PDA

View Full Version : Your Views on Ubuntu Re-Spins



GreenDance
January 12th, 2011, 08:55 PM
Hi, I was just wondering what your views are with Ubuntu Re-Spins, distro's that are still Ubuntu, but with different packages, i.e. targeted at a specific audience.

Thank You.

NightwishFan
January 12th, 2011, 09:07 PM
Some are useful, especially to save work on configurations, especially if done well. However in come circumstances, just setting up a repository for their needs would be better.

GreenDance
January 12th, 2011, 09:09 PM
Some are useful, especially to save work on configurations, especially if done well. However in come circumstances, just setting up a repository for their needs would be better.

Would you agree, that it is far easier, and maybe better, to re-spin an OS like Ubuntu than to build an OS from scratch like with LFS.

Megaptera
January 12th, 2011, 09:18 PM
Some are really useful and a benefit to people - for instance Vinux is a customised version of the popular Ubuntu Linux Distribution optimised for visually impaired users. It provides a screen-reader, full-screen magnification and support for Braille displays out of the box.http://vinux.org.uk/faq.html

Some on the other hand are less useful for instance Hannah Montana version
http://www.switched.com/2009/08/15/hannah-montana-makes-sure-no-one-takes-linux-seriously/

GreenDance
January 12th, 2011, 09:22 PM
Some on the other hand are less useful for instance Hannah Montana version
http://www.switched.com/2009/08/15/hannah-montana-makes-sure-no-one-takes-linux-seriously/

Yes I have to totally agree with that one, the mentioned above should of been released as a theme pack IMO.

RiceMonster
January 12th, 2011, 09:22 PM
There's way too many.

WorfSOM
January 12th, 2011, 09:37 PM
Some are useful, especially to save work on configurations, especially if done well. However in come circumstances, just setting up a repository for their needs would be better.

Completely agree.

By all means make a respin if there is a genuine need for it, but if it is just changing the theme and a couple of the default packages? Not much point in my opinion.

Paqman
January 12th, 2011, 09:43 PM
Would you agree, that it is far easier, and maybe better, to re-spin an OS like Ubuntu than to build an OS from scratch like with LFS.

I don't think LFS's objective is really to provide people with a way of producing custom distros for mass consumption. It's more of a teaching tool.

CraigPaleo
January 12th, 2011, 10:03 PM
I use one myself. If I'm not it KDE, I'm in Pinguy OS. I've discovered apps I'd never heard of before and aren't in the repos through using re-spins. The same goes for themes and what have you.

I'm a distro hopper but I always come back to something Ubuntu-based in the end.

Barrucadu
January 12th, 2011, 10:12 PM
A small few are useful, the vast majority are just superfluous.

Spice Weasel
January 12th, 2011, 10:44 PM
"Ya basta!" :D

Seriously, there are way too many and the majority of them are quite pointless.

FuturePilot
January 12th, 2011, 11:38 PM
There's way too many. The majority of them are completely pointless. i.e. different theme, wallpaper, and installed packages. That's something you could easily do with a script.

kaldor
January 13th, 2011, 12:51 AM
Hi, I was just wondering what your views are with Ubuntu Re-Spins, distro's that are still Ubuntu, but with different packages, i.e. targeted at a specific audience.

Thank You.

Apart from a very small handful of respins, it's useless. It's just fragmentation for no reason other than to get your name out there.

Mint is one of few Ubuntu "respins" that I think deserve to be considered not "just another" OS. They don't just change the theme and add packages, they also have different goals and different ideas.

Hur Dur
January 13th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Some of them are useful, like Fluxbuntu, where it has light software, and some performance tweaks other than just fluxbox. Most are useless though, like just Ubuntu with a different theme and desktop environment.

zyiro
January 13th, 2011, 01:08 AM
if you really look at it Ubuntu is a re-Spin in itself. Its more or less Debian geared towards the entry level Linux user.

mamamia88
January 13th, 2011, 01:49 AM
aren't most distros respins of other distros?

handy
January 13th, 2011, 02:12 AM
I don't care about the subject at all.

