BFXboards

I don't really get it. Surely, Ubuntu packages are "tweaked", but they will work within Ubuntu. The BeatrIX issue was rather because of the LiveCD system. Some packages might have overwritten settings and commands, that where made in BeatrIX, however I thing I managed rather good to avoid that in BFX2 and I can assure that I can't think of a package that would break Debris at all. the installation is just too close to the original. If a package should harm the system, than it will do in Ubuntu as well, and it'd be a problem with the package maintainer. That all is if you stick to the same version of cource! Switching to another repo, like from Edgy to Feisty, there might be things to be broken by that. However, even so, Debris shouldn't have more trouble with that then Ubuntu itself.
With Debris, I especially took care of not interfering original scripts too much, leaving them alone if at all possible. For that matter, Ubuntu updates and maybe even changes within packages shoudn't have much effect on Debris.
Actually, I would see the same problem with any other major distro, too. Because any update can overwrite someting - I especially think about startup scripts. But this is not the problem of the basis distro, but my own. If I start tweaking Ubuntu, or Debian, or something else, I have to make sure it will work after package updates as well - that's what BeatrIX did not do!
However, there is one issue I can relay to. The reason to develop off a stable Ubuntu version is, that Ubuntu really tryout and test things. That means that an updated package could work entirely diffent, than the one before. Based on this development would definetly be troublesome at times.
Also, new Ubuntu releases usually incorporate new ways of doing stuff, which means one has to compensate for that. That basicly means to intall Ubuntu first, using it, getting to know it, trying to find the basic differnece from the predesseor.
Debian for that matter *is* more linear, not a lot of surprizes there, which makes it rather easy to develop even upon the unstable/testing branch.

R3

PS: Gutzy's live-cycle goes until April 2009! Always 18 months of support after the release. Or rather 12 month after the next release, for the first six months are the regular support of the current release.

1. Ubuntu uses "unstable", not experimental - maybe occasionally but not fully.

2. I'm sorry, but assuming that LTS means keeping a bleeding-edge OS is really naive! Of course there are "only" security updates.
Since we're talking about updates, until a new version of -somtething- goes trough the stages EXPERIMENTAL|UNSTABLE|TESTING (Debian) to finally reach STABLE there very much likely a new version out. As always, it's all about dependencies. You can have a more current Debian if you mix STABLE|UNSTABLE|TESTING, but I use Debian long enough to know that can get you in certain troubles if one of the maintainers hasn't yet updated his packages even though other depend on it. More than once I had to wait one ore two days to get my X server running again, because I had to wait for an library update. Debian is only stable, if you stay in the STABLE branch.
However it it very likely to find third party packages for current application (e.g.: debian-multimedia.org), but, forgive me, I can't release a distro including third party packages.
However, don't think everything will end up in stable. There is already Lenny, and the new stuff will stay there. Some "goodies" will be backported to Etch, but that's about it. Etch will never see a reasonably current kernel, or Gnome!

4. Ubuntu and stability. Well, I'd need to know accactly when and where Ubuntu becomes unstable. I only have experiences up to Edgy and for the way I use it I can't say anything about it being unstable. Talking about BFX/Debris, because of their size, sources of instability are limited. Which shouldn't be a pro-Ubuntu argument, though! I just mean to say "it is unstable" is nor argument.

5. Development vs. Maintenance. Don't kid yourself. Debian is not very fast with updating their packages (see 2.) - security updates not counting! Debris is small enough to handle the major packages myself. Firefox should be updated by the repo, Abiword I do myself anyway. Same for Audacious. Beside Gnumeric, which I never mangaged to compile decently, what else is there? Third party applications (the ones that deliver deb packages) will support Gutsy alright. It might be a different thing with Mepis, though. But he obviously had the same problem before, for it was the reason he switched to Dapper, right?

That line of thinking has not worked for Mepis as well as expected because Ubuntu will grab items from Debian unstable and tweak and custom compile their own packages of it separately to work in their unstable repo, testing repo, and stable repo because of all the dependency differences.

