Debian and ubuntu, again

[sophtpaw]

Stepping out of the Ubuntu bubble i have been in for a long time, i was a little surprised, shocked actally, to hear how much heat there is coming from other Linux users towards Ubuntu.
Is it just jealousy or do they have a point i asked myself? I came across this blog which in a neutral way put some of the issues concerned.

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

Wondered if any of you would like to shed some more light onthe situation.

Seems, one of the main issue is ubuntu forking debian packages and not giving enough back to Debian.

I didn't know Ubuntu owed Debian anything. Figured it was just another os doing a good thing in the world by bringing Linux to more people's desktop than any other linux os has done sofar. but seems like not everyone agrees.

[kabus]

http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/relationship

[bruce89]

A whole load of linux users annoy me because I don't use a "real" linux like Gentoo or Slackware. They also don't help and tell you to RTFM, that is why this forum is brilliant, as we are all very helpful. This has nothing to do with Debian though.

[sophtpaw]

http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/relationship

yeah, thats the official line, i know. I've read it also. So, why did i discover to my dismay, that in reality many Linux users (other than ubuntu) and debian developers (apparently) disgruntled at the ubuntu/debian relationship? thats what i'm asking

[bruce89]

yeah, thats the official line, i know. I've read it also. So, why did i discover to my dismay, that in reality many Linux users (other than ubuntu) and debian developers (apparently) disgruntled at the ubuntu/debian relationship? thats what i'm asking
That link is propaganda.

[kabus]

yeah, thats the official line, i know.

I just posted a link to some facts about the Ubuntu/Debian relationship in the hope that this thread wouldn't end up full of enlightened statements like this :


These snobs are very annoying.



So, why did i discover to my dismay, that in reality many Linux users (other than ubuntu) and debian developers (apparently) disgruntled at the ubuntu/debian relationship?


Any evidence ?
The blog post mentions one slightly 'disgruntled' Debian dev whose reasoning you can read here:

http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/the_supermarket_thing.html

There's really not much else to discuss in that blog post because it's all vague hearsay.
Matt Zimmerman pretty much debunks it point by point here:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/2006-July/008134.html

The minutes of the Ubuntu-Debian discussion at Debconf also suggest that the problems are much smaller than some people make them out to be:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/06/msg00278.html


[...]the problems we're facing now, are generic problems that we could have with other derivatives as well.
We were just not prepared to work efficiently with any derivative and we're just figuring out how to do it right.
Debian needs to evolve to be better armed to incorporate the good bits that are in derivatives.

[BWF89]

Seems, one of the main issue is ubuntu forking debian packages and not giving enough back to Debian.

I didn't know Ubuntu owed Debian anything. Figured it was just another os doing a good thing in the world by bringing Linux to more people's desktop than any other linux os has done sofar. but seems like not everyone agrees.
Theres some people in a different thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=212081) that don't even want it mentioned on Ubuntu's home page that Ubuntu is in fact Linux. Not mentioning that it's very existence doesn't depend entirely on Debian is bad enough, but just saying that were so godly that we shouldn't even say were Linux, but above it would make me see why theres alot of friction between us and the rest of Linuxworld.

Ubuntu is not always gurantted to be there for us like Debian us. Ubuntu is a distro that the second that Mark Shutleworth had a change of heart he could pull all his money out and we'd be left with nothing. Debian doens't need anyone, they don't depend on money of paid developers, and it's been chugging along just fine since 1993 with that philosophy. Ubuntu's been around since October 2004.

[bruce89]

Theres some people in a different thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=212081) that don't even want it mentioned on Ubuntu's home page that Ubuntu is in fact Linux. Not mentioning that it's very existence doesn't depend entirely on Debian is bad enough, but just saying that were so godly that we shouldn't even say were Linux, but above it would make me see why theres alot of friction between us and the rest of Linuxworld.
It does now:

Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. It is developed by a large community and we invite you to participate too!

[lapsey]

it's not worth worrying about. No matter where canonical goes, ubuntu is in the hands of the community if it needs to be.


And the only reason people are saying 'don't mention linux!' is because that is apparently a Bad Word to use when you are trying to sell people on Ubuntu.

Is it me or does much of the FUD in the community arise from zealots jumping to their conclusions? Your arguments are only worth anything when based in fact, guys.

[loell]

i guess when you're on top of the foodchain, you usually take up the heat from other minor distros and i think its normal. i think it has always been like that even in the past with red hat, Mandrake/mandriva and Suse

[BWF89]

@Bruce89: What the first paragraph of the main page makes it sound like Ubuntu is developed by a large community of people who use Ubuntu. Ubuntu is mainly developed by people who use Debian and they just take what they do and make it easier to use.

On the 2nd paragraph they talk about what is called the "Ubuntu Philosophy". Acting like they created the whole idea that software should be freely avalible. Hey, we already have a philosophy that's been around since 1993 and it was created by Debian. We just took it and changed it around a little so that including proprietary drivers to make it work better out of the box doens't go against our philosophy. If you want to go even farther the philosophy was created by RMS in 1985 when he wrote the GNU Manifesto and started work on the GNU Project.

It's not until the about page that they mention we have any ties to anyone else at all. The first page would lead you to believe that Ubuntu is entirely self suficcient. And even when it does say he have ties to other operating systems it just says Ubuntu is a free, open source operating system that starts with the breadth of Debian. I don't even know what the word bredth means. I had to go to dictionary.com to find out. Heres what bredth means

-The measure or dimension from side to side; width.
-A piece usually produced in a standard width: a breadth of canvas.
-Wide range or scope: breadth of knowledge.
-Tolerance; broadmindedness: a jurist of great breadth and wisdom.
-An effect of unified, encompassing vision in an artistic composition.

If I'm a Linux newbie I still don't know what exactly Ubuntu's relation to Debian is. I have to go to the seperate page on the site titled "Debian and Ubuntu" to understand exactly what our relationship is. They could alteast say that Ubuntu is stronly infludnced on Debian and link those words to the Ubuntu and Deian page.

[bruce89]

@Bruce89: What the first paragraph of the main page makes it sound like Ubuntu is developed by a large community of people who use Ubuntu. Ubuntu is mainly developed by people who use Debian and they just take what they do and make it easier to use.

On the 2nd paragraph they talk about what is called the "Ubuntu Philosophy". Acting like they created the whole idea that software should be freely avalible. Hey, we already have a philosophy that's been around since 1993 and it was created by Debian. We just took it and changed it around a little so that including proprietary drivers to make it work better out of the box doens't go against our philosophy. If you want to go even farther the philosophy was created by RMS when he wrote the GNU Manifesto and started work on the GNU Project.

It's not until the about page that they mention we have any ties to anyone else at all. The first page would lead you to believe that Ubuntu is entirely self suficcient. And even when it does say he have ties to other operating systems it just says Ubuntu is a free, open source operating system that starts with the breadth of Debian. I don't even know what the word bredth means. I had to go to dictionary.com to find out. Heres what bredth means

-The measure or dimension from side to side; width.
-A piece usually produced in a standard width: a breadth of canvas.
-Wide range or scope: breadth of knowledge.
-Tolerance; broadmindedness: a jurist of great breadth and wisdom.
-An effect of unified, encompassing vision in an artistic composition.
I was only proving that Ubuntu says it's Linux.

[sharkboy]

I think this is a very interesting read, together with its links:

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

The authour is Martin Krafft, who wrote the excellent book "The Debian System -- concepts and techniques".

[diepruis]

Good post. Messy business. I hate this sort of infighting between opensource projects and the like. I hope it is resolved soon.

[kabus]

Again, indeed. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=212650)

[tsb]

I hate the "giving back" BS. Have some common sense. The Ubuntu source code is open. If these "programmers" can develop Debian then they are surely deft enough to use the source code to find improvements. Besides, the entire idea of open source means that one can do whatever one pleases with the code as long as the source is made available. It seems the ideals on which Debian was founded have been forgotten!

[Jucato]

I hate the "giving back" BS. Have some common sense. The Ubuntu source code is open. If these "programmers" can develop Debian then they are surely deft enough to use the source code to find improvements. Besides, the entire idea of open source means that one can do whatever one pleases with the code as long as the source is made available. It seems the ideals on which Debian was founded have been forgotten!

I'm not sure about this, but I've always thought that part of using the GPL means that any modifications to the program must be contributed back to the source of the code (from whom/where you took the program). I think this is one of the "hot" issues about the upcoming GPL v3. But like I said, I'm not absolutely sure.

Whether or not it's stated in the GPL, it's really only fair if you were to "contribute" changes, specially bug fixes and patches, back to the source of the program. I think it's also fair to give those changes back in a way/manner that would make it easy for the "upstream" (if that's the proper term) to incorporate these changes.

Open source doesn't just mean having the source code made available, although that is a very essential piece of the picture. It's the rights/freedom that comes with having this source code made available that is more important. For example, there are some companies that would allow you to see their source code, but under a non-disclosure agreement, or some other restriction. So making the source code available is not the only requisite for a program to be considered Free/Open Source

Having said that, I really don't know whether the Debian devs' statements are true or whether Ubuntu devs' statements are true. What irks me about these "discussions" is that there is a "discussion". Most of the time, these people just rant about this or that problem, rather than actually trying to help solve the problem. I know it's their right to voice their opinions to the public, but it's also their responsibility to work towards solving the problem, since they're the only ones capable of doing that. I mean, it's one thing to just say that "they are not doing this, or they are being unfair", and quite another thing to say "they are not doing this, so let's come together and agree on how to do/solve this." Nowadays, I see more publicity on the first statement rather than the second one.

It's good to see statements/documents like these minutes from the Ubuntu-Debian discussions at DebConf (http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/06/msg00278.html). Unfortunately, these statements are not that well-known or circulated compared to blogs.

[asimon]

I hate the "giving back" BS. Have some common sense. The Ubuntu source code is open. If these "programmers" can develop Debian then they are surely deft enough to use the source code to find improvements. Besides, the entire idea of open source means that one can do whatever one pleases with the code as long as the source is made available. It seems the ideals on which Debian was founded have been forgotten!
The whole thing isn't about the availability of source code, the legality of making derivates of free software or the ideals on which Debian are founded on. It's about lessening the workload of both distribution's developers and playing nice together.

