas and it serves no purpose to be offended when that is pointed out. Instead, realize that there was no intent to insult you and allow yourself to be gently corrected so that you become a more knowledgable and wise person. Peace.

EDIT: Wow! three posts were written while I was composing this one!

[az]

I'm afraid I've had no choice but to print this thread for reference.


We only detele threads which are pornographic, spam advertising or otherwise unsuited for representation. This thread will always be here.

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding. You seem to feel that we are performing a character assassination. Perhaps it is because we feel strongly about the topic.

Saying: "Debian has had a good many years to be as successful as Ubuntu insofar as success is measured as being readily accepted by the great unwashed. Unfortunately it hasn't." is not only inaccurate, but easily misunderstood as mean-spirited. This is not a competition.

To me, this conjures up notions of ruthless marketplace dueling similar to the portrait you paint of Ian Murdock and the "agenda questionable -- external movement to "certify" Debian-ness" as you said. But in your version, Ubuntu would be playing the same sort of cold-hearted tactics to "win". That doesn't make sense.

[professor_chaos]

In my opinion the community ties are what make linux so great. Share and share alike. To sever ties with a community/developer base such as Debian, would be like chopping of your left arm. You might still survive, but would be far less efficient.

Sure Ubuntu could (only now) "de-link" from debian, but would be stupid to do so (and will never do so).
Ubuntu doesn't want to be a fork, nor does it think it can do everything itself.

Check out this talk Shuttleworth gave to a group of debian developers. It will probably provide more understanding into Ubuntu.
http://linux.blogweb.de/uploads/02-...uttleworth.mpeg

[agger]

Why do I care? Well, as is obvious, Ubuntu is succeeding wildly not because of Debian, but because it espouses and embodies certain characteristics that make it very appealing many types of users. For example, it feels truly and refreshingly free. This is amazing considering it originates from a non-Western developed country. Debian has an air of unfnishedness about it, so much so that in order to make it "real" even peopl elike Ian has a need to spin off a separate distro ...

As I understand it, Debian has very many highly skilled developers and is offering a technically speaking rock solid foundation for building other distros like Knoppix or Ubuntu.

It would be very stupid indeed to throw that away, and Mark Shuttleworth and the Ubuntu Foundation certainly don't seem to be about to do that.

I don't think Ubuntu could've been where it is today without giving to and receiving from Debian - even though Debian itself may be more suited for servers than for end-users.

[agger]

Edit: I was going to say something but poofyhairguy already said it way better

[Galoot]

What you suggest wouldn't do anyone any good. If it were possible to divorce Ubuntu from Debian, it would still be a case of Ubuntu riding on Linus's shoulders, and RMS's. If this wonderful OS could divorce itself from them, it would become a case of riding on Thompson and Ritchie's (Unix's) coattails. Moving away from the Unix ties would mean Ubuntu would have to own up to its Multics roots, and so on and so on and...

Ubuntu isn't an island OS. It's based on the work of others, both in the past and in the present. Severing those ties would be both pointless and needless, not to mention silly. Ubuntu needs Debian like OS X needs BSD.

And, for what it's worth, my finely-tuned flame detector didn't even chirp at the responses you received, poofyhairguy's posts included. "Ignorant" isn't a cuss word, it's a prompt to further educate one's self. Hopefully some of the earlier responses helped with that a little.

[iraenius]

Thanks for all your input. Unfortunately I have to disagree with many of the posts here on several issues:

Regarding the divorce of Debian from Ubuntu, it has been oft-repeated that it is not possible. My original thesis is that Ubuntu would have been successful whether or not it used Debian, that Debian is only incidental etc. None of the reasons I have read so far appear compelling. I remain unconvinced that Debian is the best choice as the posts here imply. I look forward to the day, however distant, when Ubuntu either moves away from Debian or significantly reduces its ties with Debian as vindication of this thesis. I am also unconvinced I am the only one who feels this way despite what one post implied.

Somewhere there is a post that implies that Ubuntu isn’t an island, that it is based on the work of others etc. I have never denied this, I merely questioned its need to be tied so intimately to Debian.

As I have indicated, I am a fan of Ubuntu, but not a fan of Debian. Which is unfortunate because at present, a good deal of Ubuntu is Debian. However, my point remains that the essential successful qualities of Ubuntu are unique and do not owe themselves to Debian, any more than FedEx’s success depends their trucks being GMs. Just because I greatly appreciate Ubuntu does not mean that I have to be beholden to Debian as many of the posts here seem desperate to admonish.

As for the creative rationalization of the word “ignorant,” I have this to say: My colleague in pre-law advises the Reasonable Man doctrine: if you were to call any reasonable stranger ignorant as opposed to say misinformed or mistaken, which would he find offensive? Similarly which would be more offensive, calling someone foolish or calling someone’s actions foolish? By the same token of separation, I do not blame Ubuntu at all for the zealous posts on its message boards, even ones by the board’s custodians.

Freedom of expression is great. But like all things they carry consequences. Many times these consequences are subtle and escape unexplained. How many times have you wondered why something happened and wondered for an explanation that was somehow awkward or impossible to ask? I’ll do you a favor and describe one here before discontinuing, reluctantly, pursuing Ubuntu. I have posted one other thread before, on how to use email. I was pleased by the response and directed other colleagues and coworkers to Ubuntu. I did this as I was trying to save some money on a tight budget so I could get additional resources and perhaps even get more student workers. Needless to say this thread has not done a great deal to boost my cause. At the very least it is embarrassing, and at worst, humiliating. Depends on who’s reading. Basically the argument has arisen as to how one can depend on any sort of civilized support from a community product. Simply put, the idea has been canned with no debate.

An earlier post suggested there was something real out there trying to destroy Ubuntu (or was it Debian). I suppose fears like that justify pre-emptive strikes of the kind I’ve been subjected to. It’s the new world reality, non?

Anyway I hope Ubuntu continues to do well.

[poofyhairguy]

Regarding the divorce of Debian from Ubuntu, it has been oft-repeated that it is not possible. My original thesis is that Ubuntu would have been successful whether or not it used Debian, that Debian is only incidental etc. None of the reasons I have read so far appear compelling. I remain unconvinced that Debian is the best choice as the posts here imply. I look forward to the day, however distant, when Ubuntu either moves away from Debian or significantly reduces its ties with Debian as vindication of this thesis. I am also unconvinced I am the only one who feels this way despite what one post implied.

I hate to play this game....but here it goes:

Ubuntu will never seperate from Debian. Why? Because Mark pays for most of it, therefore he calls the shots. And he loves Debian. He was a Debian developer for a while.

If you want Ubuntu to seperate from Debian, you must fork and do it yourself. Mark would kill Ubuntu before he would let that happen to the main project.

[KingBahamut]

I hate to play this game....but here it goes:

Ubuntu will never seperate from Debian. Why? Because Mark pays for most of it, therefore he calls the shots. And he loves Debian. He was a Debian developer for a while.

If you want Ubuntu to seperate from Debian, you must fork and do it yourself. Mark would kill Ubuntu before he would let that happen to the main project.
Werent we all debian fans before ubuntu......
Thats how I learned after I dropped Slackware.

[aysiu]

However, my point remains that the essential successful qualities of Ubuntu are unique and do not owe themselves to Debian, any more than FedEx’s success depends their trucks being GMs. This analogy makes no sense. Ubuntu is an OS, and Debian is an OS. FedEx is a delivery service, and GM is an automobile manufacturer.

Ubuntu:Debian::FedEx:GM Truck

would mean that GM Truck is also a delivery company.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why Ubuntu should "de-link" itself from Debian... not that it matters. Even if everyone in this thread agreed Ubuntu should, Ubuntu wouldn't.