Ubuntu is a re-spin of Debian.

Timmer1240
January 13th, 2011, 02:19 AM
I just like to Install Ubuntu and add or remove programs and customize it myself who knows better what you want but yourself?

NightwishFan
January 13th, 2011, 02:49 AM
I don't care about the subject at all.

Ubuntu is a re-spin of Debian.

In some places.

GreenDance
January 13th, 2011, 10:59 AM
So if someone wanted to make an impact in the linux market, they would have to do a LFS?

Spice Weasel
January 13th, 2011, 11:29 AM
So if someone wanted to make an impact in the linux market, they would have to do a LFS?

No, if you wanted to make an impact in the Linux 'market' you have to be original, and not make another distribution (from scratch or not) that is just standard GNU/Linux with GNOME/KDE and dpkg or RPM. Originality is key.

GreenDance
January 13th, 2011, 12:57 PM
No, if you wanted to make an impact in the Linux 'market' you have to be original, and not make another distribution (from scratch or not) that is just standard GNU/Linux with GNOME/KDE and dpkg or RPM. Originality is key.

So, going back to the drawing board, and re-writing history, starting from scratch, something totally original?

Johnsie
January 13th, 2011, 01:05 PM
My view is that Ubuntu itself is a re-spin... So really they are all Debian re-spins. Jolicloud is great... I'll be looking for a Gnome-based distro when Unity becomes the default. Unity is not suitable for the professional business user.

Spice Weasel
January 13th, 2011, 01:05 PM
Which are more important to the free software world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZevenOS - Different theme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux4One - Different desktop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabily - Pre installed Arabic and Islamic software.

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux - They developed the tools needed to redefine the UNIX-like filesystem to be easy to use and understand from the new user's point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSLinux - Made it possible (and possibly proved) that it is possible to run Linux on a Nintendo DS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xebian - Created a fork of the kernel that could run on the Microsoft Xbox.

wojox
January 13th, 2011, 01:20 PM
There's way too many.

What about your favorite? Hannah Montana Linux (http://hannahmontana.sourceforge.net/Site/Home.html)

Lisimelis
January 13th, 2011, 03:36 PM
i really like the lighter ones....i have an old laptop for testing and really made it useful with a couple of them...

toupeiro
January 13th, 2011, 03:51 PM
I don't care about the subject at all.

Ubuntu is a re-spin of Debian.

Quite right! However, one of very significant consequence..

I never held much favor for spin-offs of spin-offs, until I ran Jolicloud...

RiceMonster
January 13th, 2011, 03:57 PM
What about your favorite? Hannah Montana Linux (http://hannahmontana.sourceforge.net/Site/Home.html)

That's the only acceptable one, of course.




---
Sent from HML

GreenDance
January 13th, 2011, 04:26 PM
Isn't OSX a respin of BSD?

GreenDance
January 13th, 2011, 04:50 PM
No, if you wanted to make an impact in the Linux 'market' you have to be original, and not make another distribution (from scratch or not) that is just standard GNU/Linux with GNOME/KDE and dpkg or RPM. Originality is key.

With such thing as the GUI being original, not Gnome/KDE?

kaldor
January 13th, 2011, 04:59 PM
Isn't OSX a respin of BSD?

OS X is way too far separated to be called a respin. It doesn't work the same at all. Ports work, OS X uses Bash, it has a UNIX-like file hierarchy, but overall it's too different.

It's like calling Windows 7 a respin of MS-DOS.

Spice Weasel
January 13th, 2011, 05:06 PM
Except BSD is much, much, much better than MS-DOS. ;)

TBABill
January 13th, 2011, 07:08 PM
I had a similar question recently, but it was regarding any respin of Debian. I figured, after so much discussion, Debian would be a beast to install but I just went for it and it was a snap. So I'm using Debian, it looks and acts almost exactly like Ubuntu (other than configuring my Broadcom STA driver) and now that it's up and running I can't really tell any difference from Debian to Ubuntu other than how much slower Ubuntu runs on the same machine.

