PDA

View Full Version : Yet Another example of Shuttleworth awesomeness.



Wiebelhaus
August 11th, 2009, 04:39 AM
Shuttleworth wants to support Debian (http://www.h-online.com/open/Shuttleworth-wants-to-support-Debian--/news/113963)


In a long posting (http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg00092.html) on the Debian mailing list, Ubuntu sponsor Mark Shuttleworth sets out his position in the dispute over bringing a fixed development cycle (http://www.h-online.com/open/Debian-to-adopt-fixed-release-cycle--/news/113871) to Debian's GNU/Linux distribution. Shuttleworth points out that he has long advocated a model of synchronisation between the various releases of Linux distributions which are based on the same versions of the same core components. Shuttleworth believes that co-ordinated development between Ubuntu and Debian could become a trigger for wider synchronisation of development between all the major distributions and important projects such as the KDE and GNOME desktops.


The controversy in the Debian community about the proposals is less about the fixed development cycle and more about the fact that the release team proposed an early freeze date of December this year, apparently without any preliminary discussion within the Debian community. Shuttleworth addresses this by offering a compromise; if the Debian developers are willing to consider a December freeze, Ubuntu and Canonical will contribute resources to help Debian meet that goal. Shuttleworth says that although this would put a brake on Ubuntu development, he sees the possibility of a regular schedule attracting more distributions, such that there could be a "December freeze summit". There has been a mixed response (http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/threads.html#00092) to the Ubuntu sponsors proposals.

Thanks man , this was and still is my first love affair with Linux. I'd absolutely love to see this happen and fully support and agree with this endeavor!

Cheers.

CJ Master
August 11th, 2009, 05:21 AM
Hmm. So he's planning on trying to make all distrobutions be released in december...? Why? What's the point?

Excedio
August 11th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Hmm. So he's planning on trying to make all distrobutions be released in december...? Why? What's the point?

Christmas present?

orlox
August 11th, 2009, 06:32 AM
Hmm. So he's planning on trying to make all distrobutions be released in december...? Why? What's the point?

The point? Well, most of all, if all the major distributions share release dates, this will motivate most big OS projects to keep they're own release dates accordingly so that major releases coincide with distribution releases. This is severely relevant!

This way, distributions can be very much up to date on the latest and greatest futures of the biggest projects, only missing (possible) small updates, without the need of aquiring a rolling-release model.

Just think of it. If debian, ubuntu, openSuse, etc, have significantly different release dates, probably not even sharing the same number of months that separate each release, then there is no pressure on the projects to reach a "deadline" so they can be included in certain release. Most probably, they'll miss a couple of the "big ones" anyways.

If at least two of the most important players get to an agreement, this will certainly push developers, cause most of them dont want to make a big release, and see it deployed on popular linuxes six months later...

HappinessNow
August 11th, 2009, 06:42 AM
The point? Well, most of all, if all the major distributions share release dates, this will motivate most big OS projects to keep they're own release dates accordingly so that major releases coincide with distribution releases. This is severely relevant!

This way, distributions can be very much up to date on the latest and greatest futures of the biggest projects, only missing (possible) small updates, without the need of aquiring a rolling-release model.

Just think of it. If debian, ubuntu, openSuse, etc, have significantly different release dates, probably not even sharing the same number of months that separate each release, then there is no pressure on the projects to reach a "deadline" so they can be included in certain release. Most probably, they'll miss a couple of the "big ones" anyways.

If at least two of the most important players get to an agreement, this will certainly push developers, cause most of them dont want to make a big release, and see it deployed on popular linuxes six months later...edit: let me research this further...

fontis
August 11th, 2009, 06:44 AM
Hmm. So he's planning on trying to make all distrobutions be released in december...? Why? What's the point?

The reason is fairly obvious.
One has to address the situation we're in right now. Where do we see GNU/Linux operating systems in the next 5 years?

It's fairly evident that the initiative taken by Mark Shuttleworth is to push Ubuntu into mainstream computing. Ubuntu, and the open software community, is dependent on each other.
Ubuntu needs Gnome/KDE, Gnome/KDE need a distro to begin with, distros (like Debian in our case) need the kernel, etc etc.

So in theory, the whole movement is interlinked already. But instead of working with each other to improve the end-user experience, they are scattered. Everyone forking off endlessly. Of course this can be advocated as the "freedom", but the lack of standards and such right now is so stupid. It's like having a marathon runner cut off his own legs before his 100m sprint, and expect to win.

Anyways. I hope something comes out from this. Mark Shuttleworth is possibly the best thing that has ever happened to the open software movement. Someone with a vision to unite, rather than to divide into more "sects". Just look at the packaging systems. There's god knows how many ways of installing or "compiling" a software. There is no easy standard to it.

I sincerely hope that the different forces within the community link up. Although these are baby steps, a common coordination movement like this is extremely necessary if Linux is ever to be an end-user replacement.

orlox
August 11th, 2009, 06:56 AM
edit: let me research this further...
I was just about to quote you when you edited your post :P

I was going to include this little extract from shuttleworth's words from the link above:


Second, this is not about Debian changing to meet the needs of Ubuntu.

There is no merger here. Just a vision to collaborate and enrich the developers ecosystem. Perhaps Ill end reading that mailing list tomorrow, just from the first paragraphs it seems VERY interesting.

lykwydchykyn
August 11th, 2009, 06:56 AM
Great post; I gotta respect the guy. Loved this part:



As for my motivations - I love free software and want it to win. If it wins properly, it will not come in a single package branded "Debian" or "Ubuntu" or "Red Hat", it will come in a coordinated diversity. I have no interest in seeing anything bad happen to Debian.


I'm glad he said that, because I get tired of all the pundits who say "Linux needs to standardize on Ubuntu" or "Everyone just needs to get behind Ubuntu and get rid of all the other distros".

Mark clearly understands that if only one distro "wins", free software loses.

Hallvor
August 11th, 2009, 07:07 AM
Sounds like he wants help from Debian to stabilize Ubuntu while offering very little in return, but I have been wrong before.

Icehuck
August 11th, 2009, 07:17 AM
Sounds like he wants help from Debian to stabilize Ubuntu while offering very little in return, but I have been wrong before.

No, he is just tired of seeing 30 different versions of the KDE Weather Plasmoid.

mcduck
August 11th, 2009, 07:30 AM
Sounds like he wants help from Debian to stabilize Ubuntu while offering very little in return, but I have been wrong before.

I thought it quite clearly stated that he's willing to contribute resources to help Debian's development, even at the expense of Ubuntu's own development.

If that's "very little", what else would they want? Million dollars and a free desktop environment?

I agree with Shuttleworth on this, trying to force people behind one single distribution/package format/desktop environment etc is not going to happen, and would only hurt Linux. On the other hand getting all the different projects to work more tightly together is the way to go. And with release schedules shared between different projects we'd get better releases that include more improvements over previous releases.

In other words releases would get more of the "wow factor" that new Windows and OSX versions have, with more improvements and up-to-date apps included.. This could really help in getting Linux into new people's computers.

gnomeuser
August 11th, 2009, 08:22 AM
I am starting to believe more in the synchronized freeze cycles, this isn't about ensuring everyone releases on the same date but to get them to freeze their API/ABI and toolchain set at that same time. Regardless of when a release happens, that generation of distributions will have the same foundation and any flaw fixed in one will apply to all the others - meaning maintaining a common "stable" branch" is easy.

Additionally should this be made to work we are giving upstreams something to aim for. Typically as an upstream you would have to develop on your own pace and hope your next release makes it in before the feature freeze of the big distros, since these don't have a common and predictable date for this to happen some kind of workaround is needed to make sure your users have your latest bugfixes and there is no good time to start major developments.

With this we give upstreams a date, make it by this date in a fairly bugfree manner and you are in, should you miss the next freeze date in only 6 months away so spend your time hammering on your feature and it will be in the next time. In the same vein, you will know which version is likely to be in the users hands so you can easily decide which branches to backport fixes to and which of your releases will get the most testing. This is also akin to letting upstreams taking optimal advantage out of distribution development cycles using the predictable freeze dates as points to start preparing for a merge with downstream. It's pretty much like what OpenBSD or the Linux Kernel does in terms of predictable scheduling, didn't make it this time, fear not a new chance will come in on this date when you will be guaranteed a chance to merge your new feature.

Overall we should get a more stable distro as this settles in upstream and distributions get very predictable dates to set releases and LTS releases by where they can know that others will help share the maintenance burden.

Since Mark was unable to get distributions to buy in to his idea originally, this is his way of offering Debian a "bribe" to try it out. I am hoping it will be seen more as a gesture of willingness to invest in making it happen rather than being bought off.

HappinessNow
August 11th, 2009, 08:36 AM
Shuttleworth wants to support Debian (http://www.h-online.com/open/Shuttleworth-wants-to-support-Debian--/news/113963)



Thanks man , this was and still is my first love affair with Linux. I'd absolutely love to see this happen and fully support and agree with this endeavor!

Cheers....and the first response to his post reads:


Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:

[Cc:ed as I don't know whether you're subscribed to -project]

Hi,

> freeze summit, and there are significant benefits to Debian to being
> part of that rather than on a different schedule.

>From the very start of the Debian Project, Debian has been different
from everything else: different package management tools, different
philosophy, different organization, you name it.

Overall, it's been working fine for the last 16 years.

What do you think the changes you are proposing can gain us?

I don't believe in the "upstreams will care" stuff (there are good
examples of upstreams not giving a damn about distributors over the
past months) and I don't believe in the 100% end-user-centric focus
you're displaying in your mail.

Once I've removed that from your mail, and the "but Ubuntu loves you!"
stuff, there's nothing left.

JB.

--
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <jblache@debian.org>

Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org (http://www.jblache.org/)> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg00093.html

Hallvor
August 11th, 2009, 08:53 AM
I thought it quite clearly stated that he's willing to contribute resources to help Debian's development, even at the expense of Ubuntu's own development.

If that's "very little", what else would they want? Million dollars and a free desktop environment?


Considering that Ubuntu is built from a snapshot of Debian Sid, there is no way that contributing to Debian will come at the expense of Ubuntu`s development. All changes contributed to Debian will also find its way to Ubuntu.

I see several advantages for Ubuntu, but not so many for Debian. Ubuntu needs Debian, but Debian doesn`t need Ubuntu.

HappinessNow
August 11th, 2009, 09:01 AM
Ubuntu needs Debian, but Debian doesn`t need Ubuntu.

Very good point, elegantly stated. :P

mcduck
August 11th, 2009, 09:03 AM
Considering that Ubuntu is built from a snapshot of Debian Sid, there is no way that contributing to Debian will come at the expense of Ubuntu`s development. All changes contributed to Debian will also find its way to Ubuntu.

I see several advantages for Ubuntu, but not so many for Debian. Ubuntu needs Debian, but Debian doesn`t need Ubuntu.

If you read MArk's whole message, you should have found out that he was even willing to skip a whole Ubuntu release and instead put the developers to work on Debian instead to get the two distributions to same schedule.

Of course that would benefit Ubuntu. But it definitely would benefit Debian as well. Or is it so that help in development is only welcome if it doesn't benefit anybody else?

I've always thought Debian as one of the greatest distributions around. After reading through the messages on that list I'm really not too sure how much I have respect towards them any more.

HappinessNow
August 11th, 2009, 09:07 AM
I've always thought Debian as one of the greatest distributions around. After reading through the messages on that list I'm really not too sure how much I have respect towards them any more.careful...there is an old saying; "don't s--t where you eat"

mcduck
August 11th, 2009, 09:10 AM
careful...there is an old saying; "don't s--t where you eat"

:D

I just found many of the messages on the thread very sad.

I got very strong feeling that many people opposed the co-operation, not because it wouldn't make sense, but because it was proposed by Ubuntu people.

ibutho
August 11th, 2009, 09:22 AM
I think I am a bit skeptical about Marks motives. To me it seems like he wants Debian to freeze in December which will help Ubuntus LTS release next April build on a solid stable Debian base. I don't really see whats in it for Debian although they do gain from having a few extra hands.

HappinessNow
August 11th, 2009, 09:23 AM
:D

I just found many of the messages on the thread very sad.

I got very strong feeling that many people opposed the co-operation, not because it wouldn't make sense, but because it was proposed by Ubuntu people.No worries...the lack of cooperation is very sad but it appears to be quite rampant.

I think Mark would have more luck (and more fruitfulness) working closer with Google (Chrome OS).

Let Debian go on as they always have.

starcannon
August 11th, 2009, 09:42 AM
After reading Mark's entire post, I have to say, I think he is making a very generous offer, and that the reasoning is sound. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of work to divide our community; I've witnessed it here on these boards, indeed I still see those same people posting and stirring the pot. FUD is something that beckons to our base primal natures, its hard to ignore; so I beg everyone who would be involved in the Cadence concept, to use reason, not instinct, as your guide when considering this proposition. There is a lot to gain if a freeze cadence can be agreed upon.

HappinessNow
August 11th, 2009, 09:58 AM
After reading Mark's entire post, I have to say, I think he is making a very generous offer, and that the reasoning is sound. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of work to divide our community; I've witnessed it here on these boards, indeed I still see those same people posting and stirring the pot. FUD is something that beckons to our base primal natures, its hard to ignore; so I beg everyone who would be involved in the Cadence concept, to use reason, not instinct, as your guide when considering this proposition. There is a lot to gain if a freeze cadence can be agreed upon.

Off topic/ why do they call the lake/town Medical Lake (I know there is a hospital there but did the name(s) exist before that)?

starcannon
August 11th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Off topic/ why do they call the lake/town Medical Lake (I know there is a hospital there but did the name(s) exist before that)?
People used to come here from all over the place to immerse themselves in the "healing waters", now days its so full of who knows what that it'll give you a rash.

gnomeuser
August 11th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Ubuntu needs Debian, but Debian doesn`t need Ubuntu.

Don't kid yourself, Canonical now employs quite a lot of important Debian developers and invest heavily in infrastructure and technology that Debian also uses. If Canonical was to say "screw you Debian, stop treating us this way" and take their toys to go play with say openSUSE instead Debian would suffer a major setback.

Debian depends a great deal on contributions from Ubuntu as well as new developers coming their way via Ubuntu.

Debian absolutely needs Ubuntu these days.

Bigtime_Scrub
August 11th, 2009, 11:03 AM
Don't kid yourself, Canonical now employs quite a lot of important Debian developers and invest heavily in infrastructure and technology that Debian also uses. If Canonical was to say "screw you Debian, stop treating us this way" and take their toys to go play with say openSUSE instead Debian would suffer a major setback.

Debian depends a great deal on contributions from Ubuntu as well as new developers coming their way via Ubuntu.

Debian absolutely needs Ubuntu these days.

Exactly, which is why I don't understand why Debian is not hot to this idea. It makes a ton of sense. Like someone said earlier Ubuntu people said it...scratch that our benevolent dictator said it, which automatically tunes them all out.

Hallvor
August 11th, 2009, 11:06 AM
Don't kid yourself, Canonical now employs quite a lot of important Debian developers and invest heavily in infrastructure and technology that Debian also uses. If Canonical was to say "screw you Debian, stop treating us this way" and take their toys to go play with say openSUSE instead Debian would suffer a major setback.

Debian depends a great deal on contributions from Ubuntu as well as new developers coming their way via Ubuntu.

Debian absolutely needs Ubuntu these days.

I believe that Canonical has employed several former Debian developers, but AFAIK Canonical does not pay a single one of the many hundred active Debian developers. They grab their work and do not even mention Debian on the main page of www.ubuntu.com. That is a nice way to appreciate their hard work.

All that Ubuntu gives back is monolithic patches (http://patches.ubuntu.com/) that explain the differences between the packages in Ubuntu and Debian. (Canonical did open source launchpad, but that is a different story.)

Debian does not depend on contributions from Ubuntu at all. The project existed long before Ubuntu and was doing just fine without it. It is still doing just fine and will be doing just fine even if the entire Canonical team dies in a plane crash.

Without Debian, Ubuntu would have to find a different distro to make a spinoff from.

mcduck
August 11th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Exactly, which is why I don't understand why Debian is not hot to this idea. It makes a ton of sense. Like someone said earlier Ubuntu people said it...scratch that our benevolent dictator said it, which automatically tunes them all out.

I kind of doubt that the responses would have been so negative if the suggestion had came from, say, Red Hat.

I suppose some Debian people are just bitter about the way Ubuntu became "Debian that normal people can actually use" and gained more popularity than Debian itself ever did.

This is still opensource, and Ubuntu would have every right to take code and develop it's releases based on that without contributing anyting back. Based on that they should be happy for what they get. And definitely not complain when somebody actually suggests closer co-operation and even offers to give direct aid in development.

Hallvor
August 11th, 2009, 12:13 PM
“I kind of doubt that the responses would have been so negative if the suggestion had came from, say, Red Hat.”

I agree. But that is because Red Hat actually give something back and appreciate the open source community instead of just riding on their shoulders and selling closed source software.


“I suppose some Debian people are just bitter about the way Ubuntu became "Debian that normal people can actually use" and gained more popularity than Debian itself ever did.”

I can`t rule out that some people may be jealous because Ubuntu isn`t giving them credit for their work. But more importantly the suggestion of a time based release for Debian was probably made to stabilize Ubuntu LTS with the help of all the Debian developers, and then grab a larger share of the server market from Debian. Canonical gets the work done for free instead of spending time working on their own fork.


“This is still opensource, and Ubuntu would have every right to take code and develop it's releases based on that without contributing anyting back.”

Correct. But it would be nice if they stopped pretending. Their patches can`t be cleanly and directly applied to Debian.


“Based on that they should be happy for what they get. And definitely not complain when somebody actually suggests closer co-operation and even offers to give direct aid in development.”

And that is close to nothing. Canonical use the Ubuntu trademark and slap their own volunteers in the face to promote a commercial service like Ubuntu One or closed source Canonical Landscape Dedicated Server.

If they want to help Debian development, fine. Time based releases where the Debian developers make Ubuntu LTS servers for free is imho parasitic undermining of the open source community by a commercial company.

issih
August 11th, 2009, 12:43 PM
Judging an idea based on its source rather than its merit is stupid and divisive.

It seems to me that some people need to be at war with someone else in order to define themselves. To prove they have an identity of their own they must vociferously and completely hate everything else. Its very sad, but very human, and is at the root of a great deal of the pointless fragmentation and internecine warfare that occurs within the OSS community. Far more happens in our community because of personal politics rather than technical excellence.

This is a sensible plan, one that would aid ALL distros, but because the grandees are all more concerned with proving how red, green, blue or swirly snail they are to the core they can't see merit and can only see trojan horses.

Frankly its pathetic.

More coordination in establishing a solid common foundation will make linux a better, more stable, easier to develop for and simpler to maintain platformm, and better still those skills will transfer more easily from one distro to another.

It is time to get off the high horses and have a peace conference, and for all fanboys to shut up, there is no use for them on any side.

pelle.k
August 11th, 2009, 01:13 PM
I've always thought Debian as one of the greatest distributions around. After reading through the messages on that list I'm really not too sure how much I have respect towards them any more.
I feel the same way. They completely missed the point of marks suggestion, and turn the thread into a "ubuntu doesn't contribute enough" flamewar.
I can understand that they feel that way, and if there was a rule of free software that one has to give back equally as much as one has taken from a project i think most GNU/Linux users should feel ashamed. Thankfully though, thats not the case.
Ubuntu has indeed much to gain from the proposed move, however, mark was suggesting other linux distros (and upstream) do too. That should have been the debate on the debian mainling lists.


Frankly its pathetic.

More coordination in establishing a solid common foundation will make linux a better, more stable, easier to develop for and simpler to maintain platformm, and better still those skills will transfer more easily from one distro to another.

It is time to get off the high horses and have a peace conference, and for all fanboys to shut up, there is no use for them on any side.
Amen to that!

Exodist
August 11th, 2009, 01:24 PM
Hmm. So he's planning on trying to make all distrobutions be released in december...? Why? What's the point?

More packages (software) that should be fully compatible with each other.
Basicly this would give debian and ubuntu a combined foothold in the linux community thus software packages could easily be exchanged without any worry of incompatibility issues. Thus better for debian/ubuntu users.

ZankerH
August 11th, 2009, 01:32 PM
Why do you need distros to be compatible with each other? This is just shuttleworth acting like the emperor of GNU/Linux again. Debian had a perfectly working release cycle before, now they're switching to ubuntu's "release early, release flawed" policy. I don't see this working. Face it, the rest of the FLOSS community actually respects their principles and won't abandon them because of one distro that does it differently (which ubuntu are entirely entitled to, of course, but stop shoving your way down the rest of our throats, thank you very much.)

Exodist
August 11th, 2009, 01:41 PM
I think a few folks here realize that Debian although very stable runs behind most distros in terms of updated software at release. Wich the software is more tested and solid, but not always the most up to date.

Here is a few examples of Debian 5.0 that recently came out a few months ago.
Kernel 2.6.24
Gimp 2.4.7
GNOME 2.33
KDE 3.5.10

Mind you I was actually amazed that got those in there. Also note that the prior release of debian was over 2 years ago with version 4.0.

So YES. Ubuntu can help contribute to Debian just as much as they can help Ubuntu. Combine the two developing bodies with help with compatibility and stability across the board.

Exo

Hallvor
August 11th, 2009, 01:58 PM
Why do you need distros to be compatible with each other? This is just shuttleworth acting like the emperor of GNU/Linux again. Debian had a perfectly working release cycle before, now they're switching to ubuntu's "release early, release flawed" policy. I don't see this working. Face it, the rest of the FLOSS community actually respects their principles and won't abandon them because of one distro that does it differently (which ubuntu are entirely entitled to, of course, but stop shoving your way down the rest of our throats, thank you very much.)

No. There will only be time based repository freezes, not time based releases. When the repository freezes they iron out all release critical bugs before releasing. It will be ready when it is ready.

Also, Squeeze seems to be delayed, so my guess is that Ubuntu LTS will be delayed as well.

http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090730

gnomeuser
August 11th, 2009, 02:38 PM
I believe that Canonical has employed several former Debian developers, but AFAIK Canonical does not pay a single one of the many hundred active Debian developers. They grab their work and do not even mention Debian on the main page of www.ubuntu.com. That is a nice way to appreciate their hard work.


There is absolutely no requirement to give Debian credit anywhere in the license they use or in the guidelines, Ubuntu is fully complying to the guidelines for using the Debian name and the codebase, they even go beyond that by asking contributors to do so directly to Debian to benefit both distros.

Also why should it be on the presentation page for Ubuntu? Instead it has a very prominent place in the About Us section with rave praises such as "the rock upon which Ubuntu is built". Above and beyond what is required.



All that Ubuntu gives back is monolithic patches (http://patches.ubuntu.com/) that explain the differences between the packages in Ubuntu and Debian.


Lies, check the extracted directories

e.g.
http://patches.ubuntu.com/b/beagle/extracted/



(Canonical did open source launchpad, but that is a different story.)


And a sad story it was till Canonical wised up. Yes it's sad that they keep producing proprietary software and pushing it on the users with the excuse that it's enough that the client side is free. No argument here.



Debian does not depend on contributions from Ubuntu at all.