[mrtaber]

Well, everyone tried. Even doing your best, things don't always work out the way one might like. Personally, I can't imagine dropping a distro over one (one!) thread in an online forum. But enough.

I'm sorry this person is leaving, but I want to say "thanks" for all involved; it just reinforces my belief that the Ubuntu forums are some of the best, friendliest, most helpful places I've ever seen for Linux, newbie and experienced alike.

Mark

[Jussi Kukkonen]

My original thesis is that Ubuntu would have been successful whether or not it used Debian, that Debian is only incidental etc. None of the reasons I have read so far appear compelling.
Incidental? Oh, my. Please follow e.g. the debian-devel mailing list for a while and witness the amount of work being done to ensure that all Debian-based distros stay competitive... You are the one who hasn't provided a reason to stop taking advantage of that great resource.

I remain unconvinced that Debian is the best choice as the posts here imply.
...
I am also unconvinced I am the only one who feels this way despite what one post implied.

Most here have probably chosen Ubuntu partly because it is Debian... As for me, it was one of the main reasons. I see Ubuntu as an incremental improvement to a very good distribution.

[tkiesel]

Regarding the divorce of Debian from Ubuntu, it has been oft-repeated that it is not possible. My original thesis is that Ubuntu would have been successful whether or not it used Debian, that Debian is only incidental etc. None of the reasons I have read so far appear compelling. I remain unconvinced that Debian is the best choice as the posts here imply. I look forward to the day, however distant, when Ubuntu either moves away from Debian or significantly reduces its ties with Debian as vindication of this thesis. I am also unconvinced I am the only one who feels this way despite what one post implied.

The technical and licensing debates that could rage over this one are nearly limitless. As you say though, it is certainly possible that Ubuntu could become a branch off of a different "distro tree", certainly. I think there are significant community, organizational and project management factors that make Ubuntu's use of Debian Sid code and infastructure easier than alternatives. But it's certainly possible to be based off of another distro, I suppose.

As I have indicated, I am a fan of Ubuntu, but not a fan of Debian. Which is unfortunate because at present, a good deal of Ubuntu is Debian. However, my point remains that the essential successful qualities of Ubuntu are unique and do not owe themselves to Debian, any more than FedEx’s success depends their trucks being GMs. Just because I greatly appreciate Ubuntu does not mean that I have to be beholden to Debian as many of the posts here seem desperate to admonish.

Pretty much all I've seen here is people mentioning the hurdles, many as they are, to Ubuntu grafting itself to another base distro. No one (to my usually literal eyes) has talked about how we all ought to be beholden to Debian (that is, Debian qua community/project rather than Debian qua codebase). The code is free. Viva la code!

As for the creative rationalization of the word “ignorant,” I have this to say: My colleague in pre-law advises the Reasonable Man doctrine: if you were to call any reasonable stranger ignorant as opposed to say misinformed or mistaken, which would he find offensive? Similarly which would be more offensive, calling someone foolish or calling someone’s actions foolish? By the same token of separation, I do not blame Ubuntu at all for the zealous posts on its message boards, even ones by the board’s custodians.

That's a tough cookie. Does the reasonable stranger have a good vocabulary? No, I'm not implying that you're ignorant of vocabulary or stupid, etc. I'm pointing out that we all have a bias. When I read this, my immediate thought was "Of course the reasonable stranger will know about the word ignorant!". To me, using the word in it's true sense isn't a creative rationalization, but merely careful use of the language. I bet you're thinking that the reasonable stanger would be quite a bit different than the one in my imagination.

I think we'll each project a bit more of ourselves onto the reasonable stranger than we mean to.. especially when we're feeling on the defensive.

Bottom line on that score: No harm nor any character assassination was intended. You were given technical information that you openly admitted you were not in posession of. You feel it was done in a rude manner, others disagree, and now the topic is wandering away from the technical end of things and towards expressions of personal disappointment over conduct on both sides.

I see that some "I'm sorry"s have been said. Good! Hopefully we can get some of those all around. Let's iron it out boys and girls and get on with life.

Freedom of expression is great. But like all things they carry consequences. Many times these consequences are subtle and escape unexplained. How many times have you wondered why something happened and wondered for an explanation that was somehow awkward or impossible to ask? I’ll do you a favor and describe one here before discontinuing, reluctantly, pursuing Ubuntu. I have posted one other thread before, on how to use email. I was pleased by the response and directed other colleagues and coworkers to Ubuntu. I did this as I was trying to save some money on a tight budget so I could get additional resources and perhaps even get more student workers. Needless to say this thread has not done a great deal to boost my cause. At the very least it is embarrassing, and at worst, humiliating. Depends on who’s reading. Basically the argument has arisen as to how one can depend on any sort of civilized support from a community product. Simply put, the idea has been canned with no debate.

An even tougher cookie!

This one comes down to expectations. If you are expecting technical support from a community that is always polite according to your mores, culture and interpretation of the subtleties of vocabulary, then you will be disappointed. Humanity and human behavior is too diverse (as well as many other adjectives, some quite a bit less savory) to accomodate this expectation. We have a code of conduct for the forum that hopefully helps things, but one person will always have a different view of what they are writing than the persons who read it do.. It's the nature of human communication, even in person.

There will always be someone on a forum who will rub you the wrong way if you are capable of taking it personally. And there will always be a third party mystified and wondering what all the tension between parties one and two is really about.

If you are wanting a uniform standard of politeness (in terms of what you interpret the words to mean, not neccesarily in what is intended by the typists) in your support, then community support isn't for you.

If your aims with support are more pragmatic and have less to do with you not getting offended in the process of gaining the technical information you're going to get, then I think that a community can be an amazing resource!

I think this one is an amazing resource.

An earlier post suggested there was something real out there trying to destroy Ubuntu (or was it Debian). I suppose fears like that justify pre-emptive strikes of the kind I’ve been subjected to. It’s the new world reality, non?

You lost me there. Poofyhairguy said he had thought that your post was something in that vein when he'd read the thread title only, and that when he read the substance of your post, he realized it was nothing of the sort. Hence any strike you were subjected to wasn't in response to perceptions of you being a part of an anti-Ubuntu something.

A more interesting thing is that you feel that you've been subjected to a pre-emptive strike. The worst that happened to you (referring to how far I think the reasonable stranger could stretch it of course) is severe rudeness. Severe rudeness is startling some times, but I don't think it qualifies as a strike or attack of any sort.

A reasonable case can be made that there was brusqueness, but I think claiming true ad hominem is a bit farther than the facts can go.

Anyway I hope Ubuntu continues to do well.

As do I! :)

Rock on,
-T

[az]

My original thesis is that Ubuntu would have been successful whether or not it used Debian

...

As I have indicated, I am a fan of Ubuntu, but not a fan of Debian.

...

An earlier post suggested there was something real out there trying to destroy Ubuntu (or was it Debian). I suppose fears like that justify pre-emptive strikes of the kind I’ve been subjected to. It’s the new world reality, non?

Anyway I hope Ubuntu continues to do well.

That which makes Debian great makes Ubuntu great. A great percentage of the Ubuntu distribution team are active debian developers. This is on purpose. Ubuntu *is* debian. There is no competition between the two.

You are trying to beleive that there is. There is no argument to your thesis. Consequently, there is little discussion to be had on the topic. You are misinformed about the differences between Debian and Debian-derivative distributions (the DCCA) and are closed-minded to educate yourself.

You are effectively saying that you love orange juice, but hate oranges. You yearn for the day when orange juice will be made properly: from Bananas!

[aysiu]

As for the creative rationalization of the word “ignorant,” I have this to say: My colleague in pre-law advises the Reasonable Man doctrine: if you were to call any reasonable stranger ignorant as opposed to say misinformed or mistaken, which would he find offensive? Similarly which would be more offensive, calling someone foolish or calling someone’s actions foolish? By the same token of separation, I do not blame Ubuntu at all for the zealous posts on its message boards, even ones by the board’s custodians. I don't think anyone was "creative[ly] rationaliz" [i]ignorant. I think you're just a tad sensitive. That's right. I said it.

Look at the original two uses of the word ignorant:

You are just a person that is very ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene in general (not a bad thing, most Linux users are at some point), but I must set you straight.
In any group that includes hundreds of people, you will find someone that is mean or ignorant. Almost every Ubuntu developer is a Debian developer. Many debianites like Ubuntu. Don't let the anti-Ubuntu crowd lead you astray.

The first one did not say, "You're ignorant." It said you're ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene. It even goes so far as to say such ignorance is not a bad thing and that it's something most Linux users go through. Surely this is not an insult.

The second one says the you're bound to find some people who are ignorant. I don't even think that comment was directed at you.

And, I don't think you even have a right to get defensive, honestly. You came in here and sounded as if you had some brilliant insight and showed almost no humility. If you come with that kind of attitude and you're ignorant, people will call you out on that.

No one says to a shy newbie, "You're just ignorant about the distro scene," if the newbie says something like, "Hey, what's the difference between all these distros? Is there any reason I should use Ubuntu?" People will call you ignorant, though, if you sound as if you know what you're talking about, but you don't really know what you're talking about.

It's the same with anything in life. I know nothing about cosmetics. So what right would I have to march into a cosmetics department and start criticizing their line of cosmetics or tell them they should all unite with each other or break apart from each other. If I did, I would rightly be called "ignorant."

You're just lucky people were polite about it. They had every right to simply say, "You're ignorant," without any qualifiers.

[bob_c_b]

I think the OP lacks a full understanding of how Linux was born, why Linus and company manage it the way they do, what the hacker and gift culture really mean to the effort and why Ubuntu is intrinsically tied to Debian forever.

I don't agree with every idea he spouts, but you should really read ESR's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. And also check out Linus's book, Just for Fun; these should be required reading to build a quick base of FOSS and Linux philosophy. Don't take the vitrol from /. and other forums to be a true representation of the community majority.

And while occaisionally petulant, I hardly find Ian to appear evil? If you are going to assert things like this you should probably have a wagonload of proof and some flame retardant boxer shorts handy.

One of the reasons I am attracted to Ubuntu is the basis on Debian, the commitment to "Free as in speech" software and a serious attempt at LSB compliance (certain binaries aside). If it weren't for these things I could easily stay with Mandriva or massage a Fedora install into something nice. I can't see any real reason (or imagine any real motivation) for Ubuntu to distance itself from Debian and nothing you have posted supports the idea. Of course you are entitled to any opinion you like, but suggesting something as radical as a fork needs to be very well supported, and that is something you have failed to do.

[professor_chaos]

I look forward to the day, however distant, when Ubuntu either moves away from Debian or significantly reduces its ties with Debian as vindication of this thesis.

Whats with this guy. "I look forward to the day...when Ubuntu..moves away from Debian"
Wow. either he has a serious bone to pick with debian, or he has some kind of blind arrogance. I don't really want to be harsh, or flame anyone...but....

Good luck finding another disto.

[John.Michael.Kane]

You will be hard pressed to find a distro not based on debian . some of these distros may no longer be made this is what i found though..

http://www.debian.org/misc/children-distros.en-us.html
Corel Linux
Embedded Debian,
ESware Linux
Debian JP
DemoLinux
Demudi,
Floppix,
Gibraltar
KNOPPIX,
Libranet,
Lindows,
Linex
Linuxin
Linux-YeS,
Linux Router Project,
MEPIS
M.N.I.S. Linux,
PingOO,
Progeny Linux,
Prosa,
Stonegate
Stormix Technologies' Storm Linux.
TelemetryBox,
Xandros.
Ubuntu

Hope this helps

[Galoot]

I'd be interested to learn what alternative to Debian the OP has in mind. As he granted, Ubuntu isn't an island unto itself. It's got to be based on something. What, and why that instead of Debian?

[daveisadork]

FWIW, I'm using Ubuntu because it's Debian based. If Ubuntu ever moved away from Debian, I would probably go back to using Debian Unstable. Not because I have anything against Ubuntu, but because I'm a big fan of the "Debian way" of doing things. I migrated to Ubuntu from Debian, mainly because I wanted to use Debian, only with all the new-fangled apps that weren't available in the unstable repos. I think the Debian/Ubuntu relationship is a very, very good thing and I hope it only strengthens in the future as I can see no good coming from their parting ways.

[Buffalo Soldier]

In my humble opinion [no concrete proof what so ever], one of Ubuntu major strenght is that it's based on Debian. And I personally have no problem with that.

Long live the debian way.

[iraenius]

Time will tell, my friends, time will tell. We'll see how things are one, two, three, five years from now? For those who are so desperate to dispel or trivialize my comments, sigh, well, I'm after all just one geriatric ignorant person who can't paragraph-break, right? But if what I hope for happens, I promise I will be graceful towards these experts.

I often recall how many of my zealous Mac friends used to swear on their parents' graves that its OS could only run on the 68K. Then the PowerPC. How that was the superior processor etc. How long has it been, 20 years? Today, most of them shuffle their feet and shyly admit what a good thing the Intel switch is. Somehow I don't see them dumping their Macs in protest because it now uses Intel. The thing is, we all know the words "always" and "never" do not, cannot apply to computing.

My point is simple: Debian is the rock Ubuntu is built on. Granted, but *currently*. Will it be so always? Is it wrong to think otherwise? To fantasize otherwise? Are all fans compelled to believe in The One Sole Way that Debian is great for Ubuntu or risk excommunication? What if it no longer makes sense to do so? I maintain that what causes it all to Just Work (TM) is more an Ubuntu concept, than a Debian thing. I don't think that is so terrible a thought. I'm sorry I don't think Debian is perfect. Using a Pentecostal analogy, this new great faith is going to catch on whether you still want to circumcise or not. I am not sophisticated enough to articulate it better than that. But I do recognize that Ubuntu is the better and bigger portion of it. I look forward to something other than Debian if only to show off Ubuntu's merit, to stand on its own feet so to speak. Credit where credit's due. My question on this community chat is, if Ubuntu were to use something else as a base or perhaps, develop everything from scratch, not necessarily in the near future as so many pragmatists are desperate to point out, would you stop using Ubuntu because it is no longer dependent on Debian? Dare you allow others to entertain such a question, think such a thought without insulting his/her intelligence, biting his/her head off and feeding him/her to the lions?

Debian is a signpost that points to Ubuntu. Long live Ubuntu.

[aysiu]

if Ubuntu were to use something else as a base or perhaps, develop everything from scratch, not necessarily in the near future as so many pragmatists are desperate to point out, would you stop using Ubuntu because it is no longer dependent on Debian? Personally, I probably wouldn't. I like Debian's apt-get/dpkg packaging system. But who's to say? You're talking about five years from now? Who knows what kind of packaging we'll be using then?


Dare you allow others to entertain such a question, think such a thought without insulting his/her intelligence, biting his/her head off and feeding him/her to the lions? Oh, boo hoo. Don't play the martyr. You didn't ask an innocent question. You said, "I get a sneaking feeling that Ian at Debian is somewhat greedy, and maybe resentful and jealous of Ubuntu's success" in your first post. You're trying to stir up animosity between distros where there isn't any. You weren't just saying, as you do in this last post, "Hey, if Ubuntu weren't based on Debian any more, would you stick with it?"