I do like that Ubuntu made some steps easier for newer users, but anybody who has used Ubuntu for a bit can easily migrate to Debian and feel right at home with a more stable system. I'm sticking with "testing" even after Squeeze goes stable, but that's just to have some newer apps down the road.

For me, Ubuntu gives easier installation steps, better font rendering out of the box, the Ubuntu Software Center (for those who don't just use Synaptic or Apt directly), themes, some newer versions of apps, newer kernel (newer than 2.6.32 that's in Squeeze, Sid and testing on Debian) and a few other tools. But overall not much difference if you are NOT a new user. So to respin Ubuntu works for Mint and Pinguy OS pretty well and gains a bit of originality, but only Mint really makes it look and feel like a different OS (although it's not vastly different). It seems difficult to build on an already easy OS to make something even easier so catering to other areas with apps, appearance, menus, drivers, etc is where the better respins gain ground in my eyes.

NightwishFan
January 13th, 2011, 07:27 PM
I tried, however I really can not use Debian as my main machine. It lacks a lot of packages I need easily available such as apparmor. The installation is not difficult but generally you need a net connection to get a full featured system.

I really enjoy how Debian packages software though, which in most cases is in a more flexible way than Ubuntu. Such as with Plymouth and etc. Debian also has more upstream compatibility I believe. However many people assume Ubuntu modifies things in such a way that is poor. As far as I know that is not the case, Ubuntu targets a smaller group so they can optimize packages better for modern machines, and their engineers do their own patching to make sure complicated stuff works. I have to admit I have have begun to rely on that.

I have little need for most non-free stuff so I am not worried about the easy of getting it. I do not even take that into consideration one way or another. My laptop luckily runs with a libre kernel. Though Ubuntu packages the default desktop in an excellent way, it might have a few more features than most people want however it is still light enough to have a fully usable system on a single CD.

Next problem I have is release schedules. I do not need to be "direly" up to date, however I prefer to be more up to date than a 2 or 3 year release cycle. Ubuntu has 6 months which might be a little fast, but the timing works with Xorg and Gnome. Also, I am not fond of the rolling model of testing/unstable. With Ubuntu for at least 18 months I know I have support and packages available. With Testing, things might suddenly vanish as new technologies warp in.

Edit: Not to mention, I can use the longer supported more reliable release, and the newer one depending on my needs. I find this to be very flexible. As I said the Ubuntu non-lts are more stable as in unchanging during their life than Debian Testing.

So essentially, until further notice, I only consider Debian Stable a contender for real use, and it is fantastically designed (even better than Ubuntu LTS) to be very reliable. In a situation where I want something to just work it would certainly be my first stop.

So basically, I am a Debian guy. Ubuntu is still Debian, and I would be sorry to see such a great OS and community go, and I am pretty sure it will not. :)

I do not consider Ubuntu to be a strict Debian respin. It is not like they "just change the defaults". They innovate and have their own goals, and it really can be considered a mutual extension of the Debian project. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I just hope Ubuntu continues to have strong ties to Debian and contributes back to it more in the future for the better of both. If someone has a problem with Ubuntu being based on Debian, then they should have a problem with something like Arch being based on Linux or GNU.

1roxtar
January 13th, 2011, 07:52 PM
I've made my own personal "respin" of Ubuntu using remastersys. I left it as stock as I can be but adding a few extras...updates, theme packs, dockbarx, restricted extras, vlc, frostwire, qbittorrent, Xchat, Banshee, Gnome Global Menu , Ubuntu Tweak, and a few others.

As a tech, I simply use it so I don't have to re-download everything and spent hours customizing or tweaking. It's a HUGE help for me, but I'm not gonna call it "Sumthin-Buntu" or whatever and upload it as a new OS. If anyone is gonna create a respin, then it should be mostly for specialized niches, such as for the disabled, forensics, boot cd's, educational, media editing and such. (My 2 cents)

perspectoff
January 13th, 2011, 07:59 PM
I use one myself. If I'm not it KDE, I'm in Pinguy OS. I've discovered apps I'd never heard of before and aren't in the repos through using re-spins. The same goes for themes and what have you.

