Distros leaving Ubuntu and going back to Debian.....

[maconulaff]

I don't know how many noticed, or how many will care, but Mepis announced they are leaving Ubuntu and going back to Debian.  When I saw that, the first thing that came to my mind was "Didn't they go to Ubuntu because it was better than Debian?"

Apparently not - when you are trying to develop a distro of the repos of Ubuntu.  Seems the problem is the Ubuntu repos (and more importantly the packages in those repos) are so customized for Ubuntu that they often don't perform well outside of Ubuntu.  I read Warren's whole reasoning about why they are leaving and when I was done, the only thing I could say is "that makes sense".

It seems the Ubuntu packages get customized from the Debian packages - so far in fact, that they are not necessarily compatible any more.  and when you try to take a customized package and incorporate it into another distro, more often than not, it breaks things.

I remember this happening all the time with my BeatrIX install.  She would always work well with the Debian repos, but when I started pulling from the Warty distros - god knows what would happen.

So Mepis is heading back to using Debian as their main repos.  Not because they are better than Ubuntu's, but rather because they provide a stable platform to develop off of.  I think we can all expect to have Etch around through the end of 2008 at the minimum.  Feisty will be old hat by October.  Which platform do you want to build on?  

Additionally, look how many releases, fixes, updates, etc that LinuxMint has gone through in its short existance.  Why is that?  Seems just the package maintenance at Ubuntu can break distros dependent on the Ubuntu repos.  The old cascading effect of tweaking this package means tweaking that package, etc etc.  It does make Ubuntu what it is, but it also causes distros that have customized select packages to break when Ubuntu goes tweak happy.

This is not a slam on Ubuntu in the least.  They are developing their own repos for use with their distro.  They are under no obligation to make sure it does not break things or alter things in other packages, because they control all the packages.  which is easy to do when you have hundreds of people helping.

Which brings us back to the point of this post.  Maintaining BFX has largely fallen completely on R3 - because the Breezy repos are now effectively dead - and there aren't hundreds of people wanting to help maintain the packages so they work with BFX.  The Ubuntu window has moved right past the neighborhood where BFX was born and lives.

So if we remade BFX (or Debris) using Gutsy - we would have active support and development through what?  April 2008 (I thought Gutsy was supposed to go stable in October 2007).  But don't forget that all R3's custom tweaks can get hosed up by a simple package tweak on behalf of the Ubuntu team - a tweak they probably made for very good reason, but it doesn't change the fact that R3 now has to rebuild a custom package to undo the tweak they just made.  

So I understand why Warren and Mepis are heading back to Etch.  I threw together an Etch install on my Thinkpad, added the IPW2200 firmware, and some select packages from debian-multimedia and I have an install that rivals everything Feisty currently has to offer.  And my install will probably be supported fully until the end of 2008.  Feisty will fall by the wayside before this year is over.

Just some random thoughts spoken out loud in an otherwise silent room....

Jeff

[Renegat3]

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.

[maconulaff]

I guess it may help if I posted a link to the original article - http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6170488551.html

>> For that matter, Ubuntu updates and maybe even changes within packages shoudn't have much effect on Debris.

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.  

From article, Warren said "By using the EXPERIMENTAL code, each and every time, the Ubuntu code tree is inherently less stable than the Debian code tree, which contains additional levels of testing and vetting and fixing of code."

As we have learned, supporting a distro is as much work as developing one.  

>> 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.

Again from Warren "The fact is Dapper was updated with security fixes, but not with new versions of the applications."   And Dapper is the Ubuntu LTS offering....

Ubuntu is recreated every six months - so if you develop off Gutsy, for the first six months all packages are updated.  After that is would fall to security updates only - not all the applications included in Gutsy.  So to update applications, you are making your own custom packages shortly after the next release was made.  More maintenance work, less development work.  