How about this? Dare you make inflammatory comments without really knowing what you're talking about and actually take the consequences for making those comments? Or dare you actually not make inflammatory comments in the first place and just ask a simple question?

[Leif]

Dare you allow others to entertain such a question, think such a thought without insulting his/her intelligence, biting his/her head off and feeding him/her to the lions?.

Noone, not a single person on this thread insulted your intelligence. You mistook a post as being hostile. You got an (undeserved) apology, which you didn't even accept. You are the one who is being rude.

You got informed comments, even a link to a document by one of the Ubuntu developers. But no, you insist this is all meant as an attack on you.

[Deeze]

For those who are so desperate to dispel or trivialize my comments, sigh, well, I'm after all just one geriatric ignorant person who can't paragraph-break, right?
What is getting to the people that have responded to you negatively is that *you* are the one who is trivializing the Debian part of the equation here. You must understand that is like talking bad about someone's mother to many around here. How hard is it to understand that being based on Debian is one of, if not the singular attraction of Ubuntu for many.

I use Debian, I also use Ubuntu. I am quite familiar with them both. I can also say that there truly is very little difference between the two (as in, if I didn't know I wouldn't know which was which just by using them). Ubuntu is like, Sid, but this time Sid took his pills hehe. Ubuntu is created by a Debian dev, made from Debian, and polished and packaged by (mostly) Debian developers. Ubuntu is a polished version of Debian.

How in the world you can say you love Ubuntu, but hate Debian is simply beyond logic to me. As a previous poster said, it's like someone who says they love orange juice but hate oranges. Non-sequitor. Does not compute. The strengths of Debian are what have given Ubuntu strength. Ubuntu did not become as popular as it is *in spite* of Debian, as you say, but *because* of it. There have been many people waiting for a well polished, Debian desktop distro, as can be seen pre-ubuntu with Mepis, Knoppix and others. Ubuntu seemed to hit the sweet spot, a little good luck and a *lot* of skill and planning. Still, Ubuntu is probably 90+% pure Debian.


I often recall how many of my zealous Mac friends used to swear on their parents' graves that its OS could only run on the 68K. Then the PowerPC. How that was the superior processor etc. How long has it been, 20 years? Today, most of them shuffle their feet and shyly admit what a good thing the Intel switch is. Somehow I don't see them dumping their Macs in protest because it now uses Intel. The thing is, we all know the words "always" and "never" do not, cannot apply to computing.

My point is simple: Debian is the rock Ubuntu is built on. Granted, but *currently*. Will it be so always? Is it wrong to think otherwise? To fantasize otherwise? Are all fans compelled to believe in The One Sole Way that Debian is great for Ubuntu or risk excommunication? What if it no longer makes sense to do so?
But then there is a difference between making hardware and software compatability claims, and making claims that it would be feasible for Ubuntu to seperate from a community that maintains what, 30,000 compatible software packages? Not to mention, what package manager would they use? If a divorce from Debian was in order that would be the major change. What would Ubuntu use? RPMs? Sorry, that would turn many people off right there. I certainly will never (yep, there's that word), ever, even consider going back to any RPM based distro. If something better than .debs came along, I might consider it, but it would have to be a mighty effort, with a mighty repository to rival Debian in my eyes. What *I* see is actually a move closer to Debian, not further away, as in Ubuntu being *the* desktop/workstation version of Debian, like Windows 95 was to Windows NT.


I maintain that what causes it all to Just Work (TM) is more an Ubuntu concept, than a Debian thing. I don't think that is so terrible a thought. I'm sorry I don't think Debian is perfect.
Actually, Debian "just works" just fine. It needs tweaks here and there, but so does Ubuntu. If it didn't, there would be no need for the Ubuntu User Guide. In fact, what is more attractive about Ubuntu is the community support, and the very good documentation put out, such as the user guide. That is what sways me, 90% the documentation, 10% the software... of course the vast majority of that same documentation is just as helpful for Debian, because, let me repeat, the software is almost identical bar very few packages. As far as being perfect, well, there *is no* perfect Linux distro. If there was, there would be only one.

I'm going to snip the religious ideology, as it's obvious it's more religion than logic for you. No need to accentuate that any more than has already been done. It's bad enough that users of other OS's call us religious Linux zealots, you seem to want to prove them right.

[bob_c_b]

My question on this community chat is, if Ubuntu were to use something else as a base or perhaps, develop everything from scratch, not necessarily in the near future as so many pragmatists are desperate to point out, would you stop using Ubuntu because it is no longer dependent on Debian? Dare you allow others to entertain such a question, think such a thought without insulting his/her intelligence, biting his/her head off and feeding him/her to the lions?

Debian is a signpost that points to Ubuntu. Long live Ubuntu.

Perhaps you do not understand that one of the tenets of F/OSS is re-using good software? That there is no reason to "start from scratch" as a tremendous amount of heavy lifting (far more than you apparently appreciate) has already been done by the Debian folks. That Free software and code are gifts that are designed and purposed to be re-used/re-touched/re-distributed. That there is no legitimate hostility between distros an what makes one distro stronger makes all of them/us stronger. You really need to read up on the whole ethos and philosophy of F/OSS, seriously. \\:D/

[poofyhairguy]

My question on this community chat is, if Ubuntu were to use something else as a base or perhaps, develop everything from scratch, not necessarily in the near future as so many pragmatists are desperate to point out, would you stop using Ubuntu because it is no longer dependent on Debian?

Good question. I personally like Ubuntu just as much for the things in the "Main" as in the "Universe" so i will say no.

No other distro has as many packages in one central place like Debian. Since a split from Debian would require leaving the Universe behind (this is a fact seeing as how most of it comes straight from debian) I would not like a this sort of Ubuntu.

You might try to argue that Ubuntu could not leave the Universe behind, but that would require EVERY package maintainer in Debian switching to Ubuntu as a MOTU. President Bush would marry a gay man before that would happen.

So "Ubuntu without Debian" is "Ubuntu without the Universe Repository." No thanks I say.

[aysiu]

I often recall how many of my zealous Mac friends used to swear on their parents' graves that its OS could only run on the 68K. Then the PowerPC. How that was the superior processor etc. How long has it been, 20 years? Today, most of them shuffle their feet and shyly admit what a good thing the Intel switch is. Somehow I don't see them dumping their Macs in protest because it now uses Intel. The thing is, we all know the words "always" and "never" do not, cannot apply to computing. While you should never say never, there is a major difference between the Mac architecture thing and Ubuntu's Debian base.

Most Mac users (not crazy zealots) have no idea what architecture their computer uses, and even if they do, the architecture doesn't really appear to them to have any direct effect on their computer use. They still press the power button to turn the computer on, drag program icons into the Applications folder to install them, and click on the dock to launch programs.

The Debian base directly affects Ubuntu users' use, as most users will use Synaptic or apt-get install packages. It's not just some theoretical, behind-the-scenes distinction (Debian v. non-Debian) as the architecture issue is (PPC v. Intel).

[iraenius]

Thanks for the posts. Many good points. I don't think the orange juice and orange analogy is a good one though because the elements I am comparing are not "orange juice to orange" but "refreshing drink to orange" - there is a perception I am referring to the "lower" technical aspects of Ubuntu Linux, when I am talking about the higher aspects (model, marketing, appealing to unwashed, ease of use, promise of freedom); things I don't believe Debian has a monopoly on.

