More Fallout from the DCCA......

[KingBahamut]

As quoted from osnews.com

"Ubuntu never positioned itself as a Debian derivative, like Xandros, Mepis, or Knoppix. Ubuntu publicly acknowledges its relationship with Debian, and Canonical, through its recently founded Ubuntu foundation, hires some Debian developers. All this should be good news; but for some it's not. Whether on Distrowatch or on forums, voices whisper that Ubuntu has a dirty secret you may not want to hear: they don't keep the compatibility with Debian, and they want to fork away from their mother distribution."

External Links
http://www.libervis.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=28

The whole article is leaned on the DCCA. Probably my favorite quote from the article is this one

Now, Ubuntu is trying to imitate Debian; Since it refuses to integrate inside the Debian framework, it captures its own community, and takes all the goodwill of volunteers who used to travell from and to projects like Knoppix and Debian for itself. It's rather shameful to do this in my opinion, but I hope it is now clear that Ubuntu has at least an agenda. It is now progressively forking from its Debian core base, and is also forking its community. Thanks to the millions of Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu became the number one distribution for desktop by giving away CDs to the masses and living in parasite on the Debian core base. Well done Mr. Shuttleworth, well done Ubuntu, you have showed us how to take power inside a community and turn it to your own advantage.

This to me is the sign of a sore loser, or what would equate to it. Rather than have Ubuntu exist in the Consortium to fix Debians problems , like Im sure that Murdock would wish it to do so, Ubuntu moves on its own accord and actions. Its comments like this one that dont make me think even in the slightest that our Distro is anything but about Humanism.

[weasel fierce]

How much money is Shuttleworth making off Ubuntu ? How many CD's have been given away to students or schools ?

Right.. "own advantage" indeed...

[Kyral]

I love how they keep blasting us for forking. Isn't one of the values of GNU the right to fork?

[macgyver2]

I love how they keep blasting us for forking. Isn't one of the values of GNU the right to fork?
I think part of the issue is that Ubuntu really isn't forking in the traditional sense (as in breaking away at one point in time and continuing development on a separate path). Ubuntu is running parallel to Debian and "forking" every few months.

[Artificial Intelligence]

I suggest that people also read the reply to the article, there's some good stuff, thoughts.

[KingBahamut]

Honestly to say that Linspire , Xandros, Knoppix, and Mepis are all part of a grander scheme and Ubuntu is not is a large misconception to me. Debian isnt compatible with those systems anymore than Ubuntu is. Debians sources will break an install of Xandros and Linspire in a heartbeat. Just because they use debian source, and that they ally themselves into the DCCA, it doesnt mean they are any more aggreeable into Debian than we are.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is Ownership. It is not about GNU, GPL, FLOSS, and FOSS to be exclusive. Open means open. Open does not mean -- your taking from my base and as a result your fscking up my community , and destroying my efforts to further myself (speaking as though I were a personified Debian) so you have to join my consortium to help furthering of me, your father. And if you dont I will have my supporters constantly chide you for doing what your doing.

[WirelessMike]

I wonder if all those knoppix-based distros have to put up with this sort of petty ignorance, as well?

What is it, really? Are these accusations, suppositions and narrow-minded assumptions really a combination of shallow research and sheer ignorance, or some sort of grudge against Shuttleworth borne of a narrow mindset and limited understanding, incapable of conceiving how a multi-millionaire could possibly fund such a project without some form of major financial gain?

Is it really so hard to imagine? How many times has someone been heard mentioning what wrongs he or she would right if only he or she had the resources... the means? I have said this, myself, with true sincerity. Yet when it actually occurs-- When someone takes a great idea, then makes it better, then decides to go head-to-head with one of the greatest marketing machines in the world and offer it all for free simply because it should be...

Well, I can believe in benevolence. I'm not saying Shuttleworth is worthy of sainthood, but I do think he deserves a little credit for the Ubuntu manifesto:
that software should be available free of charge, that software tools should be usable by people in their local language and despite any disabilities, and that people should have the freedom to customise and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.

