Why still need Debian at all?

[Knome_fan]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian?

Theoretically, yes, practically, not really.
And I simply don't get why Ubuntu should even contemplate such a thing.
It would be extremely stupid, it wouldn't be practical and Ubuntu being based on Debian is one of the things that attract people to it.

[npaladin2000]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian?

To put it quite bluntly: No.

[Knome_fan]

Must read about the subject:
http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html

[poofyhairguy]

I get an impression as a newbie that Ubuntu packages are somehow reengineered and feel very native and not kludgy.

If you get that feeling, then you must really not like Ubuntu. The stuff you call kludgy IS the distro. Everything in main.

I also get an impression that Debian is increasingly less friendly towards Ubuntu

I don't know where you got that from. Debian is an organization, they are only unfriendly to those that don't obey the license. Some in the community of Debian might not like Ubuntu, but they have no real power or say. The DCCA is not officially connected to Debian in any way.

its "limitless" potential resulted in a paralyzed common denominator end result, IMHO.

The potential of Ubuntu is to stabilize Debian's Sid (aka Unstable). Thats all Ubuntu is. You know those hundreds of distros on Distrowatch that are like "Jim's Distro" or "Mary's distro?" Ubuntu is "Mark's distro." Same as the rest with more money. His focus is to stabilize Sid. Thats what Ubuntu does. Without Sid, there would be no Ubuntu.

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian?

Yes, but then it would die. Like cutting off the roots of a tree.

Again, pardon my naivete, but in my primitive view of the Linux distro universe, we appear to have the "first tier" types who do not seem to be (significantly and constantly) based on another distro (e.g. Red Hat, SUSE, Slackware, Turbo Linux et al).

I can't pardon it, you are too naive. I don't know if I would call Slackware and Turbolinux top tier. I would say top tier workstation distros are Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Linspire, and Gentoo. The only two of those that aren't based on another distro is Gentoo and Red Hat. SUSE and Mandrake are based off of Red Hat 9. Ubuntu and Linspire are based on Debian.

Most distros are based on another. Its the way of the Linux world. That point of yours was WAY off.

If the only argument is that it is too much work, well, have Ubuntu developers not already invested a substantial amount of work to make it so uniquely Ubuntu? Are we saying the Debian elements are the lion's share of the work?

I must admit, when I say the title I thought I was going to have to close the thread. I thought someone with an axe to grind was causing trouble. This is not the case. You are just a person that is very ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene in general (not a bad thing, most Linux users are at some point), but I must set you straight.

MOST of Ubuntu is Debian. MOST. Almost EVERYTHING is the Universe is ripped straight from Debian Sid. That is most of the packages right there. The rest (the MAIN part) is ripped from Sid every six months then is changed to be "uniquely Ubuntu." There are only 15 or so Ubuntu developers and hundreds of Debian developers. Debian does most of the work. Many things you probably like about Ubuntu are because of Debian. If Debian died....Ubuntu would too. They are connected at the hips!

So yes, Debian does most of the work. All Ubuntu is is a stabilized Sid. No Sid, no Ubuntu.

I find that hard to believe considering the many other distros out there that are not based on some other.

Now that you know you are wrong about that you can see how easy it is to believe.

Would it be too much more work to make it "first tier" too and unreliant of Debian?

Why do it? Without Debian, all those packages in the Univese would never change -they would stop working as their libraries would fade away. So Ubuntu would be reduced to about 3000 packages. Also all the work that the Sid developers do is offered free of charge to Ubuntu- why not take it? Just because Ian (who does not represent Debian) is jealous? Why do it? You have not made a good reason, because one cannot be made. Ubuntu and Debian are closer than you can imagine.

It sometimes appears to me that Debianites exhibit a certain amount of arrogance in wanting recognition that Ubuntu is dependent on (seemingly only) Debian, and appear to be in some sort of denial that Ubuntu's strengths have less to do with Debian (an incidental choice of convenience in my opinion) and more on the philosophies behind Ubuntu.

In any group that includes hundreds of people, you will find someone that is mean or ignorant. Almost every Ubuntu developer is a Debian developer. Many debianites like Ubuntu. Don't let the anti-Ubuntu crowd lead you astray.

Like I said before, Debian has had a good many years to be as successful as Ubuntu insofar as success is measured as being readily accepted by the great unwashed. Unfortunately it hasn't.

Depending on who you ask, Debian is the second most used Linux in the world and IS the second most used server. If thats failure, then success must taste bitter.

If you really support Ubuntu, please do some research and try to understand it better. Ubuntu would be almost nothing without Debian. Ubuntu was created to fix the problems of Debian on the desktop. It was intended to work with Debian from the start. Its a core philosophy of Ubuntu.