[bruce89]

I hate the "giving back" BS. Have some common sense. The Ubuntu source code is open. If these "programmers" can develop Debian then they are surely deft enough to use the source code to find improvements. Besides, the entire idea of open source means that one can do whatever one pleases with the code as long as the source is made available. It seems the ideals on which Debian was founded have been forgotten!
The problem is that the patches that Ubuntu produce are monolithic, so it is difficult for Debian to get the useful ones. (As some just remove Debian branding etc.)

[kabus]

Ubuntu fanboy


Well at least you admit it...

[brentoboy]

This whole thing is a mess.

Debian is an interesting distro -- it starts with the very best of ideals and then holds to them so stringently that it isn’t usable.

Apt is the best package manager.
Their commitment to opensource is absolute.
They are so committed to the gnome "easy" way (as opposed to the KDE "lots of options even if some are worthless").
Stability means "perfect"

The debian "stable" version never actually changes. Its been sarge for as long as I can remember. sarge doesnt even have an official port for amd64 because it didnt exist when sarge was in unstable / testing.

Ubuntu goes a step "nicer" on each of debian's unyielding stands. Where debian commits to opensource and doesnt even want to admit that there are proprietary media codecs, ubuntu provides the freeones and admits that there are others... even explains in the wiki how they could be obtained.

Where debian wants its beta version to have been bug free on a million computers for 4 or 5 years running before calling it stable, ubuntu says 6 months of heavy bug fixing is good enough for most people, and ubuntu believes that the new features are more valuable even if the occasional bug makes the final release.

debian spends so much time sticking to their principles that they push people away who just want to use thier computer. Ubuntu is a happy medium, and so it is more popular, if debian is jeleous because they want the popularity, then all they have to do is relax a little bit and cater to what people want instead of being so anal about thier current list of driving principles.

I bet the only reason debian doesnt want the ubuntu "monolithic" patches is because they dont want the sorts of "progressive" enhancements that ubuntu has contributed. They are just too user friendly for thier tastes.

Its hard to be an ubuntu fanboy and feal this way about debian, but with ubuntu as the saying goes, "you can have your cake (debian) and eat it too." Who wouldnt want an up to date debian that is supported even though it is based on code written this millennium?

Debian doesnt like the fact that ubuntu is doing what people have told debian to do for a long time, and ubuntu is popular becuase they are actually doing those things that people have asked for that they have hesitated to offer.

[az]

I hate the "giving back" BS. Have some common sense. The Ubuntu source code is open. If these "programmers" can develop Debian then they are surely deft enough to use the source code to find improvements.

It's not at all that simple.

Debian is greater than Ubuntu. For every Ubuntu core developer, there are 100 debian developers.

Ubuntu would be greatly harmed if Debian was lessened. The tricky bit is to make Ubuntu's success benefit Debian and not harm it. This requires effort. Part of that is making it easy for DDs to use Ubuntu patches.

A *lot* of Ubuntu patches get back into debian. The system is however far from being perfect.

I think a big issue is that for Ubuntu to be a good citizen of the free-libre software community, they have to aim to give back upstream, as well. Launchpad is under heavy development (there are more Canonical developers working on Launchpad than on the ubnutu distro, BTW)



Besides, the entire idea of open source means that one can do whatever one pleases with the code as long as the source is made available. It seems the ideals on which Debian was founded have been forgotten!

Not at all. Debian is the biggest open source project in terms of developer numbers. It's not just about the code (and never was) It's about the community. Ubuntu is part of Debian's community. Not all DDs feel that way, though.

[bruce89]

I bet the only reason debian doesnt want the ubuntu "monolithic" patches is because they dont want the sorts of "progressive" enhancements that ubuntu has contributed. They are just too user friendly for thier tastes.
That is most definatly not the case, see this patch - http://patches.ubuntu.com/s/synaptic/synaptic_0.57.10ubuntu2.patch
This file is actually composed of lots of smaller patches combined into one huge one. It is 3.5MiB in size, it is very difficult to see which bits of this monolithic patch are relevent to Debian. It is not a case of Debian not wanting them because they don't want to be user friendly, it's because it is so difficult to find which parts of these patches are relevent to them.

OpenOffice.org's Ubuntu patch is 69.6MiB in size (GZ compressed), by the way.

[asimon]

Ubuntu would be greatly harmed if Debian was lessened. The tricky bit is to make Ubuntu's success benefit Debian and not harm it. This requires effort. Part of that is making it easy for DDs to use Ubuntu patches.
Just to make this clear, some people seem to think this is something to be done just to make some DDs happy. Getting patches into Debian is very important for Ubuntu. The reason is that Ubuntu has not many developers and every single patch which doesn't get applied in Debian sucks valuable resources from Ubuntu developers. Improving the ways to get patches into Debian is not only good (assuming the patch in question is good) for Debian but also important for Ubuntu.



I think a big issue is that for Ubuntu to be a good citizen of the free-libre software community, they have to aim to give back upstream, as well. Launchpad is under heavy development (there are more Canonical developers working on Launchpad than on the ubnutu distro, BTW)
Ubuntu would be a better citizen of the Free Software community if they would not use, propagate, and depend on propritary launchpad. :evil:

[kabus]

This whole thing is a mess.

