Re: distributions: UBUNTU vs DEBIAN
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:55:15AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Digby Tarvin wrote:
> >
> > My personal experience has been that it us much easier and faster to get
> > a workable system installed using Ubuntu, but Debian is the more versatile
> > once you have spent the time getting it setup correctly.
>
> That has not been my experience at all. I can get a "workable system"
> installed just as fast or faster with Debian as with Ubuntu. I really
> see no difference in this respect.
Well, I did say 'My personal experience', and gave specific examples
where I hope the difference was clear enough. Feel free to give counter
examples of where Debian worked better..
> > Ubuntu is certainly much better at providing a quick indication of how
> > well supported your hardware is.
> >
> How so?
Ubuntu told me that it was possible to get my wireless device running
under Linux. If I had just tried a Debian install disk, I would not
have known that it wasn't working because the firmware was deemed
non-kosher. It is all very well to say I can find out by searching
the web, but I would rather see it working before buying the
computer and hoping that the manufacturer hasn't changed something..
The Ubuntu installer also seemed to be more successful getting
hardware to work even when there was no licensing problems, such
as my CD/DVD, which is pretty crucial to a successful install.
I am sure there are many systems, probably a majority, where Debian
and Ubuntu will both install equally well. But my personal experience
has been that when one doesn't work, it is more likely to be Debian.
I don't think ease of installation is a good reason to base your
final choice of distribution, because with luck it is something
that is done fairly infrequently. But I have found Ubuntu a good
quick start to get me up and going while I work on getting the
wrinkles ironed out of a Debian install.
> > I have both installed on my notebook currently. Ubuntu installed very easily,
> > although didn't manage to get Xorg configured optimally. Debian's installer
> > did not detect my CD-ROM drive till I moved to the latest testing installer,
> > and used a problem workaround from the web site. When the install completed I
> > still had to manually configure and install the X system before I had a
> > workable X server, but now it is working even better than the Ubuntu
> > installed server. Ubuntu configured and used my wireless interface correctly
> > during install, but Debian don't support using it for installation, and the
> > installation does not install what is needed because of licensing/openness
> > concerns. Having gone to the Intel web site and downloaded the firmware
> > manuall, it now works. But as a user this is an inconvenience - I don't
> > think many people are going to decide not to use some key piece of hardware
> > on their computer even though a driver is available, purely on the grounds of
> > open source philosophy. And once you have bought the machine, it is no skin
> > off the manufacturers nose either way.
> >
> > Consequently I think Debian's more restrictive policy on hardware support
> > during and after installation is a disadvantage. By all means give preference
> > to free and open software where there are alternatives, but the time to worry
> > about the open source friendlyness of the hardware is when making the original
> > purchase, not during the install.
> >
> Then Debian's goal of a completely free and unecumbered operating system
> are not completely in sync with your goals of a system with maximum
> functionality. Basically there is a tradeoff to be made. Take Java for
> example. Debian cannot distribute the Sun JVM. This is because part of
> Sun's terms for distributing their JVM is that you don't simultaneously
> distribute anyone else's. Thus, if Debian agreed to those terms, it
> would not be possible to have Kaffe, SableVM and other free Java
> implementations officially as part of the distro.
I think driver support for the hardware you have paid for is a somewhat
different issue to software applications.
I am entirely in agreement with Debian's goal of achieving a free and
unencumbered operating system, but we differ slightly in views on how
best to achieve the goal.
Fujitsu, and hence Intel, is not going to care one little bit if I
and other Debian users forgo the use of our wireless interfaces once
we own the hardware.
If, on the other hand, I (and many like me) had walked into the
store with a 'Debian hardware evaluation CD' and rejected the
machine because the CD recognised the ipw2200 device warned
about the manufacturers shortcomings, then we achieve out goal
of providing an incentive for manufacturers to improve their
game.
In the case of Java, there are alternatives so by all means go for
the unencumbered ones only. If there are no alternatives, then the
current scheme of using separate repositories is fine.
> Additionally, it would be doubtful that the license to redistribute
> would be extended to users as well. That is, today you can take all the
> CDs of the Debian distribution and copy/distribute them to your heart's
> content. However, if Debian started uncluded "not-so-open" components,
> then this would not be possible. For example, look at SuSE and
> Mandrake. They have "open" or "community" editions and "professional"
> editions. The "professional" editions are restricted from further
> distribution becuase they usually contain proprietary components.
Yes, I have come across that problem. Personally I don't mind paying
for good software - I paid $2000.00 for my first BSD source licence,
and felt it was a bargain. I was less happy when AT&T were asking
several hundred times that for a Unix source license.
But an unencumbered distribution is better, so I can certainly
understand a desire to keep software with awkward licensing restrictions
separate. It is just that somehow Ubuntu does a better job of being
freely distributable without impeding installation and hardware support
quite so much.
My personal priority is having the source for everything, and having
the hardware and software well documented. Having drivers (with source)
supplied for all of my hardware is a huge bonus, but so long as it
is well documented then at least I know I can write drivers when I
need them.
My suggestion for a vendor rating scheme would be (in order of decreasing
desirability):
fully documented and vendor supplies open source Linux driver
fully documented and vendor supplies a binary or licensed driver
fully documented and open source driver available from 3rd party
fully documented, no driver yet
open source driver available from vendor, but no documentation on h/w
binary or licensed driver available from vendor
open source driver from 3rd pary (developed by reverse engineering)
no documentation and no driver
This is not quite the same as end user desirability, where for example
a reverse engineered driver may be more attractive than good documentation.
But the vendor that supplies comprehensive documentation has done more to
support open source than one who has done nothing but benefited from a
frustrated Linux user who got a driver working in spite of the vendor,
and well documented hardware is not likely to go without a driver for
too long, and the driver is likely to be better.
> Hopefully this helps somewhat clear it up for you.
Likewise, hope that clarifies my position for you.
Regards,
DigbyT
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com
http://www.digbyt.com
Reply to: