It looks like Debian is dying and Ubuntu needs to choose another distro to become based on. So which do you want it to be?
It looks like Debian is dying and Ubuntu needs to choose another distro to become based on. So which do you want it to be?
This thread is made of fail and linux-watch faggotry.
Debian is alive, my son. And will stay alive. And even if it died, Ubuntu would always be based on Debian, because Debian is made of win and geniusness.
i... don't think debian is going anywhere anytime soon...
debian doesn't really have anything to aspire to be, which is what makes it so good. all it is trying to be a solid distro, not the desktop leader, nothing flashy. Is anyone really going to be miffed if Debian doesn't make it out on Dec. 4th? Or Jan 4th? Or really even Feb. 4th? I mean, Debian is a slow development distro, why the hurry? Yeah, they want to get Etch out, but I don't see how it's going to die anytime soon, especially since it's not in financial trouble and volunteers don't really seem to want to leave en mass.
debian is far too far up its own politics obsessed derrier to be going anywhere from here onwards.
If there is any distro that'll never die (not likely), it'll be Debian. Besides, pretty much every problem described in that article is solved by Ubuntu.
But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him.
At the end of the day, Ubuntu doesn't depend on Debian.
We may take patches from them, and send them back, but we're fine.
Every time you install Jaunty, a kitten........ wait sorry what year is this again?
Please don't PM support questions, post a thread so that everyone can benefit
Join us in #ubuntuforums on irc.freenode.net
This thread fails.
Debian has several advantages to offer. It has, generally, quite good quality; lots of packages; good dependency handling; debconf to set the configuration of the most important applications after install, and it advocates free software (although not everyone considers this last point as a plus). But there are also other nice distributions out there. Maybe you'd prefer to see Ubuntu based on some other disto?
Slackware, for instance, is the oldest existing Linux distro. Slackware tries to modify the software it packages as little as possible.
Gentoo has also lots and lots of packages and it can manage dependencies. And Gentoo is a non-commercial distro, just like Debian.
Arch Linux is a smaller distro than Gentoo but it has a nice package management and it has binary packages that are optimized for newer hardware than Debian's or Ubuntu's packages.
And there are the RPM distros -- SUSE, Mandriva, and Fedora. These have better GUI tools for system configuration than Debian. Newbies love GUI tools. And many application developers provide RPM packages that you can download directly from the developer's web site. The downside used to be (and it still is, as far as I know) that you need to download and burn the CDs for each new release. With a Debian-based system you can just do "sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" and your system gets upgraded to the latest release.
I just thought to ask if people here think that one of those distros (or maybe some other distro that I failed to mention) would make a better base for Ubuntu. I'm not saying that Ubuntu couldn't go its own way without Debian but it might just be easier if Ubuntu devs didn't need to start from scratch. They could build Ubuntu on some other distro and then just add the polish that users like.
So what do you think? Which distro should Ubuntu be based on if not Debian?
Bookmarks