If Ubuntu stopped syncing with Sid, development would slow down A LOT. Instead of using someone else's base and worry about things like Xorg and GUI tools, Ubuntu would have to waste time doing boring "to the metal stuff." It would not make Ubuntu better.

The reason Ubuntu has gotten so popular isn't because there are tons of developers or they drink magic tea...its because Ubuntu took Debian and ran. To leave Debian behind would kill Ubuntu. Both you and I do not wish to see that.

I hope your eyes are opened. If not, ask me things and I'll answer the best I can. I read A LOT about Ubuntu (tons of free time) so I think I have most of these sorts of answers. So please....

[az]

Let's get back to my original question: Can't Ubuntu be de-linked from Debian? Again, pardon my naivete, but in my primitive view of the Linux distro universe, we appear to have the "first tier" types who do not seem to be (significantly and constantly) based on another distro (e.g. Red Hat, SUSE, Slackware, Turbo Linux et al). While they are building on the work of others, they do so at a lower, closer to the metal level; they do not carry that same degree of "dependency" perception that is reflected when we say Ubuntu is based on Debian. Why is that? If the only argument is that it is too much work, well, have Ubuntu developers not already invested a substantial amount of work to make it so uniquely Ubuntu? Are we saying the Debian elements are the lion's share of the work? I find that hard to believe considering the many other distros out there that are not based on some other. Would it be too much more work to make it "first tier" too and unreliant of Debian? It sometimes appears to me that Debianites exhibit a certain amount of arrogance in wanting recognition that Ubuntu is dependent on (seemingly only) Debian, and appear to be in some sort of denial that Ubuntu's strengths have less to do with Debian (an incidental choice of convenience in my opinion) and more on the philosophies behind Ubuntu. Like I said before, Debian has had a good many years to be as successful as Ubuntu insofar as success is measured as being readily accepted by the great unwashed. Unfortunately it hasn't. Whatever it is that is causing Debian's anemia, I would prefer it not to (ultimately) affect Ubuntu. I know this must seem like heresy to Debian lovers. But like I said before, my fan loyalties lie with Ubuntu.

*Please* do not post a single paragraph. It is very very trying to read. Please split your ideas up into paragraphs.

Yes, you are naive. I would venture to say that your criticisms of debian are misunderstandings. I presume that you feel mor confortable with Ubuntu because it is aimed at desktop users and that is the category of user you happen to be.

Debian is a general-purpôse distribution which means that it is not geared to one type of user, but *all* of them. This has the side-effect of making things less flashy and strightforward for anyone wanting a superspecialised distribution.

Speaking of which, I beleive that Suse and Turbo linux originaly were forks of Red Hat. I may be wrong.

The fact is that Debian stands for free software a lot more than just about any of the distributions you can think of (including Ubuntu - Ubuntu ships binary drivers, those are available to debian in the non-free repository).

As well, you cannot compare a company of a few dozen developers to the thousand debian developers and thousands of other members of the debian community. Canonical delivers that to you. Do not mistake that with them equaling it.

So, no, they could never supercede debian.

Be carefult of what you read about Debian. There are many voices, but really only take the one voice of the Debian Project Leader to truly represent debian.

Any old DD can rant on their weblog about something. It does not mean that they are representative of debian. Ian Murdock founded Debian years ago, but as it is, he does not represent the opinion of debian in any significant way.

As it has been pointed out, the DCCA has very little to do with debian. They (debian) even objected to the use of the word "Debian" by that project. The matter was brought to the SPI trademark lawyer and I do not think there has been an anouncement on the matter.

[iraenius]

Dear poofyhairguy

Based on your comments, especially ...

"I can't pardon it, you are too naive."

...and...

"I must admit, when I say the title I thought I was going to have to close the thread. I thought someone with an axe to grind was causing trouble. This is not the case. You are just a person that is very ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene in general (not a bad thing, most Linux users are at some point), but I must set you straight."

...I am both shocked and saddened by the brusqueness and the less than subtle personally hurtful intent of the posts. Essentially they imply that I am too stupid to voice my opinions that I would have liked to have discussed in a civil way. In all my posts, I have clarified both my newsness and the fact that all my information were perceptions. Perhaps I may be incorrect, but a number of these perception I have gleaned from colleagues at work who similarly have tested out Ubuntu. I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.

A simple "No it is not possible" would have answered my question without resorting to character assassination. I find it hard to believe that this sort of response can be found on a product named after the ideals of Ubuntu.

The response appears to indicate that poofyharguy is a person of some responsibility within Ubuntu. If this is truly the case, I am appalled at this sort of response in a chat portion of a community forum.

As for the others who have taken the trouble to reply to me, I thank you.

Have a good day.

[az]

I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.