If you examine the situation you will find that they do indeed pull int a great deal of Ubuntu work, Canonical also sponsors people to go to debconf and other get togethers that benefit Debian, Ubuntu and the remaining Linux ecosystem.



The project existed long before Ubuntu and was doing just fine without it.


The only thing that freezes slower than Debian is hell - sure they were doing beautifully, riding on unicorns in the sunset and there were no flamewars back in the pre Ubuntu days either :rolleyes:



It is still doing just fine and will be doing just fine even if the entire Canonical team dies in a plane crash.


Again they would lose a big source of sponsorship, a single biggest non-debian source of contribution and users. The single biggest source of direct testing of their packages outside their own users (remind me again, what is the Ubuntu to Debian user ratio again - I'll settle for a best estimate?)



Without Debian, Ubuntu would have to find a different distro to make a spinoff from.

Which would arguably set them back a bit, retraining developers to use another packaging format, rewriting infrastructure to avoid debian specific assumptions, getting packages transferred over. Working out the transition for the users - this may be the trickiest of all, how to transition from one distro base to another without breaking on upgrades.

However there would also be good things about this, e.g. it would be a change to switch to a packaging system that is less.. baroque than dpkg. Something like Conary would fit very nicely in the Ubuntu model of development and is well supported.

mcduck
August 11th, 2009, 02:51 PM
Hmm. So he's planning on trying to make all distrobutions be released in december...? Why? What's the point?

Actually after reading through most of the thread, he didn't mean "freeze" as in freezing current package versions at that point, but simply that during December there would be discussion about which versions of the core components (like GCC, Python, X, etc) to use in the following releases.

So the development would still be able to continue after December, and distributions would still be able to release when they want to. Also he stated that these decisions wouldn't have to be binding so if some distribution wants to use different version they can do that. (although themore distributions use the smae versions the bigger the benefit would be)

The point is simply that more of the distributions would use same versions of these components, which would make both co-operation between distributions, and the interaction between distributions and upstream, easier. And of course the knowledge that many distributions will be shipping certain version of a component would allow for more planning beforehands than what's possible in the current situation.

mcduck
August 11th, 2009, 03:03 PM
Why do you need distros to be compatible with each other? This is just shuttleworth acting like the emperor of GNU/Linux again. Debian had a perfectly working release cycle before, now they're switching to ubuntu's "release early, release flawed" policy. I don't see this working. Face it, the rest of the FLOSS community actually respects their principles and won't abandon them because of one distro that does it differently (which ubuntu are entirely entitled to, of course, but stop shoving your way down the rest of our throats, thank you very much.)

To help with maintenance of the core components (and why not other packages).

For example now Ubntu might ship with version A of X, Debian with version B, Red Hat with version C, etc..

If they all had the same version, bug fixes, security updates etc. could be made for that version, and it would be possible for distributions and upstream to work together to do that.

Now each distribution is on their own, and upstream focuses on the current latest-and-greatest version they released 2 days ago, simply because working with every old version different distributions might be using is way too much of a work to do.

Screwdriver0815
August 11th, 2009, 03:23 PM
Why do you need distros to be compatible with each other? This is just shuttleworth acting like the emperor of GNU/Linux again. Debian had a perfectly working release cycle before, now they're switching to ubuntu's "release early, release flawed" policy. I don't see this working. Face it, the rest of the FLOSS community actually respects their principles and won't abandon them because of one distro that does it differently (which ubuntu are entirely entitled to, of course, but stop shoving your way down the rest of our throats, thank you very much.)

I remember that Debian has critisised Ubuntu for "not being compatible" with Debian. Now Shuttleworth wants to fullfill this - and it is of course the most stupid suggestion a human being ever could do. :rolleyes:

In the last time I have started a discussion about Ubuntu not giving back... http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1216742

So this is another discussion about this issue and I wonder when will be the time when someone from Canonical stands up and explains all the things, they are contributing and giving back.
I really would appreciate that because this will make all these I-hate-Ubuntu-because-someone-hates-them-too-people shut up.

It is also really good that gnomeuser explains some background.

I mean, its not awesome its a normal thing which came from Shuttleworth. He has asked Debian to do a freeze in December which brings some advantages for Ubuntu and also for Debian. And he offers something for that. Its great, because he does not need to do that but it is also not awesome.
But I think this is no reason to start this Flamewar again. I really have respect for Debian as it is the strong shoulders on which my favourite distro is built on.
But all the time this flameing starts again, I lose more and more of this respect.
Why does anyone need such a behaviour? Couldn't they ask a higher institution if Ubuntu violates the culture of open source and thats it? Why do they need to whine around instead?

For clearification because I hear all the time the complains about "Ubuntu destroys our release when its ready strategy": a FREEZE in Debian is not a release. They still can release when they want but they should freeze the development at a certain moment and after that just hunt bugs until they feel its time for release, as they ever did.
I mean, I don't have any clue about software development... and I understand this... why don't other people, who have more knowledge than me?? :confused: is it so mindblowing?

issih
August 11th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Why do you need distros to be compatible with each other? This is just shuttleworth acting like the emperor of GNU/Linux again. Debian had a perfectly working release cycle before, now they're switching to ubuntu's "release early, release flawed" policy. I don't see this working. Face it, the rest of the FLOSS community actually respects their principles and won't abandon them because of one distro that does it differently (which ubuntu are entirely entitled to, of course, but stop shoving your way down the rest of our throats, thank you very much.)

Firstly your understanding of what is being suggested is wrong...but that has been adequately explained by others.

But in answer to your initial question, I pose a different and to my mind more pertinent one....

Why do you not want distros to be compatible with each other?

what possible harm does it do?

the only thing it can do is make life for ALL linux users simpler and easier. I have absolutely zero sympathy with anyone who wants to be different just for the sake of it.

Simian Man
August 11th, 2009, 03:52 PM
So the development would still be able to continue after December, and distributions would still be able to release when they want to. Also he stated that these decisions wouldn't have to be binding so if some distribution wants to use different version they can do that.

Well that's very generous of him isn't it? I wonder who he thinks put him in charge of Free Software :\.

Dragonbite
August 11th, 2009, 03:57 PM
I'm not 100% sure what this will all mean, but if this is something that will benefit Debian and Ubuntu (and likely the rest of the Linux community as well) then I'm all for it.

Free Software is not owned, but influenced by those people that make it happen, and not armchair referees. That's why I probably won't climb the ranks anywhere beyond a slug.

castrojo
August 11th, 2009, 04:11 PM
I believe that Canonical has employed several former Debian developers, but AFAIK Canonical does not pay a single one of the many hundred active Debian developers. They grab their work and do not even mention Debian on the main page of www.ubuntu.com. That is a nice way to appreciate their hard work.


http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/Debian

hanzomon4
August 11th, 2009, 06:12 PM
The reason is fairly obvious.
One has to address the situation we're in right now. Where do we see GNU/Linux operating systems in the next 5 years?

It's fairly evident that the initiative taken by Mark Shuttleworth is to push Ubuntu into mainstream computing. Ubuntu, and the open software community, is dependent on each other.
Ubuntu needs Gnome/KDE, Gnome/KDE need a distro to begin with, distros (like Debian in our case) need the kernel, etc etc.

So in theory, the whole movement is interlinked already. But instead of working with each other to improve the end-user experience, they are scattered. Everyone forking off endlessly. Of course this can be advocated as the "freedom", but the lack of standards and such right now is so stupid. It's like having a marathon runner cut off his own legs before his 100m sprint, and expect to win.

Anyways. I hope something comes out from this. Mark Shuttleworth is possibly the best thing that has ever happened to the open software movement. Someone with a vision to unite, rather than to divide into more "sects". Just look at the packaging systems. There's god knows how many ways of installing or "compiling" a software. There is no easy standard to it.

I sincerely hope that the different forces within the community link up. Although these are baby steps, a common coordination movement like this is extremely necessary if Linux is ever to be an end-user replacement.

I'm sorry, try again..

Hallvor
August 11th, 2009, 06:53 PM
[QUOTE=gnomeuser;7768452]There is absolutely no requirement to give Debian credit anywhere in the license they use or in the guidelines, Ubuntu is fully complying to the guidelines for using the Debian name and the codebase, they even go beyond that by asking contributors to do so directly to Debian to benefit both distros.

Of course there is no requirement, just as there is no requirement to be polite or to use common sense. That doesn`t mean we shouldn`t be acting accordingly.


Also why should it be on the presentation page for Ubuntu? Instead it has a very prominent place in the About Us section with rave praises such as "the rock upon which Ubuntu is built". Above and beyond what is required.

Nothing except politeness and common sense. Do a search for Debian on their pages, and you come up with zero results. Click "more about Ubuntu" and Debian is not mentioned at all.

I even clicked the tiny "about us" in the corner that probably one in a hundred users click on, and Debian is not even credited there.

Rave praises are cheap if the users don`t see it.




Lies, check the extracted directories

e.g.
http://patches.ubuntu.com/b/beagle/extracted/

There is no need to call me a liar. Many Debian developers are unsatisfied with the way Canonical/Ubuntu cooperates. They are receiving monolithic patches describing differences between Debian packages and the packages in Ubuntu, and have to look inside the monolithic patch to note that its changes are compartementalised into dpatch files.

http://madduck.net/blog/2006.05.24:ubuntu-and-debian/

http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_bad_taste_in_the_mouth_detailed_ubuntu_patch_rev iew/


"If you examine the situation you will find that they do indeed pull int a great deal of Ubuntu work,"

Really?


"Canonical also sponsors people to go to debconf and other get togethers that benefit Debian, Ubuntu and the remaining Linux ecosystem."

They send their own fifth column to debconf to pursue the parasite interests of Canonical. Gee, thanks a lot. And please, don`t parrot Mark Shuttleworth about the "linux ecosystem".

"An ecosystem is a natural unit consisting of all plants, animals and micro-organisms (biotic factors) in an area functioning together with all of the physical (abiotic) factors of the environment."

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


"Again they would lose a big source of sponsorship,"

Really?


"The single biggest source of direct testing of their packages outside their own users"

Debian should thank the forked distro for testing their own forked packages?


"(remind me again, what is the Ubuntu to Debian user ratio again - I'll settle for a best estimate?)"

I don`t think anyone knows. You`ll find knowledgable users in both camps, but Ubuntu has almost all the beginners and Debian has almost all the developers.

mcduck
August 11th, 2009, 07:09 PM
Interestingly, even from the single thread that caused this discussion I was able to find a Debian developer who tells that Ubuntu has benefited him:


I've had almost uniformly positive experiences working with Ubuntu users
of the packages that I maintain and integrating those packages into
Ubuntu, including valuable contributions and improvements that originated
in Ubuntu and were filed as bugs against the Debian packages (although
since I subscribe to all of the Ubuntu packages corresponding to my Debian
packages in Launchpad, I normally short-circuit that).

My corner of Debian would be noticably worse if it were not for Ubuntu,
and this is from someone who has never run Ubuntu and has no interest in
ever doing so.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg00115.html

ghindo
August 11th, 2009, 07:25 PM
Well that's very generous of him isn't it? I wonder who he thinks put him in charge of Free Software :\.:confused:

I'm not sure where you get the impression he's "in charge of Free Software." Shuttleworth's trying to foster a closer relationship with upstream. I don't understand why you have to get offended at that notion and make sarcastic remarks.

LookTJ
August 11th, 2009, 07:42 PM
:confused:

I'm not sure where you get the impression he's "in charge of Free Software." Shuttleworth's trying to foster a closer relationship with upstream. I don't understand why you have to get offended at that notion and make sarcastic remarks.
I don't he's "in charge", I think people get this mixed up. He is one of the "leading innovators of Free Software"

:guitar:

utnubuuser
August 11th, 2009, 07:53 PM
I see several advantages for Ubuntu, but not so many for Debian. Ubuntu needs Debian, but Debian doesn`t need Ubuntu.


What's that got to do with anything? - From my viewpoint, it is totally about the end-user, or are you developing in a vacuum?

SuperSonic4
August 11th, 2009, 07:54 PM
Firstly your understanding of what is being suggested is wrong...but that has been adequately explained by others.

But in answer to your initial question, I pose a different and to my mind more pertinent one....

Why do you not want distros to be compatible with each other?

what possible harm does it do?

the only thing it can do is make life for ALL linux users simpler and easier. I have absolutely zero sympathy with anyone who wants to be different just for the sake of it.

No, compatibility reduces freedoms and choice. GNU/Linux wouldn't be that different from Windows with the attitude of "This is what you're getting, like it or don't use a computer"

Of course the biggest problem is deciding exactly what is the right way. Graphical install or CLI install? deb or rpm? and so on

I have zero sympathy with anyone who wants to force what works for them on others

zekopeko
August 11th, 2009, 08:42 PM
No, compatibility reduces freedoms and choice.

Bahahaha! Do please explain how compatibility is harming your "choice"? The only thing it's doing is limiting bugs. Buggy choice is no choice IMB.


GNU/Linux wouldn't be that different from Windows with the attitude of "This is what you're getting, like it or don't use a computer"

You do know that by using Arch you are always going to get only what they offer? The same with any OS/app. Unless you write your own. Or pay someone to do that for you.


Of course the biggest problem is deciding exactly what is the right way. Graphical install or CLI install? deb or rpm? and so on

Those aren't the biggest problem. Those are just different usage scenarios.


I have zero sympathy with anyone who wants to force what works for them on others

Who's talking about forcing anybody here? You do know what a suggestion is?
Actually read what Mark wrote.

zekopeko
August 11th, 2009, 08:45 PM
I'm sorry, try again..

Try again what?

pelle.k
August 11th, 2009, 08:50 PM
I have zero sympathy with anyone who wants to force what works for them on others
We never should have invented the wheel. It's caused us so much harm ever since. I say we go back up in the trees and eat bananas. :twisted:
Sorry about that. Couldn't help myself :)

I don't think this is about forcing people. It may be that you are projecting that feeling onto the situation, because of your uncertainty of what mark suggested will bring though.
Who says everyone has to "sync" with each other, and only then? Maybe RHEL and debian would stay with the recommended "sync", while upstream do more releases than the yearly sync (just an example), for the rest of us. That way archlinux could still do rolling releases while RHEL and debian stabe could use only the yearly sync from upstream.
Ubuntu could use many packages from the yearly sync, while using some more of the bleeding edge upstream package that isn't part of the "sync" cycle.
If there's a bug in those packages that belong to the yearly "sync", the probability of another distro having produced a patch would be highly likely (or if ubuntu created the patch, other distros could probably use that without too much work), and the same goes for sending bugfixes to upstream, those would be very compatible. This would take the much of the work off the "stable" distros, but change nothing for a bleeding edge distro like arch linux.
If a package has a bug, isn't part of the yearly "sync" then we would have the same situation as today of course. But these packages would be fewer. And btw, there would be no difference in this scenario, for say arch linux, as it is today.

castrojo
August 11th, 2009, 09:01 PM
[QUOTE]
http://madduck.net/blog/2006.05.24:ubuntu-and-debian/
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_bad_taste_in_the_mouth_detailed_ubuntu_patch_rev iew/

Umm, those are old - I am pretty sure most of those issues are fixed because I took feedback from madduck last Debconf and this year he had no issues to report to me. In fact I had a hard time finding problems at all. If you want to be constructive how about finding out if these are indeed problems today instead of pasting old blog posts?


They send their own fifth column to debconf to pursue the parasite interests of Canonical. Gee, thanks a lot. And please, don`t parrot Mark Shuttleworth about the "linux ecosystem".