I don't understand this. If they compile it for their repo's, than they will work - well, at least in the stable one. If you mix them your in trouble just like you are if you mix Debian repo's. E.g. Audacious in Debris build from stable sources. I had to compile additional libraries to get it to work, for Edgy didn't deliver them. But it wouldn't have mattered, if I had used the unstable sources instead. The libraries had to be compiled either way. If Ubuntu takes an application from Debian unstable they will have to compile it in a way, so they are no dependency issues.


Now, you too shouldn't get me wrong. I'm not "defending" Ubuntu, I just think the argumentation of that Mepis guy -according to that article- seems a bit shaky.
As for "being behind" Ubuntu, they have the man-power to be fast. Other projects simply can't keep up with them. If I had a pack of programmers at my disposal, I'd do thing differently, starting with a customized Gnome...

R3

Well, Debris outperforms Etch when it comes to really dated hardware! But that's Debris (as was BFX)... Debian indeed is *very* efficient compared to other full-featured distros. Only Slackware and Gentoo are rumoured to be even better in that respect, but they lack a lot of convenience IMHO. Anyhow, Debris continues to fill a niche - and very convincing, at that! To make a short comparison: Debris performs almost as well as Etch with Fluxbox on Bubbles (Celeron 300 Mendozino, 192MB RAM) - and that's something I didn't see from any other comparably convenient distribution, period (I don't count DSL or Puppy here). The point in switching to Debian wouldn't necessarily yield better results, though - it's R3's customisation work that really does it (as Bubbles proves, I'd say). I personally prefer Debian proper, but I have to admit that Ubuntu offers better look and feel, and that's better suited for Debris...

M.

Jeff:

I know you didn't want to reiterate the discussion - but I still think it's interesting! R3 has made a decision, and I fully approve of that, as we all did at that time. However, as I stated in my last post, Debian satisfies my *personal* needs better than Ubuntu - but I still use Ubuntu as a desktop system simply for the fact that it's *optimised* for that kind of use. And it's easier to handle when it comes to multimedia and such (though Debian is by no means far behind - but it's simply not their focus!).

The performance factor is only one among others, but for me (since I use mostly ancient hardware) it's rather important. For the likes of Ubuntu (as is Mint), performance seems to be of minor importance since they aim at newer (WinDoze) machines anyway, and those usually have plenty of resources available. Over P4 and over 512MB RAM, everything Linux runs like a blaze compared to WinDoze anyway, and on really modern machines, even Ubuntu is as snappy as one can wish for. But that's not what Debris is ideal for - it's small, it's portable, and it's a lot more efficient than even the most "frugal" distros. So, Debian's great achievements and Ubuntu's ever growing polish notwithstanding, I still love to remind us all of what is actually doable  - eye candy and "ease of use" are to be served Debris style for me if I'm meant to like them

As for Ubuntu, they've come a long way, but they're not there yet, especially not in terms of policies and politics, but they're gaining if it comes to strategies - but that's nothing to concern Debris (maybe I should add a "yet"...).

btw. I had a thorough look at sidux - it's really interesting, but again, it's just Debian (albeit Sid, thus bleeding edge) with a lot of good work on stabilising something that's not meant to be stable. But performance? No better than any Debian live CD (there are scripts to create your own... did you ever try that?). The selection of packages is good, however - it's almost a full replacement for Knoppix, and that's a bold goal to achieve!

All in all, I am sure that we should watch Debian as close as Ubuntu. Maybe at some point in time, things might get interesting again. But R3's decision to stay with Ubuntu is an absolutely sound one for the time being, and besides, I'm really looking forward to a Debris based on Hardy! But let's not rush things - Debris based on Gutsy is coming ever closer, and I'll really enjoy that the most since it's bound to be a great release. All the work that has been done has already yielded some amazing results, and I'm sure the final release will wow us all. As soon as that is done, we can start to promote it - and then see where it takes us!

M.