I truly and honestly think that you are. Any person whom I have met in the past who has even come close to thinking that way had turned out to be grossly misinformed. I think that is what everybody on this thread has been trying to tell you and you were, to be honest, quite resistant to the fact that it is your perception that may be in fault.

Sorry.

[iraenius]

Actually, I am the one who is very sorry to have read such a response from even the super moderator. I'm afraid I've had no choice but to print this thread for reference.

[poofyhairguy]

Dear poofyhairguy

Based on your comments, especially ...

"I can't pardon it, you are too naive."

...and...

"I must admit, when I say the title I thought I was going to have to close the thread. I thought someone with an axe to grind was causing trouble. This is not the case. You are just a person that is very ignorant about Ubuntu and the distro scene in general (not a bad thing, most Linux users are at some point), but I must set you straight."

...I am both shocked and saddened by the brusqueness and the less than subtle personally hurtful intent of the posts. Essentially they imply that I am too stupid to voice my opinions that I would have liked to have discussed in a civil way.

No. I clearly said that I would not pardon your naivity (and therefore would put forth the correct knowledge). To pardon it would be to not correct you and show you the correct answer. Correct?

As far as the ignorant thing goes, I said that this is not a bad thing. Most humans are ignorant about most things. I am very ignorant about cars and chemistry. Is that bad? No, thats why you learn! Ignorance has a bad connotation to some, because they think that it means "stupid." I promise they are not one and the same! Ignorant means "lacking knowledge of something." Not a shameful thing....you posted this to find out. That is good!

I tried to give you the best answer I could. I meant not to malice. I obviously offended you. I feel really bad about that. I sometimes have trouble on the internet because I use words very literally and I often forget about the many common connotations for certain words. I apologize. Seriously I do. I'm sorry I offended you. I was just trying to assume a serious (not angry) tone, but tone is hard to get across on the web. Sorry again.

In all my posts, I have clarified both my newsness and the fact that all my information were perceptions. Perhaps I may be incorrect, but a number of these perception I have gleaned from colleagues at work who similarly have tested out Ubuntu. I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.

Sure. They weren't all bad assumptions. If I had seen what Ian has written about Ubuntu without my knowledge and context I would have thought the same thing.

A simple "No it is not possible" would have answered my question without resorting to character assassination. I find it hard to believe that this sort of response can be found on a product named after the ideals of Ubuntu.

No, it is not possible is not a good answer. Not even close. I tried to get this point across, but I failed. I'll try again:

The title of this thread scared me. There is a real anti-Ubuntu movement and I was fearful of the possibility that this thread was created by such a person.

Instead I found someone truely questioning Ubuntu. Someone that liked it and simply wanted to know more. I resolved to give the best answer I could, in a serious tone so that I might seem more credible. To help a fellow ubunter.

Unfortunately its hard to control tone on the internet (or emocons would have never been invented) and you saw my post as being a "character assassination."

I feel really bad about this. I don't want someone to think ill of me, but I REALLY don't want my words to come off that way. I have learned a lot on this forum when it comes to netiquette. From Mr. Hearn I learned to say "this is my opinion" when it is. From Knome-Fan I learned to be careful when creating groups for classification. And today I learned from your response that I should force myself to keep a jolly lightheated tone because a serious tone is too hard for me to pull off and it might offend. I thank you for this as I thanked the others.

I'm sorry that you will think less of Ubuntu and myself because of my post. I just wanted to help....to make it so that if you needed to ever defend the position you would have all the tools. I failed. Badly.

Time out for me as punishment.

Have a nice day.....

[matthew]

...I am both shocked and saddened by the brusqueness and the less than subtle personally hurtful intent of the posts. Essentially they imply that I am too stupid to voice my opinions that I would have liked to have discussed in a civil way. In all my posts, I have clarified both my newsness and the fact that all my information were perceptions. Perhaps I may be incorrect, but a number of these perception I have gleaned from colleagues at work who similarly have tested out Ubuntu. I doubt if I am the only person who thinks like that, nor that everyone loves the fact that Ubuntu is tightly coupled to Debian.

I would like to respond in poofyhairguy's defense by gently reminding you that ignorant does not equal stupid. Ignorant means lacking in knowledge, stupid means incapable of the acquisition of or comprehension of something. You were never called stupid and I am certain that you were never intended to be called stupid. What was being reacted to was that in your post you made some assumptions, apparrently based on things you heard that have unfortunately turned out to be erroneous. Poofyhairguy I believe was trying to help you understand where you had valid questions and where the foundation of your thoughts was shaky. Sorry it offended you, but really, we are all ignorant in different areas and it serves no purpose to be offended when that is pointed out. Instead, realize that there was no intent to insult you and allow yourself to be gently corrected so that you become a more knowledgable and wise person. Peace.

EDIT: Wow! three posts were written while I was composing this one!