Re: "I do consider Ubuntu to be Debian" , Ian Murdock

[Michael Pobega <pobega@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 05:41:45AM -0700, Michael M. wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 16:42 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:35:02AM -0700, Michael M. wrote:
> > > 
> > > Call it what you want:  schedule, timeline, target, whatever.  The point
> > > is that the Debian Project doesn't value it enough to stick to it.  I
> > > doubt there's a large software project in existance that hasn't missed
> > > its targets sometimes -- Ubuntu, Fedora, openSuSE all have had release
> > > delays in recent memory, and then there's Windows Vista.  But Debian is
> > > fairly unique in being so cavalier about it.
> > > 
> > 
> > Now this is unfair. You're complaining that the Debian developers
> > don't release things on time, but think about what the stable branch
> > is used for; Servers, (some) home computers, and some mission critical
> > data centers (I am not 100% sure on this, but doesn't NASA use Debian?
> > I remember reading something about it, or the likes of it)
> 
> It may surprise you to learn that I am not NASA.  :-)
> 

I'm not saying you're NASA, but you aren't using the stable branch,
are you? What I meant to say is the stable branch's aim is for servers
and data centers, not home computers (Except for those very paranoid
few)

> > If Debian worried about sticking to a schedule rather than worrying
> > about the stability of the product, you'd hear about a few more
> > missing astronauts and a couple of billion dollars gone from (I'm
> > going on a limb here) some bank data centers. Obviously this is all
> > worst case scenario, but it's what Debian is primarily made for.
> 
> Which begs the question, "Is Debian made for me?"
> 

Then don't use Debian? We're not forcing you to keep using it. There
is no perfect solution for everyone. I'm just trying to explain why I,
and I assume most other people choose Debian over other distros. If
you don't like Debian then fine, don't use it.

> > Most of the PR Debian gets is negative, and that's because no one
> > truly understands the Debian project; (Note: I'm not a dev, but I'll
> > use "We" as in "We the Debian people") We don't care about release
> > dates, we don't care about the newest versions of software, we care
> > about rock hard stability. Even the testing branch of Debian is known
> > to be pretty stable, for the most part. And even if you wanted the
> > things most "Desktop" distros offer, you could apt-pin from unstable.
> > With enough wits about how Debian works you can get any install of
> > Debian to feel to the end user exactly like an up to date Ubuntu,
> > Mandriva, or Fedora install. 
> 
> Negative compared to?:  "Microsoft is evil," "Apple values style over
> substance," "Gentoo is imploding," "FreeBSD is dead," "Mandriva betrayed
> its users," "Ubuntu is Debian made stupid," "Fedora ignores its
> community in favor of Red Hat's priorities," etc.  Everybody has their
> critics.
> 

I really hope you're kidding on this one. Microsoft gets bashed all
the time, but they also get praised by people who know no better.
Gentoo IS imploding, which is the current news. If Gentoo's developers
weren't leaving I'm sure you'd be hearing rhapsodies about how amazing
USE flags are (I'm not insulting Gentoo, but Gentoo had majorly
positive articles until the dev thing), etc. etc.

Debian, on the other hand, only gets negative PR. Outside of the
Debian community nobody really gives Debian a chance. I've been
reading Linux Format for a couple of months now, and I was happy to
finally see a Debian review in last month's issue (February). To my
surprised they gave Debian Etch a 4/10, which in my opinion basically
means that they don't understand the idea of the Debian release
schedule; It's aimed at servers, NOT home computers. Testing is a
rolling release, just like unstable and Gentoo. I mean, how often do
you see "Gentoo 2006.1 Review" articles? Never, because all that is is
an updated installer. Gentoo is the same distro always, there are no
version numbers. Just like testing/unstable.

> > Release dates aside, Debian also has the largest repository for
> > software. And like Gentoo, Debian is (For the most part) a rolling
> > release distribution, you never really have to upgrade to a new
> > release. You could stay testing, or unstable, instead of sticking with
> > "Sarge" or "Etch". Debian is about choice, and it gives you the power
> > to use your operating system however you want. Whether you want to
> > install a mission critical server, or beef up your system ala Gentoo
> > (Using apt-get source) you could do it.
> > 
> > Sorry about the rant, but I have to defend Debian. It has become my
> > love in the past few months, I only wish I started using Debian
> > earlier (Damned Windows).
> 
> You don't have to defend Debian, at least not to me.  Just don't try to
> pretend that it is the perfect solution for everyone.  The things you
> are suggesting are routinely and actively discouraged on this list --
> apt-pinning, mixing branches.  Yes you *can* do it, but be prepared to
> face the chorus of "you should be sticking to stable" when you ask for
> help with something that's not working.  Likewise, you could make Debian
> similar to Gentoo if you wanted to, but that's not really how Debian is
> designed to work.  If you wanted to make it into a source-based distro,
> wouldn't it be better just to use a source-based distro in the first
> place?  Debian is amongst the most flexible distros around, but it can't
> be stretched beyond all reason into something it's not (not without a
> great deal of difficulty, requiring a great deal of skill and
> knowledge).  That's why there are so many distros based off Debian,
> directly (Ubuntu, DSL, Kantonix, etc.) or indirectly (Mepis, Linspire,
> etc.).  If Debian could easily be made into what these distros offer,
> there'd be no need for them -- everyone would just use Debian to do what
> these various distros do.  It's unreasonable and unrealistic to expect
> that everyone is able to do this.
> 

Like I said before, I'm not pretending it's the perfect solution. I'm
just explaining reasons TO use it. Sure, Gentoo has better
customization. Sure Fedora Core has ease of use. Sure, Ubuntu has a
giant user base. Windows is widely accepted, and Macs are good for
artists. But I am explaining why I think Debian is great; If you don't
agree, then Debian may not be the distro for you (Of course, there are
other reasons besides my own to love Debian, I'm not speaking for
everybody on the list and I'm certainly not speaking for the devs).

> Ubuntu Feisty, currently in beta, has some software that hasn't even
> made it to Debian experimental yet, never mind unstable.  That alone
> makes Ubuntu a more attractive option for some users, to say nothing of
> other factors like regular, predictable releases, or hardware detection
> that works better for some.  It doesn't mean we should all switch to
> Ubuntu; neither does it mean that Debian is a better option for all
> users of Ubuntu.  As similar as the underpinnings of both distros are,
> they each have different priorities and excel at different tasks.  It's
> up to users to decide which is a better fit for them -- there's no right
> answer for everyone.  Yet for some reason, people here persist in
> attacking Ubuntu as misguided or as "Debian done wrong" or some such.
> 

I have really no problems with Ubuntu. My sister uses it, she finds it
simple and easy to use. Being that it's Debian based it only makes
fixing problems on her laptop 3x easier.

I don't personally use Ubuntu, but I don't hate it. The only thing I
really do hate about it is the restricted drivers in Feisty, but
that's for another thread.