Debian is an interesting distro -- it starts with the very best of ideals and then holds to them so stringently that it isn’t usable.


Except for the people that use it, but I guess they can be safely ignored when indulging in a bit of Ubuntu zealotry.




The debian "stable" version never actually changes. Its been sarge for as long as I can remember.


You have a really short memory then.




if debian is jeleous because they want the popularity,


Sometimes I can't help but wonder if people here actually read the articles linked to before commenting.



I bet the only reason debian doesnt want the ubuntu "monolithic" patches is because they dont want the sorts of "progressive" enhancements that ubuntu has contributed. They are just too user friendly for thier tastes.


Wait, is this whole post intended as satire or something ?



Who wouldnt want an up to date debian that is supported even though it is based on code written this millennium?


Must be.

[brentoboy]

ok,

I dont know enough to disagree about whether or not the ubuntu dev's are feeding back into debian in a nice way or not.

I am even willing to assume that they arent doing a good job with it. They have a lot on thier plates, and contributing upstream is something to do after you finish something, and I can see how it could be done in a halfhearted way.

My question is, why is there an ubuntu patch at all? why dont the ubuntu devs contribute thier bug fixes directly into debian so that when the next version of ubuntu (which will be bases on cid) will have those fixes in there?

--
the blog posted concerns about how mark stands in a position to yank the ubuntu project, and it would be a bad thing, and debian devs are leary of him... etc. -- that's hogwash. Ubuntu has a rather large fund to its name that mark already dedicated to them. if he left, ubuntu would have LOTS of resoures to continue for quite a long time. expecially if they are operating as lean and mean as this blog says they are (which, I bet they are running very lean and mean).

I dont disagree with any particular area of this, it just reminds me of family disagreements where the members of a family complain about toothpaist and things when what they really are mad about happened 10 years earlier and the other person wasnt even acutally responsible and probably doesnt know that the other family member is mad about it.

[brentoboy]

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if people here actually read the articles linked to before commenting.


Wait, is this whole post intended as satire or something ?


I read the article -- before I posted.

Yes, my tone was intended to be somewhat satirical, but like political cartoons, you draw big funny ears if a politician has ears worth making fun of.

--
I like debian. in fact, if you search the posts, I have been known to recommend it to folks who try using ubuntu on older pcs that just cant cut it. sarge works wonders on my amd-k6 233 pc.

--
I stopped thinking debian was the "bomb" when I read a website that made a blog that they will no longer contribute to the debian foundation becuase debian didnt so much as say thank you for a decent chunk of change they contributed, and other free software causes have always been very thankful for even the smallest donation.

---
I discovered ubuntu when we tried installing debian at work on a new amd64 server. we went debian becuase of stability, but it turns out that the code base was so old we couldnt even install it becuase the hardware wasnt supported. so, in my case, it *wasnt* usable. overgeneralization is fun, smile.

maybe this will help...
http://alanhorkan.livejournal.com/tag/satire
(the gentoo one is particularly funny)

[OffHand]

I think it's time for the blogger to study the license he writes software under. I didn't read the whole story but it's probably more of the same. I doubt this guy represents a majority of the Debian team and if he does they should all scratch themselfs behind their ears.

[givré]

Ubuntu would be a better citizen of the Free Software community if they would not use, propagate, and depend on propritary launchpad. :evil:
That's so right, i was a lot surprise the first time i knew that.

[prizrak]

I hate the "giving back" BS. Have some common sense. The Ubuntu source code is open. If these "programmers" can develop Debian then they are surely deft enough to use the source code to find improvements. Besides, the entire idea of open source means that one can do whatever one pleases with the code as long as the source is made available. It seems the ideals on which Debian was founded have been forgotten!

If you read the article, the biggest issue seems to be not that Ubuntu doesn't contribute back, but that they way it does, does more harm than good. Also the problem is that Ubuntu seems to claim that they are part of the Debian community and care alot about it but they don't really do what they promised.


--
the blog posted concerns about how mark stands in a position to yank the ubuntu project, and it would be a bad thing, and debian devs are leary of him... etc. -- that's hogwash. Ubuntu has a rather large fund to its name that mark already dedicated to them. if he left, ubuntu would have LOTS of resoures to continue for quite a long time. expecially if they are operating as lean and mean as this blog says they are (which, I bet they are running very lean and mean).
Mark is the leader, w/o him Ubuntu is not likely to be very successful. There are loads of people working on the Linux kernel but w/o Linus it wouldn't really work.

[sorin7486]

I am amazed to see this mutch negative response on the ubuntu forum to this bloog post... It is clear that Ubuntu hasn't shown the complete picture to it's (new to linux) users.
The fact that ubuntu has it's source open is not enough.. you have to contribute back upstream.. this is one of the strongest points of the whole open source idea.. The debian developers can't and they should not have to check every derivative projects for updates..or have to deal with monolitic patches... that's just bat comunication and it's not a god thing for anybody.. And it's not just about debian.. All the projects that are bundeled with ubuntu should get good feedback (or as good as posible) so that they can make better software...
What I realy hate is this kind of grunt and people not talking to each other so that they can make things better. Especialy when windows has a wide majority and no one truly gains from the downfall of any distribution... especialy debian...