[jobezone]

This is probably a naive question, but why does Ubuntu still need to be tied to Debian? Is it because its packages are Debian packages? I get an impression as a newbie that Ubuntu packages are somehow reengineered and feel very native and not kludgy. I also get an impression that Debian is increasingly less friendly towards Ubuntu, and that the so called DCCA (or whatever it is) appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to either constrain Ubuntu or capitalize on Ubuntu's success. Unlike Mark, who is a philantropist, I get a sneaking feeling that Ian at Debian is somewhat greedy, and maybe resentful and jealous of Ubuntu's success. Well, if he is, all I can say is he had a lot more time to get it right but did not. That being said, I think I speak for most people that my loyalties lie with Ubuntu because of the end result, rather than Debian just because it happens to be the "base" -- if Ubuntu were to move away from Debian and be its own from-scratch distro, I'd have no qualms. As a finished product, it is really a lot better than the much touted lots-of-potential-because-it-can-be-so-flexible Debian; its "limitless" potential resulted in a paralyzed common denominator end result, IMHO.

You have to remember that Ian murdock is not a Debian developer or part of Debian anymore.

Anyway, without the Debian system and support underneath it would be impossible to do what Ubuntu devs do today: take a snapshot of the current unstable Debian every 6 months, and spend the remaining time until release to refine, build on and improve it. Besides, I wouldn't say that Debian is any lesser than Ubuntu, it is after all intended to be a multi-purpose operating system (as its tagline tells, "The Universal Operating System"), and I think it quite achieves that. It can be used as a desktop computer (which I use), but also for many other things (and so can Ubuntu). I do think that Ubuntu has been a shot in the arm in free software, linux, distributions and Debian specifically. And their popularity for it is well deserved.

[metadocks]

Most Mac users (not crazy zealots) have no idea what architecture their computer uses, and even if they do, the architecture doesn't really appear to them to have any direct effect on their computer use. They still press the power button to turn the computer on, drag program icons into the Applications folder to install them, and click on the dock to launch programs.

Wow! [-X I'm glad this isn't inflammatory... give Mac users a little more credit, man.

[az]

Dare you allow others to entertain such a question, think such a thought without insulting his/her intelligence, biting his/her head off and feeding him/her to the lions?

Debian is a signpost that points to Ubuntu. Long live Ubuntu.


Actually, GNU is a river. From my side of the riverbank I call it debian. From you side, you call it Ubuntu.

If you actually listen to the other users on the forums, you will find we entertain an amazing assortment of ideas. Sorry that your's hasn't stimulated any interest so far.

Long live GNU.

[az]

You have to remember that Ian murdock is not a Debian developer or part of Debian anymore.


Actually, I think he still maintains some packages.


Mark Shuttleworth was supposed to start again, as well.

[aysiu]

Wow! [-X I'm glad this isn't inflammatory... give Mac users a little more credit, man. I wasn't trying to single out Mac users in particular. I think Windows users are the same way. They couldn't care less if their computers were running on Intel, PPC, or whatever. They just want it to run. I'm not saying all Mac users. I'm actually just saying the vast majority of computer users in general.

[bugmenot]

Shuttleworth gave a talk on Debian and Ubuntu's relation at DebConf 5 back in July. There's a video that anyone interested in first hand info should check out here http://dc5video.debian.net/ogg_theora/2005-07-14/02b-Ubuntu_Talk-Mark_Shuttleworth.ogg

It's 132 meg'ish, so you need a big pipe.

[Ibuntu_52]

Because ubuntu is based on debian is why I first tried it.

I was just looking for a debian based distro with more bleeding edge packages.
I also happened to find a great online communtiy as well:)

[Teroedni]

Debian rocks
What would i do without apt-get:smile:

[angkor]

EDIT: dammit...didn't read the date, Oops :)

Sorry, nothing to see here.

[zubrug]

I understand what you are asking. Good question.
Think of it like this, most lawn mower manufacturer's use a briggs & straton or honda motor (in canada) Then they build there own version of a lawn mower around that engine and market under there brand emphasising there accessories and features.
The main differance is a lawnmower rep would not call you ignorant for asking why they don't build the whole mower, engine and all. they would explain the benefits of there choice.

[nickle]

Never forget... We all stand on the shoulders of giants....

[sagarhshah]

I'm a debian developer.
I needed a desktop for home which was debian like but easier then debian to understand and use especially with kids around.

Having tried various different debian based distros I think Ubuntu hit the sweet spot in the way how everything pretty much Just Works(apparently TMed).

I ain't gonna bother writing why it should not leave debian as its base as there have been many posts already on it.

But I hope it never does leave debian as its base otherwise I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of users who will leave ubuntu in search of another debian based distro.

Ubuntu was the first Linux Desktop my missus approved of saying it was easier to use then Windows(TM) and theres no worries about spyware and viruses lol

[tseliot]

But I hope it never does leave debian as its base otherwise I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of users who will leave ubuntu in search of another debian based distro.
I agree with you. If it weren't for Debian I don't know what Ubuntu would have been.

Don't get me wrong: Ubuntu is my favourite distro but I also like Debian (Etch)

[Lord Illidan]

In my eyes, I find that Ubuntu is powerful because of Debian. It gets ease of use, good looks and the like from its own developers, and a mass of apps, and the apt-get system from Debian.

Why switch?

[kencoe]

This analogy makes no sense. Ubuntu is an OS, and Debian is an OS. FedEx is a delivery service, and GM is an automobile manufacturer.

Ubuntu:Debian::FedEx:GM Truck

would mean that GM Truck is also a delivery company.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why Ubuntu should "de-link" itself from Debian... not that it matters. Even if everyone in this thread agreed Ubuntu should, Ubuntu wouldn't.
I would also point out that most FEDEX trucks are freightliniers. Sorry, but it had to be said.

I would give you a compelling argument if I tought one was there, but I have to go the other way on this. If we started forking away from our sources, wouldn't we run the risk of not only losing all of those pre-packaged installs (*.deb) but also fragmenting the source and losing compliance with FHS and LSB?

I am not really certain of the degree of compliance to begin with (can't find anything on it), but I would have to assume that forking out would drop it lower. This would make Ubuntu less stable and less supported and, therefore, less popular.

[G Morgan]

To be honest when I googled 'lsb linux' the site at the top (which was the free standards group) didn't even mention Debian or any deb distro. Everything seemed to be RPM based.

[Gustav]

To be honest when I googled 'lsb linux' the site at the top (which was the free standards group) didn't even mention Debian or any deb distro. Everything seemed to be RPM based.
It's in their definition that you have to be rpm based to be certified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

[helpme]

It's in their definition that you have to be rpm based to be certified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
No, you don't.
You just have to support a subset of rpm to be certified, just like Ubuntu does for example.
sudo apt-get install lsb.

[G Morgan]

This (http://freestandards.org/en/LSB) is the site I was looking at. Wiki suggests that an LSB system only needs to support RPM's for 3rd party applications.

[kencoe]

This (http://freestandards.org/en/LSB) is the site I was looking at. Wiki suggests that an LSB system only needs to support RPM's for 3rd party applications.
You may want to click the link for the LSB roadmaps. It specifically mentions SUSE (Novell), Asianux, and Debian in the roadmap, and proposes all access repositories comply with standard install base (perl, python...).

RedHat is mentioned alot in the site because they are a primary sponsor of this program. Debian would be3 mentioned just as much if our distros started giving more input. This is not a vendor specific development. It is quite the opposite.

This is, however, a young effort. Now is the time to start providing input before it get tailored too far into one distro...

[lapsey]

tbh I trust debians fanatical stability over any other distro. Ubuntu is great for a desktop but given the choice of server I'd take debian.

And again, it makes for a fantastic base distro, and adheres to the spirit of free software like no other. It would be a sad day if Debian went away.

[AndyCooll]

To me Debian is still (and I hope always will be) an integral part of Linux distros. If for no other reason than its philosophy!

In truth it is much more important than that. It is the core of the success of more distros than any other. And I hope that Ubuntu's approach of contributing back (which I believe this is a similar approach to most of the other Debian based distros too) will long continue.