Ubuntu is what it is because Debian is, and because Shuttleworth is, and because I am, and because you are. Fork or no, I don't think we've strayed from the original manifesto in any way. I'd like to see the original author argue with that.

Of course, this is just one zealot's opinion...

[vayu]

Ubuntu is my first and only experience with Linux, and it is very recent at that, so I don't know if my thinking is the same as it would be after I have more experience but I've been having concerns as I invest my time and energy to this distro. While I don't think Charles's tone is warranted I have without knowing that any of these thoughts existed wondered about some of the concerns posted by Ian in this blog:

http://ianmurdock.com/?p=167

To avoid this same fate, we must ensure that the various Debian-derived distros are based on compatible packages, not just a set of packages that have a common lineage. A package built on Progeny should work on Linspire; a package built on Linspire should work on Ubuntu; a package built on Ubuntu should work on Progeny. You get the basic idea.

In particular I think this should be a crucial concern to the Open Source Movement. Differences are important and in Ian's blog he agrees, but there is great power in unity. That's the power that has the potential to keep the corporate abuse in the software industry in check. If the goal is to have the availablity of Open Source Software to everyone including underdeveloped countries then keeping compatibility will achieve that end more convincingly.

I do realize it's a two way street and that Debian should take what Ubuntu offers but that two way street is what is needed for the lofty goal quoted by Ian above. There has to be communication and a mechanism for that to happen. I would really like to see efforts made by both distros to maintain and achieve full compatiblity. From that vantage point each should offer their own personalities.

[matthew]

The problem here is that humans are inherently lazy and selfish. We want others to do the hard work for us and we want credit and attention (glory) for what we have done. Only when we get over that will things like the GPL be unnecessary. It is the codification of virtues like freedom and sharing that have allowed many to overcome their human frailties and contribute to community. The fact that some are griping over Ubuntu's use of Debian resources doesn't shock, amaze, or even mildly surprise me, even though Ubuntu has and is giving back through the Utnubu project (http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/07/msg00165.html). The creation of the DCCA against the expressed wishes of Debian leaders doesn't either, especially since they are trying to impose on Debian as well as all others using their foundation to adhere to THEIR standards. What surprises me is that some are willing to ignore or live above foolish criticism and strive for a personal ideal without compromising already codified agreements or personal values.

[bob_c_b]

The Linux community is often the biggest hurdle Linux has to face, I have never been part of a group that can never be happy at some point. RedHat was the "it" distro and then they got "Too Big"; then Mandrake was popular on the desktop and it was "Too Dumbed Down" and now Ubuntu is the problem? But why? I see lots of giving back to Debian, a clear acknowledgement that we wouldn't be here without Debian, a clear and well published agenda/mailing list/forums/irc #/etc, providing jobs for Debian devs so they can do their thing without worrying about the wolf at the door? Adhering pretty closely to the Debian philosophy, F/OSS tenants and more.

This strikes me as nothing more than sour grapes on part of the some Debian supporters who want it to remain "elite" and bitterness on the part of the DCCA "founders" who probably don't stand to make much profit when another Debian variant is so popular.

[matthew]

This strikes me as nothing more than sour grapes on part of the some Debian supporters who want it to remain "elite" and bitterness on the part of the DCCA "founders" who probably don't stand to make much profit when another Debian variant is so popular.
That ^^ is precisely my read. I think your observation about some people never being happy is valid as well.

[bob_c_b]

I think your observation about some people never being happy is valid as well.

Seriuosly, every time I think I'm a little sick of technology Linux reminds me why I love computing. This is the last great frontier on the PC, free as in speech software has the power to make over the industry again. The current commercial software model is horribly broken and I truly believe only F/OSS can save it, but our own community "bites the hand that feeds" almost daily. I think we should be thrilled every time someone tries ANY distro and likes it, every time someon buys a Linspire PC at WalMart and decides it is cool, every time someone tries a Live CD and starts getting curious and asking those "dumb" questions we have all answered dozens of times.