[Jucato]

I am amazed to see this mutch negative response on the ubuntu forum to this bloog post... It is clear that Ubuntu hasn't shown the complete picture to it's (new to linux) users.
The fact that ubuntu has it's source open is not enough.. you have to contribute back upstream.. this is one of the strongest points of the whole open source idea.. The debian developers can't and they should not have to check every derivative projects for updates..or have to deal with monolitic patches... that's just bat comunication and it's not a god thing for anybody.. And it's not just about debian.. All the projects that are bundeled with ubuntu should get good feedback (or as good as posible) so that they can make better software...
What I realy hate is this kind of grunt and people not talking to each other so that they can make things better. Especialy when windows has a wide majority and no one truly gains from the downfall of any distribution... especialy debian...

"Negative responses" comming from Ubuntu users is another issue that seems to creep up always during these kinds of Debian v. Ubuntu discussions, and many people tend to label this as fanaticism or "fanboy-ism". Though I have seen the ugly extreme side of this kind of attitude, I don't think that it warrants to be called/considered any form of fanaticism. It's only natural that people will react negatively when offended, threatened, or even when they just feel misunderstood or slighted. I mean, c'mon, wouldn't you react negatively is someone just said something bad about your neighborhood (presuming that you actually care about your neighborhood)?

True, us Ubuntu users might not be "fully" informed about the "full" process of upstream/downstream stuff. But why should we? I mean, should regular desktop users really be bothered by details as to whether or not Ubuntu gives back to Debian in monolothic patches (or something like that)? Most users, when faced with such information, would either yawn or be scared, suddenly remembering the past when Linux was solely the domain of computer-savvy hackers. Most people go to Ubuntu because they want a Linux desktop that just works. One that they don't need to absolutely know the nitty gritty details. But for those "concerned citizens", there are so many venues where they could gather the needed/wanted information about these kind of things. The Ubuntu mailing list, Planet Ubuntu, and Ubuntuforums are always open for their use.

You're right, though. It's actually not Debian's responsibility to dig through the patches that are given back to them. It should be the derivative's job. But the question remains: Is this problem really happening? I don't want to judge. In fact, I don't even want to know if it's true or not. Because what I want to know is how they will work to solve this, whether or not the issue is true or not. The issue has been magnified because of "hurt feelings", and we know how developers can be very "passionate" about their work/ideas. But these are grown, mature (presumably) and intelligent people. So I'm a bit disappointed that they have mostly resorted to just blogging about it rather than discussing it among themselves.

[az]

Ubuntu would be a better citizen of the Free Software community if they would not use, propagate, and depend on propritary launchpad. :evil:

That's not true.

Free-libre software is software that is distributed under the GPL or like licences. It is perfectly fine for someone to take GPLed software, modify it and *not* redistribute it (just use it in-house).

The licence under which the software is distributed makes it free or non-free. Software freedom does not (yet) extend to software that is not distributed.

Launchpad is a web service, not distributed software. It does not run on your computer, just Canonical's. I do not call that non-free software. Now, if they shipped launchpad, for installation and use onto other computers, that would be a different story.

[bruce89]

Launchpad is a web service, not distributed software. It does not run on your computer, just Canonical's. I do not call that non-free software. Now, if they shipped launchpad, for installation and use onto other computers, that would be a different story.

This makes sense, even SourceForge is proprietary - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge

[givré]

We learn things everyday in this forum, thank you bruce, that's the funniest things i never read, sourceforge is not open source. :mrgreen:

[bruce89]

We learn things everyday in this forum, thank you bruce, that's the funniest things i never read, sourceforge is not open source. :mrgreen:

I thought it was, I was actaully going to use it as an example why Launchpad should be open as well, but then I checked its article.

[asimon]

That's not true.

Free-libre software is software that is distributed under the GPL or like licences. It is perfectly fine for someone to take GPLed software, modify it and *not* redistribute it (just use it in-house).
Yes, but this has nothing to do with my point. This is not about any legal or license issues, there are none. Still Launchpad is propritary software, and Ubuntu and Canonical would be better Free Software community citizens if you would release it as free software. I think no one can make a point that Ubuntu would be a better citizen in the Free Software world if they keep stuff propritary instead of free.



The licence under which the software is distributed makes it free or non-free. Software freedom does not (yet) extend to software that is not distributed.
The absense of a Free Software license makes the Launchpad software automatically non-free. I can't download the code. I can't fork it. I can't redistribute a modified version. I can't redistribute the orginal version for money. I can't set up my own launchpad server under my own control. Sorry, non-free.



Launchpad is a web service, not distributed software. It does not run on your computer, just Canonical's. I do not call that non-free software. Now, if they shipped launchpad, for installation and use onto other computers, that would be a different story.
Lauchpad is also software which runs on some machine. That software is non-free. Sorry, not calling that software and webservices non-free (as in libre and freedom) is in my eyes window-dressing. But this was all discussed several times in various threads (most or all are now closed).