:cool:

[Adamant1988]

The only flaw I see to sticking with Debian would be if Debian decided to take the road less traveled and Ubuntu didn't feel like joining them on the trip.

Regardless, It's F/oss the whole point is to re-use and improve on code, "Don't reinvent the wheel, evolve it". Rather than seeing Improvements coming in bursts with long terms of development in between you're seeing a constant stream of improvement with much less time in between.

The only problem is that Ubuntu becomes reliant on Debian and while in a respect that does give debian a degree of 'power' over Ubuntu, there's only so much the debian developers could do to hurt Ubuntu intentionally without causing Debian a lot of damage as well. Like I said, it seems that what is good for debian is good for Ubuntu and so forth so unless Debian does something very radical in the future that poses a severe threat to Ubuntu as a distribution, I don't have a problem with the debian base.

So should ubuntu split from debian? I don't think so, right now the two seem to be beneficial to each other if anything...

[RavenOfOdin]

I see absolutely no reason for the OP's initial rant.

Debian is one hell of a distro and if the Debian developers were to simply pack up and leave, I think Ubuntu would be nowhere. Aren't some of the Ubuntu developers on the Debian project as well? Besides which, this idea that Ubuntu is so far above Debian simply because it has a shorter release cycle is ridiculous!

A community that doesn't facilitate development between itself and its parent distribution, takes undue credit for the free software philosophy (creates its own at that), and also has users which get attitudes like the OP's, really makes me start to see why Debian devs get hostile.

This is just my 2 cents, y'all take it how you will.

[Johnsie]

It's quite simple... You can't build a good house without a good foundation.

Debian is a good foundation. It's a solid rock that has been there for years and is known to work well.

Ubuntu could build it's own foundation.... That would cost a lot more money, take more time and in the end the foundation may not be quite as good.

Building a new foundation would mean that there would be less resources and cash availble for distributing Ubuntu and paying for many of the other things we love about this OS. Why re-invent the wheel if it's already there and works well? Why no just improve the wheel?

Also, Debian takes a long time to develop because it's so complex and full of stuff. If Ubuntu people had to do that work it would be very difficult for them to keep Ubuntu up-to-date because it would take longer to produce the operating system.

[w_r_cromwell]

Werent we all debian fans before ubuntu......
Thats how I learned after I dropped Slackware.

Actually I came to Ubuntu after years using RedHat. I'm still using RedHat but wouldn't recommend it to new "unwashed" people coming over from MS Windows.

Bill

[brentoboy]

I cant help it, I must comment.

First, on branching.

Mandrake branched from red hat. It inherited the RPM way of installing things. Which is fine and dandy. Except now Mandrake and RedHat aren’t completely compatible, so if you find a redhat rpm file, it might not work on Mandrake (or Mandriva, or whatever they call themselves today). If mandrake was still "tied" to redhat, they would be more compatible. The short story here is that mandrake would be viewed as separate from Red Hat whether or not they truly forked they way they have. Ubuntu stays strong by staying compatible with debian, because we end up with a wider compatibility base.

Second, the Lion's share.

Earlier it was asked "Does debian really do the lion's share?" the answer is, truthfully, yes! Ubuntu does the 5% that makes the biggest difference -- to you. The difference being that Debian built the house, and ubuntu painted it and updated the kitchen. Who did the real work? The thing is, once I move into the house, I appreciate the fresh paint and the new dishwasher more than the foundation, but the foundation and the woodwork is the lion's share.

Third, falling behind.

The fastest way for ubuntu to fall behind the pack would be to separate from debian. It would be similar to saying: Ubuntu's version of the kernel has better hardware support out of the box than any other linux, therefore, we can separate from the linux kernel, and build from what we have already, ignoring the contributions of thousands of developers adding support for new devices and new technologies. Being "better" today and separating yourself from the group means that you are instantly behind the rest of the group in a matter of hours. Ubuntu's few dozen dev's cant compete with the 1000s out there working on linux. Breaking out of debian is much the same as breaking out of linux -- sure, it could be done, and you would still have ubuntu, but you are no longer being carried along by the group.

Fourth, Momentum

Debian has a HUGE amount of momentum. It isn’t as polished as ubuntu, so it doesn’t seem as exciting to you, but Ubuntu's project is to polish debian. each new version of ubuntu is not much more than a re-polish of the current debian. If we stopped "stealing" the latest thing from the debian project and polishing it up, we would loose all that momentum, and we would only be as fast as a few dozen devs can be.

Fifth, Jealousy

Whether it is an official jealousy or not, and whether it is lasting or just occasional, and whether it exists at all, it is easy to see why there is room for jealousy. The debian project does a huge amount of work. And they do a good job of sticking to their mission statement. Ubuntu modifies a few of the core debian focuses, and gets something more popular. With a following -- like yourself -- committed to ubuntu, not debian. There is room for a lot of jealousy there, and understandably so.

I mean, think about it. Suppose you selflessly give away your time and effort working on debian, for the good of the free software world. Your only reward is appreciation. You are even cool enough to let other people take your work and build on it. Ubuntu thanks debian, debian appreciates it. Thousands and Thousands of ubuntuites don’t recognize that Debian is a key player here. The "thanks for a job well done." becomes: "why do we need you anyway" that kind of belittles your contribution, which is a perfectly normal reason to spark a little bit of jealousy.

I don’t generally use debian, I like ubuntu a lot better.
but, debian deserves two thumbs up. Three if you have them.

[elamericano]

Has anyone called the original poster ignorant yet? OK, with that out of the way, how on earth could you dismiss thousands of Debian developers vs. 15 Ubuntu developers?? You would fork every package in Ubuntu just to prove a point?!

Sorry you took it so hard being set straight, but I hope you're not too mad to see what were your misconceptions. There's a lot of good information in this thread, if you are willing to see that.

[w_r_cromwell]

Thanks for the posts. Many good points. I don't think the orange juice and orange analogy is a good one though because the elements I am comparing are not "orange juice to orange" but "refreshing drink to orange" - there is a perception I am referring to the "lower" technical aspects of Ubuntu Linux, when I am talking about the higher aspects (model, marketing, appealing to unwashed, ease of use, promise of freedom); things I don't believe Debian has a monopoly on.

Hi,

Well I just can't resist any longer. The key things I noticed in your original post were statements about you maybe not having all the pieces and asking for them. They were given but you just "know" they are wrong. Somebody else suggested you are really more interested in stirring the pot than getting answers to reasonable questions. Do you think you are fooling us? Maybe you really are fooling yourself.

Bill

[ezsit]

Why do I care? Well, as is obvious, Ubuntu is succeeding wildly not because of Debian, but because it espouses and embodies certain characteristics that make it very appealing many types of users. For example, it feels truly and refreshingly free.

Free? Debian is the essence of freedom, in both senses of the word. the Debian project is defined by the principles of FOSS.

This is amazing considering it originates from a non-Western developed country. Debian has an air of unfnishedness about it, so much so that in order to make it "real" even peopl elike Ian has a need to spin off a separate distro like Progeny.

Debian is worldwide! There are Debian developers located in every continent. I don't know how much more global a distribution could possibly be. Sure, Debian is headquartered in the U.S., but it is developed all over the world.

As for being "unfinished," Debian (as every GNU/Linux distribution) is a work in progress. All GNU/Linux distributions are unfinished, that is the way of FOSS. Debian's stable branch is by far the most stable distribution out there, much more stable than Ubuntu chooses to be. This is not a put-down, but Ubuntu chooses to use Debian's UNSTABLE repositories, so by design, Ubuntu is LESS stable than Debian's stable release.