Umm, do you know me? How do you know I'm a parasite? I've never been called a parasite before! Or the other guys who also happen to be Debian Developers, are they parasites too? Oh wait, you're just making stuff up to win an argument on a forum ... great job!

zekopeko
August 11th, 2009, 09:28 PM
OK here is my take on this:

Debian and Ubuntu have a common freeze for major components (either around the time of Ubuntu's LTS or Debian's next release; doesn't matter since Mark said that he would push back LTS if it was needed).

Core infrastructure would get more bug testing and fixes. This doesn't mean that applications would be the same version but that they would be built against the same version of GCC,python,mono etc.
Another great thing is that upstream projects could target their release for the major distros (if they all get in agreement on the core infrastructure). That is a good thing since then upstream would only have to maintain a couple of release and not dozens of different versions.

All of this would effectively make distributions have mass releases at least twice a year depending on their development cycle. It would unify the Linux ecosystem while maintaining the strength of diversity. That is also what Mark wants and I agree with him.

To those that think Ubuntu is only taking from Debian:
Take took only what was freely given. It's like complaining against companies using your MIT licensed code in commercial products.

Also try to understand that this sort of collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu is a new thing. Not everything is going to work from the get go. Ubuntu is already participating in Debian.
The best example I know of is the Mono 2.0 packaging that was done in Debian and then synced into Ubuntu. Ubuntu is also encouraging people to fix issues directly upstream and not solely in Ubuntu.

Calling Canonical a parasite is wrong considering how much they have contributed to FLOSS by bringing new users and developers, creating new programs, and as of recently running usability test to bring a more intuitive end-user experience.

I'm hoping that all the issues are worked out in a compromise that will benefit both sides in the long term.

forrestcupp
August 11th, 2009, 09:33 PM
I'm glad he said that, because I get tired of all the pundits who say "Linux needs to standardize on Ubuntu" or "Everyone just needs to get behind Ubuntu and get rid of all the other distros".

Mark clearly understands that if only one distro "wins", free software loses.

It's kind of like when Luke was fighting Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. He had to fight him, but if he got angry he would turn to the dark side. That predicament really sucks.

HappinessNow
August 11th, 2009, 09:39 PM
People used to come here from all over the place to immerse themselves in the "healing waters", now days its so full of who knows what that it'll give you a rash.They should rename it to "Rash Lake"

Hallvor
August 12th, 2009, 06:32 AM
[QUOTE=Hallvor;7769674]
Umm, do you know me? How do you know I'm a parasite? I've never been called a parasite before! Or the other guys who also happen to be Debian Developers, are they parasites too? Oh wait, you're just making stuff up to win an argument on a forum ... great job!

Easy now. I never called you a parasite. A lot of people use and contribute to Ubuntu because of the free software philosophy. The Ubuntu project and everone else must respect the Ubuntu philosophy, but Canonical doesn`t have to and they don`t.

The Ubuntu One service has clear commercial intent, has nothing to do with the Ubuntu community, is not approved by it, but since it shares the same name suggests association with it, and violates acceptable use of Ubuntu`s trademark policy for everone else but Canonical (since they own the rights). Legally they can do it, but morally it is a spit in the face and a broken promise to the Ubuntu community.

However I did call Canonical - not anyone personally -parasitical. From the start there was a clear difference between the Ubuntu foundation and Canonical Ltd. Mark Shuttleworth needed two, because Canonical`s intent from the start was to ride on the back of volunteers and adherents to free software philosophy in the Ubunto project and exploit their work commercially:


"We very consciously created BOTH Canonical and Ubuntu, with separate
missions and mandates and organisational structures, to reflect the fact that there are differences between the project and the company. That's no accident - it was done deliberately, to make it easier to organise around for-profit and not-for-profit goals. We didn't want to build Ubuntu and THEN create a commercial organisation inside it, we wanted to signal commercial intent and the intertwined nature of Ubuntu and
Canonical from the very beginning."

-Mark Shuttleworth

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345/comments/50

MikeTheC
August 12th, 2009, 07:28 AM
I think Mark is slowly being dragged to the sad realization that getting a community in Linux to agree to or with anything is worse than trying to herd a flock of cats.

Giant Speck
August 12th, 2009, 07:35 AM
I think Mark is slowly being dragged to the sad realization that getting a community in Linux to agree to or with anything is worse than trying to herd a flock of cats.

That would make an excellent video on YouTube.

HappinessNow
August 12th, 2009, 08:35 AM
That would make an excellent video on YouTube.

like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

:lolflag:

HappinessNow
August 12th, 2009, 08:39 AM
like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

:lolflag:



http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=124529&d=1250062702http://blog.karmona.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/herding-cats.jpg

Screwdriver0815
August 12th, 2009, 10:02 AM
The Ubuntu One service has clear commercial intent, has nothing to do with the Ubuntu community, is not approved by it, but since it shares the same name suggests association with it, and violates acceptable use of Ubuntu`s trademark policy for everone else but Canonical (since they own the rights). Legally they can do it, but morally it is a spit in the face and a broken promise to the Ubuntu community.


okay, just some questions from my side - I need to get an understanding.

Ubuntu One... its a online storage... Ubuntu 9.04 is a operating system. If I buy Ubuntu 9.04 at Canonical, this means I buy the support for it. Does it then have the same name as I would download the .iso file, burn it and install it? Yes it has!!!
So if I had your sight of the things, I would scream: "Canonical violates and slaughters the community again! They use the same name for the community OS and for the commercial variant!"

So, seriously what is the problem about Ubuntu One? Does it harm to anyone in the community? What would the world look like if this service would be called... maybe "monkeys great file cellar"? Wouldn't it be the same? Canonical has paid lots of money to drive the Ubuntu project but in your opinion they are not allowed to use a brand name they own? Whats that? Does anyone come up to you and tell you "I do not allow that you use your coffeemachine today"? Do you accept that?

What is the reason for being against everything Canonical does? If Canonical exploits all the people who contribute to Ubuntu and its variants: why do so many people still contribute and why do they have such an huge amount of users?
Why is Ubuntu so successful when the company behind it is the worst capitalistic enemy, the world of opensource software ever has faced? When Ubuntu just slaughters and exploits Debian for its own fortune: why does the project leaders of Debian not stand up and say: "we do not want that you build up your distro on our base"?
Why does this kind of criticism always come from people who are surely not the project leaders of Debian, Fedora, Red Hat, OpenSuse, Novell... whatever? Why isn't there a big story about this? When the behaviour of Canonical is so bad, it must have an answer in big style... why isn't it like that?


However I did call Canonical - not anyone personally -parasitical. From the start there was a clear difference between the Ubuntu foundation and Canonical Ltd. Mark Shuttleworth needed two, because Canonical`s intent from the start was to ride on the back of volunteers and adherents to free software philosophy in the Ubunto project and exploit their work commercially

When you say, that from the start there was a clear mission for Canonical: what is the problem? Everybody knew that Canonical's intend is to make money from Ubuntu.
Like Red Hat does from Fedora, like Novell does from OpenSuse, like Sun does from Open Solaris.
What is the difference between Canonical and the other Linuxcompanies? Do Red Hat, Novell and Sun not use the work of the community for free? Do Red Hat, Novell and Sun serve and care lovingly about each single programmer? Does Canonical in reverse put them into bins with icewater and so on?

What is the difference?

Can you please explain?

moster
August 12th, 2009, 12:55 PM
There is much nonsense here said in this thread. It seems that somebody here forgets that Ubuntu has it own fork and it is called Mint. :) And it is quite popular.

What about guys who work on gnome or xorg? EVERYBODY parasites on them :D

t0p
August 12th, 2009, 01:57 PM
A lot of people whinge about Canonical. And when it concerns their unfortunate propensity to deal in closed source software, I agree with some of the complaints. But it seems to me that some folk dislike Canonical because it strives to make money. Some folk seem to believe that making money from Free software is somehow unethical. Stupid folk.