Anyway I repeat my point: Ubuntu and Canonical would be better Free Software community citizens if they would release the launchpad software under a Free Software license and apply the principles of Free Software development to launchpad too.

[kabus]

"Negative responses" comming from Ubuntu users is another issue that seems to creep up always during these kinds of Debian v. Ubuntu discussions, and many people tend to label this as fanaticism or "fanboy-ism". Though I have seen the ugly extreme side of this kind of attitude, I don't think that it warrants to be called/considered any form of fanaticism. It's only natural that people will react negatively when offended, threatened, or even when they just feel misunderstood or slighted.


The problem is that they often don't know what they are talking about, the current topic being a case in point: A minor conflict between a few devs that most of the involved parties are trying to resolve amiably gets blown out of proportion and people start to voice their ill-informed and disrespectful opinions about a distro they obviously know very little about.



True, us Ubuntu users might not be "fully" informed about the "full" process of upstream/downstream stuff. But why should we?


There's absolutely no reason why you should, unless you want to take part in discussions related to that process.
And you don't need to be "fully informed" about everything; I certainly am not.
The important part is admitting to not knowing something, and then asking, reading up on the issue or maybe just staying out of the discussion, instead of blindly defending your precious distro against a perceived attack.

[sorin7486]

Well there is no threat here.. I know what you are talking about because I'm an ubuntu user myself.. And you are right: the every day user isn't supposed to know all the details about software development.. and after all this little problem is one of the developers so it's not really our place to decide on it.
What I am disappointed about is that there are so many ubuntu users that don't feel friendly towards Debian(or not as friendly as I wold expect)... After all allot of work that went into their operating system comes (and will continue to come) from that project. It's true that there are allot of new users to ubuntu but it's the responsibility of the community (at least the community leaders) and of Canonical (as it's sponsor) to show what Debian means for us (even if it's not in great detail). And I really feel they could be doing a better job at that just from the previous posts. And I think that's what most of the Debian developers feel like (even if I'm not one of them)... remember this is not about facts but about a relationship ( I know that sounds weird but that's the best way to describe it)

Hey, don't get me wrong.. I know that the Debian community can be a bit hostile to new users.. And that's why they need ubuntu: I'm sure they are glad they don't have to answer allot of questions from noobs and that the ubuntu community dose that for them. But they are doing a great job without expecting any pay.. I think they earned the right to ask for better collaboration and a bit more gratitude(at least on the official side of things... I'm not talking about the average user here)..

ps: the upstream/downstream thing.. it's not about GPL and I don't think it written anywhere.. It's just common sense...

[bruce89]

Debian is intended for people who know what they are doing/people who need a very stable distro.
Ubuntu is for anyone who wants new stuff, but might have bugs.

[Jucato]

ps: the upstream/downstream thing.. it's not about GPL and I don't think it written anywhere.. It's just common sense...

I also wasn't absolutely sure about that. But some of the Linux-related literature I've read seemed to mention that detail about the GPL. But if GPLv3 get's it's way, it will be an explicit part of the GPL, AFAIK.

You know, I don't really think that "many" Ubuntu users aren't friendly towards Debian, whether the distro or the community. Neither do I find "many" Debian users that are hostile, in any way, to any Ubuntu user. Sure, there may be some individual cases here and there (I think I remember one case where a self-professed Debian user did say something like "Ubuntu fanboys"), but I tend to see them as exceptions rather than the rule. If usage of a distro is just an indication, I think that people would find that many Ubuntu users really have a respect for Debian, and some even use Debian, either Sid or Etch.

I think this is one of the cases where the problem really lies only in the realm of the developers, but that the rest of the "non-developing" community is being dragged into it. I mean, we (non-developers) are users who have little "inside" knowledge of how the development process and upstream/downstream process is done. So naturally, our opinions will be solely based on that, our opinions. This is one of those occassions where I think that both communities would be better served if the issue wasn't that much publicized. Of course, I said before that the devs have their right to voice out their opinion/frustration. But I guess this is one of the side-effects of that.

[prizrak]

I think that Ubuntu really needs to be the one to make amends, whether Debian is right or not. Simple practical reason being that Debian would be just fine w/o Ubuntu, it has been around for much longer than Ubuntu and will still be around if/when Ubuntu is gone. Ubuntu on the other hand is based completely on Debian, they are different enough for alot of software to not work on the other but it is still not it's own distro. With that being the case Ubuntu needs to submit patches in the way that Debian wants them because Ubuntu needs Debian to be strong and healthy for Ubuntu to work well.

[RavenOfOdin]

A whole load of linux users annoy me because I don't use a "real" linux like Gentoo or Slackware. They also don't help and tell you to RTFM, that is why this forum is brilliant, as we are all very helpful. This has nothing to do with Debian though.

I've never seen that attitude on LQ or FedoraForum. Must be just you.



http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/06/msg00278.html

Of course.


but just saying that were so godly that we shouldn't even say were Linux, but above it would make me see why theres alot of friction between us and the rest of Linuxworld.


To say such a thing isn't professional, nor is it mature.