The Progeny distribution is not a statement about Debian. Like every other distribution in existence, Progeny is someone's vision for what they want their GNU/Linux to be. Progeny is the manifestation of what Ian Murdoch wants to deliver in a GNU/Linux system. He chose to base Progeny off of Debian, but he also produced products based from RedHat sources as well.

Contrast this with Ubuntu's implication that the product is great enough, hence one pofits from expert support of it, not from trying spin of a "more real" version. In a sense it is a classic example of a more capitalistic model versus a more social model (hence the Ubuntu namesake). The market is both cruel and honest, Debian and even its reduxes like Knoppix have in no way been as visible or as rapid in its acceptance as Ubuntu. And they have had a head start of years.

Huh? These sentences makes no sense, or are very poorly written. Ubuntu is supported by a commercial entity and expects to profit by providing technical support for Ubuntu Linux. This assumption that there is money to be made from supporting a GNU/Linux distribution is far more capitalistic than Debian's philosophy of producing great code for the benefit of the entire world to use freely.

Ubuntu has altered Debian sources to the point of producing incompatible sources and binaries. This act belies an assumption by Ubuntu developers that the Debian codebase is inherently deficient and in need to improvement. Progeny has always prided itself on strict adherence to Debian compliance and standardization. Ubuntu is much less "real" as you would put it than a Progeny.

Why do I care? Because the things that make Ubuntu successful transcend Debian, and are so in spite of Debian, and I wouldn't like to see Ubuntu unnecessarily hampered or hindered in the future by by a slavish dependence on Debian.

The things that make Ubuntu successful are simple - it is simple to install and use, period. There is no greater philosophical reason for Ubuntu's success. I use Ubuntu because it meets my needs and does so with grace and simplicity. Debian could do the same, but I'd have to spend alot more time getting it to where I want it to be. Ubuntu has done most of the work of simplifying Debian for me and has allowed me to merely install-and-go.

As for Ubuntu transcending Debian, I think you got it backwards. Debian is the parent, Ubuntu the child. The child may do somethings better, but the parent provides the genes. If you remove the genes, the child ceases to be. Ubuntu is nothing without Debian.

Do you really think that Ubuntu could handle the entire development process by itself from the current codebase? The Ubuntu developers customize Debian packages, but they could not maintain them to the extent that the Debian community does. If Ubuntu chose to spin-off, as it were, they would continue to be very much indebted to the Debian developers who would necessarily provide much of the development and maintenance work.

Especially when there is an -- agenda questionable -- external movement to "certify" Debian-ness.

I think you have this backward as well. Ubuntu is the primary concern for conspiracy theorists, not the Debian community. The Debian community is driven by alturism. Ubuntu is driven by Canonical Ltd.

[slavik]

Debian-Stable is VERY stable (but old, too). Ubuntu is making the Debian-Unstable branch more popular (because even Debian-Unstable is damn stable).

[flaak_monkey]

i like to think of Debian as DOS, but more useful and vital to the survivbal of Ubuntu than DOS is to Windows. They keep bring the basic key features and Ubuntu deribves the rest from themselves.

[panickedthumb]

Guys the OP hasn't been online since September 12th :)
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=37949

There's little purpose in trying to convince him anymore.

[deanlinkous]

Guys the OP hasn't been online since September 12th :)
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=37949

There's little purpose in trying to convince him anymore.
Oh sure... had to tell us that didn't ya. :) I feel that debian is the clay from which you mold something. You have to work with it a bit if you want to make something yourself. Or you can just grab what someone has molded from it.

[deanlinkous]

I get an impression as a newbie that Ubuntu packages are somehow reengineered and feel very native and not kludgy.
I never get the kludgy feeling from my debian packages. But I willa dmit I don't get much feeling from them at all.

I also get an impression that Debian is increasingly less friendly towards Ubuntu
I think you got the wrong impression. It is a community and sometimes there are tensions but at the end of the day it is still the community.

and that the so called DCCA (or whatever it is) appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to either constrain Ubuntu or capitalize on Ubuntu's success
WHAT??? How would they constrain ubuntu or capitalize on the success? All distros benefit from Ubuntus success as well as improvements made by the ubuntu team.

Unlike Mark, who is a philantropist, I get a sneaking feeling that Ian at Debian is somewhat greedy, and maybe resentful and jealous of Ubuntu's success.
Well Ian isn't at Debian no more than any other user/devel is. I have no idea why he would be resentful or jealous either. I actually do not care if my fav distro is the most popular or not. I would rather let Ubuntu have all the fame and popularity and I just get to quietly use the improvements they make. :)

That being said, I think I speak for most people that my loyalties lie with Ubuntu because of the end result,rather than Debian just because it happens to be the "base" -- if Ubuntu were to move away from Debian and be its own from-scratch distro, I'd have no qualms. As a finished product, it is really a lot better than the much touted lots-of-potential-because-it-can-be-so-flexible Debian; its "limitless" potential resulted in a paralyzed common denominator end result, IMHO.
Keep thinking that! :) It is better as a finished product if that is what you are looking for. I on the other hand would rather mold my debian clay for myself. Just the same as others rather have a pre-molded debian clay. :)

I am so silly...

[patrickfromspain]

I just will say once: I don't get how you can be a fan of ubuntu and not of Debian. Debian is possibly the most succesfull and biggest FOSS project. It has taken a lot of work and effort by hundreds of people since over 10 years and has shown a real way on how to develop succesfully and coordinated. I think we all deserve respect and admiration to debian.

[pgmer6809]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian? Again, pardon my naivete, but in my primitive view of the Linux distro universe, we appear to have the "first tier" types who do not seem to be (significantly and constantly) based on another distro (e.g. Red Hat, SUSE, Slackware, Turbo Linux et al). While they are building on the work of others, they do so at a lower, closer to the metal level; they do not carry that same degree of "dependency" perception that is reflected when we say Ubuntu is based on Debian. Why is that? If the only argument is that it is too much work, well, have Ubuntu developers not already invested a substantial amount of work to make it so uniquely Ubuntu? Are we saying the Debian elements are the lion's share of the work? I find that hard to believe considering the many other distros out there that are not based on some other. Would it be too much more work to make it "first tier" too and unreliant of Debian? It sometimes appears to me that Debianites exhibit a certain amount of arrogance in wanting recognition that Ubuntu is dependent on (seemingly only) Debian, and appear to be in some sort of denial that Ubuntu's strengths have less to do with Debian (an incidental choice of convenience in my opinion) and more on the philosophies behind Ubuntu. Like I said before, Debian has had a good many years to be as successful as Ubuntu insofar as success is measured as being readily accepted by the great unwashed. Unfortunately it hasn't. Whatever it is that is causing Debian's anemia, I would prefer it not to (ultimately) affect Ubuntu. I know this must seem like heresy to Debian lovers. But like I said before, my fan loyalties lie with Ubuntu.

-----------------
A good set of questions.
My thinking is that a 'distro' does a lot of work. They start with the kernel source, compile it for various architectures, bundle in various pieces such as X org, desktops, GNU Tools, etc. and test it all.
That is a LOT of work.
By basing their release on DEBIAN Ubuntu does not have to do all that and can focus on adding (or subtracting) those pieces and configurations that are the most value to its user base.
Sure if there were many more Ubuntu volunteers, and they ran out of work to do (<grin>) they could start to dup the Debian work, but at the momment, I am glad they do not, and instead focus on things like getting all those neat features to work 'out of the box'.

[kinematic]

it doesn't matter what the op thinks the future of ubuntu should be.
he isn't the one who started the ubuntu project.
he's also not the project leader and he didn't set up a 10 million dollar fund to secure the future of ubuntu
the only thing that matters is what shuttleworth and co think and we all know that they will never de-link ubuntu form debian.
if someone doesn't like....don't use ubuntu....end of story ;)

[rattlerviper]

We still need Debian because...
It's part of the wonderful thing about Open Source, why duplicate efforts? Why take a seperate path when you don't HAVE to?