I'm a distro hopper but I always come back to something Ubuntu-based in the end.

Yes, I have done the same thing in the past. It's a lot of work with little gain doing that, though, and there's always a lot of deadwood (that I'm not interested in) that comes with every custom spin.

Now I just investigate the spins, find out which unique packages they're using that I'd be interested in, and then just install those unique packages by themselves.

It has cut down on a lot of deadwood on my computers.

Having said that, I do create my own backups of my system using Remastersys. I like to duplicate my own custom setup on multiple computers (and this saves me a lot of time doing it). But rarely am I interested in other people's custom setups nor they in mine.

Eddie Wilson
January 13th, 2011, 08:20 PM
I understand where everyone is coming from but one of the biggest drawing points of using OSS is the freedom in doing whatever your heart desires with the code. If a person wants to use a free and open distro as a base to build upon then they should be encouraged to do so. Are all of these spin offs needed? Of course not. Are they beneficial? Yes they are. Maybe not to you or not to me but to the person who made it they are beneficial and it is very proper for a person to do just that. There are no good reasons to discourage anyone from doing so. Suggestions have been made that instead of a person making another distro they should help with other projects or even other distros and that is just fine if a person wants to do that and it's fine if they don't. If you have been around the open source world and working with Linux or BSD for a few years then you know there is no confusion in the community with all these spin-offs being made. Sooner or later we will all want to try to make our own. We all do that to an extent now. Who has a right to tell people that they can't make their own distro (os) using existing code? MS, Apple, or any of the other proprietary companies has that right. It's best to leave the constrictive thinking in the proprietary world where it belongs. All of us being able to spin our very own distro is a great privilege and it's also great fun and a great way to learn.:D

Spice Weasel
January 13th, 2011, 08:25 PM
The world would be a much better place if Remastersys didn't exist.

TenPlus1
January 13th, 2011, 08:31 PM
The main thing is that people are using Linux in it's many flavours and installing whichever one works for them... Re-spins are ok in my book...

BrokenKingpin
January 13th, 2011, 09:10 PM
However in come circumstances, just setting up a repository for their needs would be better.

I agree. I would rather see a script on top of Ubuntu than a new re-spin.

I also find that most re-spins are completely re-branded because of copy right issues, but that always rubs me the wrong way. The guys behind Ubuntu (and all the other projects that make up the OS) did all the work, and someone changes a few packages and calls it a new OS... not right IMO.

As for the re-spins out there, most of them are useless and just add more packages that do the same damn thing as the default applications. No one needs 8 browsers and 16 torrent programs.

The only Ubuntu based distro I have any respect for is Mint, and that is because they have written their own software. Although in Mint's case, an added repo to Ubuntu would do the same thing IMO.

jhsu802701
January 13th, 2011, 09:43 PM
Why are there so many objections to Ubuntu respins? The respin haters remind me of the people who complain that there are too many Linux distros. If you don't like a particular re-spin or distro, you are free to ignore it.

While the vast majority of re-spins are of no added value to anyone besides the founder, a few really are innovative. Examples include the Debian-derived Ubuntu and the Ubuntu-derived Linux Mint.

NightwishFan
January 13th, 2011, 09:46 PM
Why are there so many objections to Ubuntu respins? The respin haters remind me of the people who complain that there are too many Linux distros. If you don't like a particular re-spin or distro, you are free to ignore it.

Well sometimes too much fragmentation is bad for the whole but you are in effect right. It is sort of like useless hate to worry about a respin.

fuduntu
January 13th, 2011, 09:48 PM
I also find that most re-spins are completely re-branded because of copy right issues, but that always rubs me the wrong way. The guys behind Ubuntu (and all the other projects that make up the OS) did all the work, and someone changes a few packages and calls it a new OS... not right IMO.


GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

NightwishFan
January 13th, 2011, 09:51 PM
GPL'd :D

BrokenKingpin
January 13th, 2011, 10:39 PM
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
...