Anyway: even though Canonical is a commercial entity, it still does some good in the world. Look at Shipit. I've had plenty of free Ubuntu install CDs mailed to me by Shipit. And when they arrive, the writing on the packaging clearly says that it was sent by Canonical. Now, users in rich countries with a well-developed high-speed internet infrastructure will say "So what?" Those users can download Ubuntu quite easily, they don't need to have CDs mailed to them. But what about users in countries with little or no broadband connectivity? Users who might not even have access to dial-up? Users who need to be sent CDs, and whose limited income makes buying software a luxury?

Canonical might do some stuff that some of us find distasteful. But they do good stuff too. And anyway, is wanting to make a buck really so evil?

I wish they wouldn't dodge paying tax though. Social responsibility etc.

Simian Man
August 12th, 2009, 02:12 PM
When you say, that from the start there was a clear mission for Canonical: what is the problem? Everybody knew that Canonical's intend is to make money from Ubuntu.
Like Red Hat does from Fedora, like Novell does from OpenSuse, like Sun does from Open Solaris.
What is the difference between Canonical and the other Linuxcompanies? Do Red Hat, Novell and Sun not use the work of the community for free? Do Red Hat, Novell and Sun serve and care lovingly about each single programmer? Does Canonical in reverse put them into bins with icewater and so on?

Well, at least in the case of Red Hat and Novell they, unlike Ubuntu, release virtually all of the source code they create under an open source license whereas Canonical has the Ubuntu One server, Landscape and, until recently, Launchpad under proprietary licensing. Also Red Hat and Novell, unlike Ubuntu, contribute non-trivial amounts of code upstream. They are the #1 and #2 organizations contributing to the Linux kernel and #1 and #3 contributing code to Xorg. Both companies also drive a large portion of Gnome development.

I'm not saying Canonical is wrong for this, I'm just answering your question.

Tibuda
August 12th, 2009, 02:20 PM
Well, at least in the case of Red Hat and Novell they, unlike Ubuntu, release virtually all of the source code they create under an open source license whereas Canonical has the Ubuntu One server, Landscape and, until recently, Launchpad under proprietary licensing.

All? I don't know about Red Hat, but Novell and Sun got some proprietary products.

dawynn
August 12th, 2009, 02:41 PM
I don't get much of the discussion here.

As I understand it, there some proposals for a) Debian to start releasing on a regular schedule, and b) for Ubuntu to try to collaborate further with Debian, its parent project.

Some of the posters here are proposing that if Ubuntu and Debian can collaborate, then the entire Linux world will bow to the idea and all of the major Linux distributions will suddenly work together on similar release cycles.

Huh? Let's see -- a number of years ago, Ubuntu introduced itself as a fork of Debian, but Ubuntu has continued to work with Debian throughout its existence. Now, Debian is trying to establish some of the very principles that separate Ubuntu from Debian (regular releases), so how does that really impact the rest of the Linux world at all? Why would SUSE, Red Hat, Gentoo, and others suddenly take notice just because the Debian-based world is coming back together in some small fashion?

3rdalbum
August 12th, 2009, 02:49 PM
I don't see how Debian and Debian fans could NOT like this. People have been complaining since 2004 that Ubuntu hasn't given back... well this is one way that Ubuntu can give back to Debian.

bryonak
August 12th, 2009, 03:07 PM
Well, at least in the case of Red Hat and Novell they, unlike Ubuntu, release virtually all of the source code they create whereas Canonical has the Ubuntu One server, Landscape[...]
RedHat's in-house administration tools are said to be closed, though probably nobody's asked for the source and they aren't distributing the binaries.
Still, RedHat is awesome in terms of openness :)
With Novell I'm not so sure...

As for Canonical, I completely agree: I'd very much like Ubuntu One and Landscape to be completely open.


[...] Also Red Hat and Novell, unlike Ubuntu, contribute non-trivial amounts of code upstream.
I wouldn't call Upstart (used by Fedora for instance), the new notification system, Bazaar or Launchpad trivial.
More contributions will come, just give them time. Canonical's ~5 years old, RedHat about 16.


They are the #1 and #2 organizations contributing to the Linux kernel and #1 and #3 contributing code to Xorg. Both companies also drive a large portion of Gnome development.
I thought both Intel and IBM contribute more to the kernel than Novell?

Yet I'll go as far as declaring this point invalid ;)
Does someone have to contribute, amongst all other FOSS components of a modern distro, specifically to the kernel to be relevant?
Canonical focuses on different areas.
Besides, how many of Novell's 4000+ employees do work on the kernel?
How would that translate to Canonical's 200? Do we get more than 1.0 person?

lykwydchykyn
August 12th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Well, at least in the case of Red Hat and Novell they, unlike Ubuntu, release virtually all of the source code they create under an open source license

I just about spit coffee all over my dual monitors reading this. Novell releases all it's source code under an open source license?? REALLY??? You mean all this time I could have made .debs of GroupWise, Zenworks, ConsoleOne, and Novell Client from source? Where do I download it?

Dragonbite
August 12th, 2009, 04:09 PM
I just about spit coffee all over my dual monitors reading this. Novell releases all it's source code under an open source license?? REALLY??? You mean all this time I could have made .debs of GroupWise, Zenworks, ConsoleOne, and Novell Client from source? Where do I download it?

That's part of why comparing Red Hat and Novell doesn't work all of the time. One started as an Open Source company from the ground up while the other started as a proprietary, created products and then started getting into open source with the acquisition of Ximian and SuSE. Since then they've been more open-source orientated.

Screwdriver0815
August 12th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Well, at least in the case of Red Hat and Novell they, unlike Ubuntu, release virtually all of the source code they create under an open source license whereas Canonical has the Ubuntu One server, Landscape and, until recently, Launchpad under proprietary licensing. Also Red Hat and Novell, unlike Ubuntu, contribute non-trivial amounts of code upstream. They are the #1 and #2 organizations contributing to the Linux kernel and #1 and #3 contributing code to Xorg. Both companies also drive a large portion of Gnome development.

I'm not saying Canonical is wrong for this, I'm just answering your question.

Thanks. I appreciate your answer.

This brings me to some other questions, which should not be limited to you.
I want to ask all people who feel that they can and want to answer this.

Which influence does the licence of a certain product have in terms of something like a so called "rating": "this comapny is evil", "this company is good"?

I need to understand, why a Company like Red Hat, who do everything in open source (which is good in my opinion!) is more popular than others. I mean, it is the decision of the one who develops a certain product, which license he will use, isn't it?

In my eyes, Red Hat have their reasons for opening everything. In this way they can be sure that someone comes up with an improvement and they get it - for free.
If maybe Canonical or Novell release something under proprietary license, its up to them to improve a product.

I think that for example a developer could shrug his shoulders and say "okay, then I will not improve Ubuntu One, lets improve JBoss". Whose problem is it? Surely not the problem of the developer...

So why is it then so to say "evil" when a company releases their stuff proprietary?
Okay, the source code can not be checked and therefore some security issues could be involved and so on... but besides this: what is "evil" about this?

the next question is about this annoying contribution thing:

Red Hat and Novell produce and sell their own enterprise Linuxes. They both have community driven distros which are used by them as testing field and development area.
Based on these community distros they create their Enterprise Linux, which is also released as open source.
Canonical just sells support for Ubuntu. So in difference to Red Hat and Novell, Ubuntu is a community driven distro and Canonical develops parts of it, provides servers, a development platform and sells support for it.

So in my simple mind, Canonical also could go and sell support for Debian for example. This would be legal.