Whether or not it's stated in the GPL, it's really only fair if you were to "contribute" changes, specially bug fixes and patches, back to the source of the program. I think it's also fair to give those changes back in a way/manner that would make it easy for the "upstream" (if that's the proper term) to incorporate these changes.

Open source doesn't just mean having the source code made available, although that is a very essential piece of the picture. It's the rights/freedom that comes with having this source code made available that is more important. For example, there are some companies that would allow you to see their source code, but under a non-disclosure agreement, or some other restriction. So making the source code available is not the only requisite for a program to be considered Free/Open Source


Again, of course. That's how any large software project is supposed to work. Without communication its not going to get anywhere. . . That would be bad for both Debian and Ubuntu in the long run.

[bruce89]

I've never seen that attitude on LQ or FedoraForum. Must be just you.

No, it was digg, but they are just mad.

[KingBahamut]

Elitism has occured in the Linux community for a long time. I think really there isnt a way to avoid it. Many users think that your a neophyte for only ever using Ubuntu or Mandriva or Fedora, or whatever for that matter. Ive compiled and run LFS, Gentoo, Sourcemage, Sorcerer, Onebase, ArchLinux, etc. They have their merits. The relationship spoken of here , with respect to Debian and Ubuntu is no different really. The real argument is simply that "Is ubuntu giving back to debian what ubuntu said it would give back?".

I think thats the real question and honestly wether or not this is the case, treating users, any user for that matter, with anything other than understanding and patience is asinine.

[PhilipsHead]

Elitism? Heh, do a search on these forums, at times because of (it seems) most Linux users i won't tell anyone that i'm using Linux.

It's all "vista is soooo bad" "wga is sooo bad" and other crap, why would i even care about that? i am USING LINUX!

Regarding Ubuntu and Debian, well, having been involved in the dev prcess of Debian i can honestly say that it's not pretty on that side either, so if Ubuntu devs get shiat then it's nothing more than i'd expect.

It has to do with Debian being second best to Slackware at all times.

[bruce89]

Elitism? Heh, do a search on these forums, at times because of (it seems) most Linux users i won't tell anyone that i'm using Linux.

It's all "vista is soooo bad" "wga is sooo bad" and other crap, why would i even care about that? i am USING LINUX!

Yes, people new to Linux think that the thing to do is to bash MS, or to question the exprerience of other members.

[PhilipsHead]

Yes, people new to Linux think that the thing to do is to bash MS, or to question the exprerience of other members.

If you are going to stalk me and throw in quips then please show me where i questioned the experience of any particular member.

I'm new so it should be easy enough.

[bruce89]

If you are going to stalk me and throw in quips then please show me where i questioned the experience of any particular member.

Me.

I shall stop stalking though.

[PhilipsHead]

Me.

I shall stop stalking though.

I questioned your exprience WHERE?

Great, i already have an ex making my life miserable.

[bruce89]

I questioned your exprience WHERE?

Great, i already have an ex making my life miserable.

Sorry.

[PhilipsHead]

Sorry.

Don't be, we all have differing opinions, it's ok, you know, if i didn't really care about yours, i wouldn't be arguing against it. ;)

So don't be sorry, be glad, you made a point and so be it, we ALL make mistakes and learn from them.

You actualy questioned me out in that other thread and i actually had to think before i replied, haven't happened in ages. ;)

So don't be sorry, just keep being who you are and stay strong.

[bruce89]

So don't be sorry, just keep being who you are and stay strong.

I will indeed.

[PhilipsHead]

I will indeed.

:thumbsup;

[az]

Still Launchpad is propritary software, and Ubuntu and Canonical would be better Free Software community citizens if you would release it as free software. I think no one can make a point that Ubuntu would be a better citizen in the Free Software world if they keep stuff propritary instead of free.

I'm saying it doesn't make it any worse, because it's irrelevant.




The absense of a Free Software license makes the Launchpad software automatically non-free.

No. For something to be licenced, it has to be released/distributed. If the thing is not released, between whom is the contract? (the GPL is a contract between the author of the code and the person who obtains it - in this case, no one is obtaining it.)



I can't download the code. I can't fork it. I can't redistribute a modified version. I can't redistribute the orginal version for money. I can't set up my own launchpad server under my own control. Sorry, non-free.


I'm a big fan of software freedom. I wrote a bash script. I am obliged to release it to the public?



Lauchpad is also software which runs on some machine. That software is non-free. Sorry, not calling that software and webservices non-free (as in libre and freedom) is in my eyes window-dressing. But this was all discussed several times in various threads (most or all are now closed).

Anyway I repeat my point: Ubuntu and Canonical would be better Free Software community citizens if they would release the launchpad software under a Free Software license and apply the principles of Free Software development to launchpad too.

Most software developers work their whole lives writing code for applications that are not distributed. Only a small portion of code ever written ends up as a shrink-wrapped product for sale or distributed under a free-libre licence.

And if ever Launchpad is released to the public, it will be GPLed. I was told that in person by Jeff Waugh, Canonical's business manager. In the meantime, it's a non-issue.