I know and understand the GPL. To an end user using a respin that has been completely re-branded they wouldn't know that it is basically Ubuntu without going into the documentation and all that ****. My point is if Ubuntu did 99% of the work, it should be obvious to the end user that you are using Ubuntu, not Distro X that is just Ubuntu plus 3 packages from the repos.

NightwishFan
January 13th, 2011, 10:59 PM
I know and understand the GPL. To an end user using a respin that has been completely re-branded they wouldn't know that it is basically Ubuntu without going into the documentation and all that ****. My point is if Ubuntu did 99% of the work, it should be obvious to the end user that you are using Ubuntu, not Distro X that is just Ubuntu plus 3 packages from the repos.

Well think about it, the GPL is so that you are protected to change the source, and the folks that released the code agreed to these terms and almost certainly understood them. Generally such a respin could not offer the development force or services like Red Hat or Canonical, which makes using the "original" appealing unless you are in no need of the services, which really does not matter either way then. The respin is bound to keep changes open, so the original project can potentially benefit from it as well.

fuduntu
January 13th, 2011, 11:00 PM
I know and understand the GPL. To an end user using a respin that has been completely re-branded they wouldn't know that it is basically Ubuntu without going into the documentation and all that ****. My point is if Ubuntu did 99% of the work, it should be obvious to the end user that you are using Ubuntu, not Distro X that is just Ubuntu plus 3 packages from the repos.

Anyone that has this problem simply should not release software under the GPL license, and that's the bottom line.

I know of several forks of software that I have written, it's something to be proud of, not angry about.

It is the nature of the GPL. Should the debian people be angry that Ubuntu rebranded Debian? What about Linus, should he be angry that we don't call Ubuntu Linux kernel/Ubuntu?

No, by design.

FYI, Canonical does 10% of the work overall when you consider every small detail, not 90%. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Primefalcon
January 13th, 2011, 11:04 PM
Ubuntu is the main distro and my choice, Ubuntu server is great as a server OS however I have been kinda moving to CentOS since I don't like constant distro updates there.....

My lightweight distro of choice is Lubuntu, since it uses about half the resources of Xubuntu while still being elegant unlike XFCE which looks like a bland gnome to me

CraigPaleo
January 13th, 2011, 11:05 PM
I know and understand the GPL. To an end user using a respin that has been completely re-branded they wouldn't know that it is basically Ubuntu without going into the documentation and all that ****. My point is if Ubuntu did 99% of the work, it should be obvious to the end user that you are using Ubuntu, not Distro X that is just Ubuntu plus 3 packages from the repos.

I agree with you but if there are more than just minor changes, Ubuntu doesn't want you calling it "Ubuntu." You may call it a derivative. That's what happened to Super OS (Super Ubuntu). Ubuntu told Hacktolive that he couldn't use their name and logo unless he kept to the official Ubuntu repos.

It's also in the trademark policy. (http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy) It does make sense if you think about it. Ubuntu wants control over their distro. If some Tom makes a FUBAR respin that causes dependency hell or some such, Ubuntu doesn't want to be associated with it.

Frogs Hair
January 14th, 2011, 12:07 AM
I don't object to re-spins , but I don't consider adding a group of applications to an operating and repackaging it a different operating system. If the re-spin depends on updates from parent operating system , I don't see how it can be considered its own operating system.

fuduntu
January 14th, 2011, 12:25 AM
I don't object to re-spins , but I don't consider adding a group of applications to an operating and repackaging it a different operating system. If the re-spin depends on updates from parent operating system , I don't see how it can be considered its own operating system.

So, since Ubuntu is a 6 month point in time fork of Debian (meaning it relies on Debian for the core of the OS), it isn't its own operating system?

Frogs Hair
January 14th, 2011, 02:21 AM
So, since Ubuntu is a 6 month point in time fork of Debian (meaning it relies on Debian for the core of the OS), it isn't its own operating system?

I was thinking of user generated re-spins not company backed releases with development teams .

If I were assemble group of applications starting with Ubuntu and renamed it , I have created nothing but a group of applications that include Ubuntu, Which is far different from developing an operating system.

wojox
January 14th, 2011, 03:49 AM
Have you ever notice everyone who makes a Ubuntu Re-Spin does it better than Ubuntu? :confused:

fuduntu
January 14th, 2011, 03:04 PM
I was thinking of user generated re-spins not company backed releases with development teams .

If I were assemble group of applications starting with Ubuntu and renamed it , I have created nothing but a group of applications that include Ubuntu, Which is far different from developing an operating system.

Oh, I see. So then Mint, Debian, PCLinuxOS, Gentoo, Arch, and most of the other distributions that aren't RedHat, or Canonical (read company) backed aren't distributions either.

Your definition of changing defaults of Ubuntu doesn't really make a distribution that isn't Ubuntu, I can agree with that.

What you did though is define lubuntu, kubuntu, medibuntu, and all of the spins. You didn't define a forked distribution.

Bodhi is significantly different than Ubuntu, and is rebranded. Fuduntu is significantly different than Fedora, and is rebranded. Are these projects "distributions"? Yes, they certainly are per all of the licenses and policies that they follow even if they use packages from their parent distributions just like Ubuntu uses packages from its Debian parent. This is a community, not an island.

BrokenKingpin
January 14th, 2011, 03:08 PM
Anyone that has this problem simply should not release software under the GPL license, and that's the bottom line.

I know of several forks of software that I have written, it's something to be proud of, not angry about.


There is a difference between someone forking something and doing something with it, and someone forking something, spending 6 minutes adding a package and pumping out and ISO and calling it a new OS.

fuduntu
January 14th, 2011, 03:10 PM
There is a difference between someone forking something and doing something with it, and someone forking something, spending 6 minutes adding a package and pumping out and ISO and calling it a new OS.

That's fair, but they all have to start somewhere.

TheNessus
January 14th, 2011, 04:06 PM
I use one myself. If I'm not it KDE, I'm in Pinguy OS. I've discovered apps I'd never heard of before and aren't in the repos through using re-spins. The same goes for themes and what have you.

I'm a distro hopper but I always come back to something Ubuntu-based in the end.

examples of such programs?

CraigPaleo
January 14th, 2011, 05:14 PM
examples of such programs?

Here are some I use.


Shutter (http://shutter-project.org/)
Clementine (http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/Clementine?content=120598)
TED (http://www.ted.nu/)
pms-linux (http://ps3mediaserver.blogspot.com/)
DVB (http://live.gnome.org/DVBDaemon)
DockbarX (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/DockbarX?content=101604)
Remina (http://remmina.sourceforge.net/)
Ailurus (http://code.google.com/p/ailurus/)
Wine Game (http://code.google.com/p/winegame/)


__________________
Pardus at Distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com/pardus)

ki4jgt
January 14th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Isn't the idea of the FSF that anyone can respin anything to their desired results? Most of the FSF's goals are held by Ubuntu, so who are we to say who can do what with it? As long as they find a way to keep the project going, then who cares if their name is out there or not.

keithpeter
January 14th, 2011, 07:47 PM
Hello All

I'm braving the increasingly strange forum server to suggest a non-redundant respin

http://puredyne.org/

Currently based on Ubuntu 9.10 (with xfce4 window manager) but new version based on Ubuntu 10.10.

Provides bleeding edge music/audio software (supercollider, fluxus) that is configured correctly and that 'just works'.

Not a waste of time at all

GreenDance
January 15th, 2011, 12:29 PM
If one was to create a spin-off, could one create a repo and replace the kernel from the distro (debian/ubuntu) with a bleeding edge version from the custom repo?

NCLI
January 15th, 2011, 12:41 PM
Ubuntu is the main distro and my choice, Ubuntu server is great as a server OS however I have been kinda moving to CentOS since I don't like constant distro updates there.....

My lightweight distro of choice is Lubuntu, since it uses about half the resources of Xubuntu while still being elegant unlike XFCE which looks like a bland gnome to me

Every five years is constant??

If you're talking about the normal updates, you can just automate the process with unattended updates.