I may be wrong and I would like to have correction on this, if necessary. But Red Hat and Novell are slightly older than Canonical. If Red Hat and Novell would not contribute to the Kernel and Xorg, they could not sell their Enterprise Linuxes. If Canonical would not support its community, they could not sell support for Ubuntu.
For me there is a big difference in the business models of Red Hat and Novell on one side and Canonical on the other side.
Based on the business model, the companies contribute to different projects, or not?
Because otherwise I could stand up and say "Red Hat and Novell are evil because they do not contribute to KDE". Just because RHEL and SLED have Gnome as DE.
Novell and Red Hat contribute to these projects because they NEED them. Other projects which are not important to Red Hat and Novell also do not get supported by them.
The same goes with Canonical. They support the projects they need. And because Red Hat and Novell are slightly bigger than Canonical, they have more projects, which require more development, development which is done in the community and inhouse. This means more contribution by the companies...?

So the question is: what is the difference between Red Hat and Novell on one side and Canonical on the other side?

Why is it okay, if some companies do like they need and want and others are evil if they do the same?
Because of the proprietary stuff?

I do not want to defend Canonical, I just would like to know the reasons for all that.

issih
August 12th, 2009, 05:42 PM
This thread is turning into a perfect microcosm of the problems with the whole linux community.

Jealousy, misinformation, pride, elitism, the whole gamut.

I was going to say something else....but theres really no point.

zekopeko
August 12th, 2009, 05:46 PM
this thread is turning into a perfect microcosm of the problems with the whole linux community.

Jealousy, misinformation, pride, elitism, the whole gamut.

+1

zekopeko
August 12th, 2009, 05:57 PM
However I did call Canonical - not anyone personally -parasitical. From the start there was a clear difference between the Ubuntu foundation and Canonical Ltd. Mark Shuttleworth needed two, because Canonical`s intent from the start was to ride on the back of volunteers and adherents to free software philosophy in the Ubunto project and exploit their work commercially:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345/comments/50

You are just trolling. How Canonical/Ubuntu connection works was known from the start. You can't rape the willing.

Regenweald
August 12th, 2009, 06:02 PM
However there would also be good things about this, e.g. it would be a change to switch to a packaging system that is less.. baroque than dpkg. Something like Conary would fit very nicely in the Ubuntu model of development and is well supported.

Conary is an amazing management system, and already supports proposed features for Appcentre, rollbacks especially. I am glad someone mentioned this.

Ultimately i think Mark Shuttleworth may well take Ubuntu down a different path and base Ubuntu on something else. The antagonism that the project receives is really ridiculous considering all it wants to do is bring GNU/linux to more users. One would swear that Ubuntu was making hundreds of millions off debian's back. Meanwhile in reality Shuttleworth is funding the entire project out of pocket and Canonical is barely breaking even. But forget that, he's rich, went to space, and you don't like his shirt do you ?

Freedom is the blessing and bane of FOSS. In how many projects have we seen two head developers agree on 10 topics, disagree on1, have a flamewar ensue with it ending in : 'Screw you! I'll fork!' so now rather than two talented devs aimed at a common goal, you have two projects, set back by years and bitterness. It's sad and stupid really. Most of the arguments of FOSS in general have nothing to do with technical merit but merely emotions and personality.

Shuttleworth and Canonical bring something that is very rare in FOSS and that few projects with very LARGE corporate backing have. leadership and direction. If you want to continue running around like a chicken sans head and forking to your hearts content, i'd suggest another distro. Shucks, make your own even, i'm sure it will be unique, hugely popular and not differ from all the others by a whopping single feature. :roll:

pelle.k
August 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM
This thread is turning into a perfect microcosm of the problems with the whole linux community.

Jealousy, misinformation, pride, elitism, the whole gamut.

I was going to say something else....but theres really no point.
+1

Time to unsubscribe to this thread me thinks.

ghindo
August 12th, 2009, 06:57 PM
this thread is turning into a perfect microcosm of the problems with the whole linux community.

Jealousy, misinformation, pride, elitism, the whole gamut.

I was going to say something else....but theres really no point.+∞

HappyFeet
August 12th, 2009, 07:14 PM
Judging an idea based on its source rather than its merit is stupid and divisive.

It seems to me that some people need to be at war with someone else in order to define themselves. To prove they have an identity of their own they must vociferously and completely hate everything else. Its very sad, but very human, and is at the root of a great deal of the pointless fragmentation and internecine warfare that occurs within the OSS community. Far more happens in our community because of personal politics rather than technical excellence.

This is a sensible plan, one that would aid ALL distros, but because the grandees are all more concerned with proving how red, green, blue or swirly snail they are to the core they can't see merit and can only see trojan horses.

Frankly its pathetic.

More coordination in establishing a solid common foundation will make linux a better, more stable, easier to develop for and simpler to maintain platformm, and better still those skills will transfer more easily from one distro to another.

It is time to get off the high horses and have a peace conference, and for all fanboys to shut up, there is no use for them on any side.
You are a god amongst mere mortals. :lolflag:
Finally someone with some common sense. I don't need to read anymore posts after that.

It's sad that some people have to find fault in everything. I guess they think by bashing everything, they can make this world a better place and validate themselves at the same time. Truly sad.

dawynn
August 12th, 2009, 07:45 PM
A solid common foundation...

I thought that was the point of the Linux Standard Base (lsb) project. And more distributions have already made steps toward supporting the goals of lsb then will turn their heads at the thought of a Debian fork giving back to its parent.

I reiterate my though from above -- I really don't see how Ubuntu collaborating with Debian is supposed to be the peacemaking endeavor to end all Linux wars, when Ubuntu never left its Debian roots. Honestly, how does this truly affect Red Hat, Suse, etc.?

gnomeuser
August 12th, 2009, 08:05 PM
A solid common foundation...

I thought that was the point of the Linux Standard Base (lsb) project. And more distributions have already made steps toward supporting the goals of lsb then will turn their heads at the thought of a Debian fork giving back to its parent.


Except the LSB is largely standardize by a group of lesser minds who decide on which libraries will be considered the "stable" base without consulting distributions and upstreams. Point in fact the last time they tried to standardize on a version of GCC the GCC developers were begging them to pick a latter version alas they did not listen.

The LSB is a worthless and failed standard, this however would be a standard created from the distributions needs while listening to upstreams. It would also have a predictable schedule for improvements.



I reiterate my though from above -- I really don't see how Ubuntu collaborating with Debian is supposed to be the peacemaking endeavor to end all Linux wars, when Ubuntu never left its Debian roots. Honestly, how does this truly affect Red Hat, Suse, etc.?

It was attempted to get everyone to agree, but that largely failed to make any impression since no real effort was made to put this together. The existing working relationship between Debian and Ubuntu would make it hopefully easier to get the politics tweaked and produce the intrastructure required for everyone interested to join up as they feel it is appropriate for their project.

This may prove to be a better approach, show that the idea is workable and let everyone contribute at their own level and time to hopefully let it grow into a viable standard.

MikeTheC
August 12th, 2009, 08:16 PM
like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

:lolflag:

OMG! Massive +1 to that video, and to you for finding it!

koenn
August 12th, 2009, 08:41 PM
A solid common foundation...

I thought that was the point of the Linux Standard Base (lsb) project. And more distributions have already made steps toward supporting the goals of lsb then will turn their heads at the thought of a Debian fork giving back to its parent.

what gnomeuser said.

Plus:
LSB is technical. This idea of M Shuttleworth is about organisation and coordination among distros, and between distros and upstream projects.
If it works, I think it's going to be a major step forward for free software as a whole - and that's what this is about : the next step in the evolution of the open source development model, not about a fork giving back to it's parent, or distributions more or less agreeing on a standard directory tree.

Merk42
August 12th, 2009, 08:45 PM
This thread is turning into a perfect microcosm of the problems with the whole linux community.

Jealousy, misinformation, pride, elitism, the whole gamut.

I was going to say something else....but theres really no point.

Figured I should quote this for this page too.

Regenweald
August 12th, 2009, 08:57 PM
Figured I should quote this for this page too.

So lets turn it back into a thread we can be proud of, Gnomeuser has already kept on track. Used to be I would come to the cafe and learn stuff.

Analytically: There seems to be no end of pros, but what are the cons if any possibly ? Serious technical cons.