Why anyone involved in Debian would not be excited we are involved in and promoting Debian, it's philosophy and it's developers is beyond me.

[az]

Free Libre software is source code.

Launchpad focuses on sourcecode.

Canonical wants Launchpad to be the biggest and most comprehensive tool for open source. One-stop shopping. You are a developer, you upload your code to launchpad and maintain it there. Patches are sent to you by people who use your code, bugs are filed.

Want a deb package for that? Want an RPM? You got it. (Exaggeration here, but you get my point)

If you can make source-code incompatibility nonexistant (distributed revision control, for example) it makes binary-compatibility between debian derivatives something less important to worry about.

As Mark Shuttleworth said in a presentation at Debconf, he would prefer to upload a patch upstream (higher upstream than debian) so that everybody gets it (Mandrake, Linspire, RedHat, Slackware....)

So, is that kind of thinking better or worse for Debian?

[az]

I think we should be thrilled every time someone tries ANY distro and likes it, every time someon buys a Linspire PC at WalMart and decides it is cool, every time someone tries a Live CD and starts getting curious and asking those "dumb" questions we have all answered dozens of times.

Why anyone involved in Debian would not be excited we are involved in and promoting Debian, it's philosophy and it's developers is beyond me.


*Precisely* why I installed Freespire (the real one) and sent in my feedback, today. I want them to be great so that more people can use linux. They pour money into the FLOSS ecosystem (as well as patches)

(BTW, Linspire would barely install on my old hardware. By that I mean my hardware, since I do not own "new" hardware.)

[qalimas]

IMO, I think Ubuntu has every right to do what it's doing. I see nothing wrong with it. It's taking Debian, and turning it into a very userfriendly and up to date distrobution. Debian didn't do it, so why complain when someone else does it, only because tehy are more successful now?

And how does Ubuntu not give back? Sources are avaliable, they can take anything they want. If I remember correctly from Shuttleworth's speech, we rebuild at teh final releases to work with Debian.

Every Debian package I've downloaded has worked on Ubuntu, and Ubuntu packages have worked on my Debian box with no problems. Linspire was a different story, I had trouble just trying to get Apt installed!

Ok, my rant is over. I think both are great distrobutions, both are very much needed. I use Ubuntu for my desktop, but I still don't want anything but the real Debian on my server. I think they make the perfect pair for a network.

[poofyhairguy]

I would really like to see efforts made by both distros to maintain and achieve full compatiblity.

The problem with Ian's statement is that Debian is not in the DCCA. In fact, in no way is the DCCA officially associated with Debian. Joining this group is a token notion, because it takes more than a club to ensure binary compatibility. It requires holding back every distro to the lowest common denominator to do that. Not fun.

DCCA!=Debian. Thats the issue no one really wants to talk about. Some days I think Ian made that thing to:

A: Put his project back on the map (Prodigy)

B: Remain relevent as a person in the Debian world.

C: Make Ubuntu look bad because he KNEW that Ubuntu was based on Sid, yet the members of this group have to rally around Sarge. Yes, the same Sarge that has outdated things like Xfree over Xorg and a Gnome of the same level as Warty's.

[vayu]

This is slightly off topic on this thread, but could someone help point me to where I can understand what is the same and what is different between Debian and Ubuntu? What things can the two share and on what levels and what can they not? I usually see threads mentioning that it's not a good idea to mix Debian packages with Ubuntu, why and to exactly what extent? As a newbie I feel that I'm only able to get software that is in the repositories, my tries at compiling things have been unsuccessful and I don't have an understanding of what I'm doing to my system and how to uninstall if things go wrong or how to update.

[mstlyevil]

I really do not see what difference it makes if Ubuntu belongs to DCCA or not as long as Ubuntu is giving back to the community. Everything Ubuntu has done has been open to the debian community for their gain as a whole. I think it boils down more to money and prestiege than Ubuntu's input to the DCCA.