[ubuntu_demon]

I posted some relevant links regarding this thread on my blog right here :
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/12/debian-and-ubuntu/

[Jucato]

I haven't had time to minutes in the mailing list until now. I'm generally pleased that they were able to reach a kind of agreement to work together to solve thei issues. There is just one item, though, that puzzles me a bit:


9. It would be great if Ubuntu could advertise a bit more its Debian correlation by putting Debian logos in CD covers, background images, installer splashscreen, etc. Some kind of "Trademark policy" needs to be worked out with Ubuntu.

The fact that Ubuntu agreed to do/work on this item probably makes my curiousity moot. But my question would really be: would Debian start requiring/asking every Debian derivative to include the Debian logo in all their default artworks? Or is Ubuntu just the relevant party? I'm just taking note, too, that they're asking Ubuntu to put the Debian logo in their artworks: splash screens, wallpapers, CD covers, CDs. I can understand putting the logo on the CD's/covers and the Ubuntu website, but wallpapers?

Anyway, I was just really wondering about this item.
I also hope that we could see some kind of similar "agreements" between other Debian derivatives (Linspire, Xandros, KNOPPIX, MEPIS[?], etc.), otherwise it would look like they're really just targetting only Ubuntu and no one else.

[Koori23]

I wonder how many Netscape developers are upset at the sucess of Firefox? It's the exact same issue. Many contributed over the course of time, maybe got shuffled out, and now are upset at the work they did to make the present day product.

Netscape 7 or 8 or whatever version they are up to now sucks huge amounts of crap. Debian, however, is a great OS as well..

The fact remains, Netscape voluntarily posted the source code and Firefox is the product.. Like it or not, Open Source will do that to you. Resentment is natural.

[az]

I haven't had time to minutes in the mailing list until now. I'm generally pleased that they were able to reach a kind of agreement to work together to solve thei issues. There is just one item, though, that puzzles me a bit:



The fact that Ubuntu agreed to do/work on this item probably makes my curiousity moot. But my question would really be: would Debian start requiring/asking every Debian derivative to include the Debian logo in all their default artworks? Or is Ubuntu just the relevant party? I'm just taking note, too, that they're asking Ubuntu to put the Debian logo in their artworks: splash screens, wallpapers, CD covers, CDs. I can understand putting the logo on the CD's/covers and the Ubuntu website, but wallpapers?

Anyway, I was just really wondering about this item.
I also hope that we could see some kind of similar "agreements" between other Debian derivatives (Linspire, Xandros, KNOPPIX, MEPIS[?], etc.), otherwise it would look like they're really just targetting only Ubuntu and no one else.

There was a video of last years debconf where Mark Shuttleworth presented his goals for Ubuntu to a bunch od DDs. That question was brought up and Mako brought up that the Debian Trademark cannot be used that way. Well, it can, but it's not that easy.

I think there are two ways to handle a trademark- one is to let anyone use it and the other is to let no one use it. Linus is very lax about the use the the linux trademark, but this is not so for the DEbian trademark. I don't have a lot of detail, but that is the gyst of it.

[asimon]

I'm saying it doesn't make it any worse, because it's irrelevant.
That Lauchpad is non-free is not irrelevant. It's for example a reason why Debian could never ever use it (it was already discussed at debian-devel). Some other projects think the same, other's don't want to use a service which is controlled by a single company. Some people don't like the fact that launchpad is against the ideals of the Free Software philosophy Ubuntu is based on. It may be irrelevant for you, in fact I am certain it's irrelevant for most people, but not for everyone.



No. For something to be licenced, it has to be released/distributed. If the thing is not released, between whom is the contract? (the GPL is a contract between the author of the code and the person who obtains it - in this case, no one is obtaining it.)
As you sayed the software is not licensed to me, I don't get the rights which define Free Software. Thus it's non-free. Not distributed in-house software is always propritary. There is no contract for me, no public license, no freedoms. Therefore it's automatically propritary closed-source software. Only a respective license can change that.



I'm a big fan of software freedom. I wrote a bash script. I am obliged to release it to the public?
No one is forced to do anything in this regard. But if your script is cool and would solve problems of many people it would be nice to release it. You can also make it propritary and sell it for money. I will not be against it and I don't see what this has to do with my statement.



Most software developers work their whole lives writing code for applications that are not distributed. Only a small portion of code ever written ends up as a shrink-wrapped product for sale or distributed under a free-libre licence.
I know. But again what has this to do with the fact that Canonical and Ubuntu would be better Free Software community members if they apply the principles of Free Software development for their own software too?



And if ever Launchpad is released to the public, it will be GPLed. I was told that in person by Jeff Waugh, Canonical's business manager. In the meantime, it's a non-issue.
Not that it matters here but Jeff Waugh resigned from Canonical by the way. Anyway, I think it's always more meaningful what companies actually do and not what they say. Launchpad is propritary and not in line with the philosophy on the front page of ubuntu.com. Most people do not care, I know. Still Canonical would be better in some people's eyes if they would apply that philosophy for their own software -- at least as long as it's software on which Ubuntu depends on -- too. Note that I don't say anything bad about the current situation, it's fine for most. Just that they would be better Free Software community members IF ...

[ubuntu_demon]

My latest blog post about "Debian and ubuntu" :
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/08/13/debian-and-ubuntu-2/