[baldy1324]

ok no to be mean but basically to educate you on what ubuntu does.-
debian developers package up latest and greatest software into debian sid (unstable) repository. then every 6 months take this debian sid and freezes it (or gets all bugs out and stops upgrading versions of packages). then ubuntu adds new "innovative" features like networkmanager and xgl, and hardware detection.
the punchline - ubuntu is basically 75% all debian developer's dirty work.
THAT is why everyone needs debian or else ubuntu and all of debian's dirivities would be DIRT. and yes i do use debian but still support and recommend ubuntu

[deanlinkous]

And some of the devels that work for ubuntu are also debian maintainers as well. Work that is done on ubuntu often makes its way back to debian. Any idea how the debian installer went from needing a reboot to start stage two of the install to doing it in one shot....yea ubuntu! Look at most any debian based distro and you will see packages with the word ubuntu in them including debian itself. Work on Xorg also springs to mind.

So it is a good team....

[SoundMachine]

ok no to be mean but basically to educate you on what ubuntu does.-
debian developers package up latest and greatest software into debian sid (unstable) repository. then every 6 months take this debian sid and freezes it (or gets all bugs out and stops upgrading versions of packages). then ubuntu adds new "innovative" features like networkmanager and xgl, and hardware detection.
the punchline - ubuntu is basically 75% all debian developer's dirty work.
THAT is why everyone needs debian or else ubuntu and all of debian's dirivities would be DIRT. and yes i do use debian but still support and recommend ubuntu

Up the percentage to 95% debian and i'll agree with you.

Maintaining 20k+ packages vs, 99% just running them through a script mill and adding a few leads me to that number.

[jpyanowski]

I can not believe that no one has called a troll alert on you. 3 pages of discussions about... this??? Paleeessseee.:mad:

[mo79]

I think Ubuntu is still tied to Debian out of love for the work done (and continuing to) and for no animosity with it (even if, maybe Debian folk might have qualms with it).
Though not entirely the case, Ubuntu is partly succesful because of good marketing (as well as a really brilliant distro; defining for many of us). I don't think Debian has the muscle or real care for that sort of thing.

Also, though Ubuntu seems to have the goal to be "the" Linux, it realises and fully accepts it won't ever be the only one, therefore whatever Ubuntu creates will benefit both upstreams such as Debian and downstreams as any other derivative. Meaning that if Ubuntu somehow completely died, there are other 'cells' out there continuing the mission.

However, I don't think Ubuntu will die and probably will be a significant desktop/server competitor for the long haul because of Canonical's vigour. And if at a later date Ubuntu decides to be totally unique (even charge) I wouldn't mind personally...For me Ubuntu's success just means at least taking away a bit from the PC OS fascism.

[sardion]

Wow. I know they say the devs aren't very active here but really.... this discussion is offensive (I guess I am a rarity here, someone who actually contributes to the project). Don't get me wrong, all of us open source programmers are happy you guys are using all our stuff. But...

The short answer is that 99% of what you call "Ubuntu" is Debian. And the anemia you mention is simply not a reality. Debian is one thing. Ubuntu is a very nicely polished product built on top of it. Both gain immensely from each other. The Ubuntu team can spend their time polishing the product and making it user-friendly, especially for nontechnical people. Debian gets more user feedback from Ubuntu than they have ever had before.

The competition is M$. The rest of us are in this together.

[igknighted]

Why do I care? Well, as is obvious, Ubuntu is succeeding wildly not because of Debian, but because it espouses and embodies certain characteristics that make it very appealing many types of users. For example, it feels truly and refreshingly free. This is amazing considering it originates from a non-Western developed country. Debian has an air of unfnishedness about it, so much so that in order to make it "real" even peopl elike Ian has a need to spin off a separate distro like Progeny. Contrast this with Ubuntu's implication that the product is great enough, hence one pofits from expert support of it, not from trying spin of a "more real" version. In a sense it is a classic example of a more capitalistic model versus a more social model (hence the Ubuntu namesake). The market is both cruel and honest, Debian and even its reduxes like Knoppix have in no way been as visible or as rapid in its acceptance as Ubuntu. And they have had a head start of years. Why do I care? Because the things that make Ubuntu successful transcend Debian, and are so in spite of Debian, and I wouldn't like to see Ubuntu unnecessarily hampered or hindered in the future by by a slavish dependence on Debian. Especially when there is an -- agenda questionable -- external movement to "certify" Debian-ness.

I think you are way off base here. Ubuntu is just pretty wrapping paper on top of a rock solid foundation. Debian is what did all the work to provide an environment for Ubuntu, and Ubuntu cannot forget that. Ubuntu is good at packaging up a solid product so lots of people can use it, and if they try to go beyond that they will be stretched too thin. Also, FOSS ideals NEED to be preserved. Debian is free in the purest sense, and needs to be respected for that. Completely free isn't for everyone (hence Ubuntu), but it's the best place to start.

^^^^ read the post right before me, exactly what I am talking about.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Debian is a good cornerstone of the open source belief, plus I think Debian is one of the best developed out of all the core distros.
The .deb format is wonderful, far better then its RPM offshoot.
I dont think the world would be the same without it.

[harley_frog]

I can not believe that no one has called a troll alert on you. 3 pages of discussions about... this??? Paleeessseee.:mad:

Agreed. Reminds me of the general guidelines for USENET:


Do not feed the trolls; it only encourages them.
Do not start a flamewar if you aren't wearing a Nomex suit.


That being said, Debian is an awesome distro. I may be wrong in saying this, but I believe there are more distros based on Debian (and its derivatives) than any other "mother" distro (e.g. Red Hat, Slackware, etc.).

Part of the reason (although not the only one) is the APT package manager. Having switched to Debian from Red Hat, I have to say I do not miss dependency hell for anything.

And since Debian markets itself as a "universal operating system", it makes it easier for others to create distros for SPARC, Power PC, MIPS, and other processors. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of someone running Debian on an old TI calculator. :wink:

Viva la Debian! Viva l'Ubuntu!

[gruffy-06]

Why do I care? Well, as is obvious, Ubuntu is succeeding wildly not because of Debian, but because it espouses and embodies certain characteristics that make it very appealing many types of users. For example, it feels truly and refreshingly free.

But Ubuntu is not truly free because of proprietary software installed by default.

[jdhore]

the short answer is that we still need Debian...it's faster and a lot more stable than Ubuntu for one and a lot of people (myself included) like that it's not all noobish where everything's already setup for you (like Ubuntu). For example, it took me 4 hours to get my PCMCIA wifi card working on Debian, but it worked right on the LiveCD of Ubuntu. Yes it took 4 hours, but i learned a lot. That's one thing that Ubuntu ius missing, the requirement to have a brain and the ability to learn a lot of stuff.

[handy]

There can come a time when you get a bit tired of solving computer problems & you do want things to just work!

There is nothing wrong with either way of doing things, but many people don't want to spend half a working day solving a computer problem, they would rather be using the thing! :)

Using a computer doesn't mean that you are not using your brain either...

As opposed to sitting in front of a TV... :-)

@Poofyhairguy; Your post #14 of this thread was excellent in my view, from your post & many of the others too, I found this to be a very educational thread, thankyou :-)

[factotum218]

I think the Ubuntu devs are fond of receiving .deb packages. Thats one reason I can think of.

Another is I have been using it for the last five or six years on my desktop.
Im sure there are 5 or6 or a few thousand people who would be in my situation as well.

[plb]

I'd say easily more than 5 or 6 thousand :) Besides Ubuntu NEEDS Debian. Where do you think 90% of there packages come from...right out of debian unstable.