[Buffalo Soldier]

This is slightly off topic on this thread, but could someone help point me to where I can understand what is the same and what is different between Debian and Ubuntu?Hope this will give you some general idea. http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html

The graphic is one of the best description I've seen about Debian-Ubuntu relationship.

[Qrk]

While Ubuntu and Debian users may think the two distros are competing, I'd like to think that the higher up devolopers are getting along. Of course, as a user who isn't in the devolopment, I wouldn't know. But it seems like the people who have problems with ubuntu are not the ones controlling either distro.

[poofyhairguy]

This is slightly off topic on this thread, but could someone help point me to where I can understand what is the same and what is different between Debian and Ubuntu?

Think of them (I'll use an analogy) as two different constitutions for two different governments. But one came first (Debian) and one was based off of this first one with improvements added (Ubuntu).


What things can the two share and on what levels and what can they not?
I usually see threads mentioning that it's not a good idea to mix Debian packages with Ubuntu, why and to exactly what extent?

The reason is that software compiled for Ubuntu might not work with software compiled for Debian. To go back to my analogy, its like the second constitution (Ubuntu) added amendments that makes it so that laws that would work within the framework of the original constitution (Debian) no longer can be legal in the second. In Ubuntu's case, these changes (or deltas as the creator calls them) were made to improve the second work.


As a newbie I feel that I'm only able to get software that is in the repositories,

That is the best way.


my tries at compiling things have been unsuccessful and I don't have an understanding of what I'm doing to my system and how to uninstall if things go wrong or how to update.

Think of tar files (aka programs how they are released in Linux) as laws that are created without a constitution to guide them. When they are packaged and put into repositories, it would be the same as lawmakers changing the unbound laws in ways that work with the constitutions so that they can work within that framework. It takes a lot of effort sometimes to make these files work within a certain framework (just like it takes a while to rewrite a law), so that why software can be released for a while before it is put in a repository. In the Windows world, those that release the software do all the work because there is only one framework. To go back to my analogy, it would be like if the world only had one government- then you could not create a law that did not fit within that framework.

Its late and I used the word "framework" like 8 billion times, but I hope that makes it easier to understand.

[Knome_fan]

Think of them (I'll use an analogy) as two different constitutions for two different governments. But one came first (Debian) and one was based off of this first one with improvements added (Ubuntu).
Not really. While Ubuntu is of course based on debian, things are a little more complex. For example you analogy doesn't take into account patches going back from Ubuntu to Debian, or Ubuntu being based on Debian unstable every 6 months anew.



The reason is that software compiled for Ubuntu might not work with software compiled for Debian. To go back to my analogy, its like the second constitution (Ubuntu) added amendments that makes it so that laws that would work within the framework of the original constitution (Debian) no longer can be legal in the second. In Ubuntu's case, these changes (or deltas as the creator calls them) were made to improve the second work.

Again, not really. One of the main problems, if not the main problem (if you want to call it a problem, that is) is that Ubuntu is based on Debian unstable and unstable, being unstable, constantly changes, while Ubuntu stays fixed for 6 months. So it's much more unstable changing than Ubuntu patching that is causing incompatability.

Anyway, as someone already mentioned, I'd really recommend reading mako's article.

[poofyhairguy]

Anyway, as someone already mentioned, I'd really recommend reading mako's article.

It does do a much better job.

[az]

Again, not really. One of the main problems, if not the main problem (if you want to call it a problem, that is) is that Ubuntu is based on Debian unstable and unstable, being unstable, constantly changes, while Ubuntu stays fixed for 6 months. So it's much more unstable changing than Ubuntu patching that is causing incompatability.


Well said. What is better for Debian? Pouring tons of ressources onto the stable released version or pouring tons of ressources into the unstable yet-to-be-released version?

The dissadvantage of the former is that it does not advance debian all that much, while the dissadvantage of the latter sparks fear that these third-party interventions will somehow take control of debian.