I don't mean to sound like I am taking a shot at Ubuntu - that is not the point.  And your point, "Surely, Ubuntu packages are "tweaked", but they will work within Ubuntu." hits the nail on the head.  As long as you stay within Ubuntu's world - including upgrading distros as they change -  you may be alright.  

I guess this is why it always seems the really innovative desktop distros based off Debian (Knoppix, E-livecd, Dreamlinux, and Ubuntu, etc) always seem to be developing beyond or ahead of the Debian itself, but the Ubuntu based distros are always a step or two behind Ubuntu.  But that may just be my perspective or lack of experience with some of the Ubuntu based distros.  Are there any really innovative Ubuntu based distros?  LinuxMint is convenient, but hardly innovative.  Same with E, K, and X - buntus.  They are just variations of the same.

You know by far more about this stuff in detail than I do.  I just seem to have found since my BeatrIX days to present - my Debian installs are still running, working, and updating, whereas my Ubuntu installs have be overwritten time and time again.  I can apt-get dist-upgrade my Debian installs a few months after the release change and everything works - nothing breaks.  I have yet to have that trick work consistently with Ubuntu.

I did pull the Lenny live cd and gave it a go - http://debian-live.alioth.debian.org/ - it was pretty nice.  No nice grub boot menu, but it worked on every box I have tried.

Jeff

[Renegat3]

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

[maconulaff]

I was just following the LinuxMint based on Debian experimental release discussion and Clem had the following post in response to some queries about their plans and experiments using Debian:

clem Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Adler: Again, this is just an experiment. We’re not planning on switching to Debian, we just want to see what would Debian give us if we were to do so. What I can already tell is that a Debian base provides huge performance gains, the desktop seems twice faster compared to the Main Edition.

Hmmmm.......  I have tried LinuxMint and thought it was slow and bloated - especially compared to Debris (BFX's successor).  But my full bloated Gnome based Etch desktop does approach Debris on the same hardware in terms of speed.  None of the *buntu-based, Fedora, or OpenSUSE come anywhere close - again with the noted except of Debris.

LinuxMint is NOT leaving Ubuntu, but I found Clem's comments interesting.... and not unlike my own experiences

[Matthias]

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.

[maconulaff]

Don't misunderstand my post!  I do not want to see the development of Debris change!   What R3 has done with it makes Ubuntu appealing to me.  It is the only Ubuntu-based distro that I have been even remotely satisfied with in terms of performance and lack of bloat.  

My Etch desktop can't beat Debris - it has too much crap (with the default Gnome desktop environment) loaded into it.  And Etch chokes older machines whereas Debris does run rather nicely.   And as you stated, it addresses the niche perfectly.  I cannot touch what R3 has done with Debris using Etch on older hardware.  Debris turns my old PII 350 (256MB RAM) into a perfectly workable environment for web browsing, e-mail, and basic word processing.

I guess my point in adding the post to the prior discussion was that it seems others with real reputations in the Ubuntu world are re-discovering what Debian proper can offer in terms of speed.  So much attention is pulled to mainstream Ubuntu desktops, but ol' Debian still outperforms it.  Even when customized to offer all the same features - as Clem's comments indicate about LinuxMint.  The Debian folks have never worried about marketing themselves or making a mainstream desktop; and I doubt they will ever change in that regard.  There are still many true Debian desktop options - like Sidux, that will chase the cutting edge mainstream desktop for them.

So, please - don't think I am lobbying for any change in Debris' base.  It fits a niche better than anything else I have used.  I was just talking about my old friend, Debian, getting some recognition for what it does really well.

J.

[Matthias]

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.

[Renegat3]

The trouble is that Debian is very slow in developing (this is not a complaint but a fact caused by non payed volunteers). When there is finally a new release, it is already behind everything else. If you want to enjoy new functions of certain applications, you have to dist-upgrade to the unstable branch. However, since they are slow you can break it with an update and have to wait a couple of days to get it fixed with another updated. While I can work with that, it would be unbearable for our users. Ubuntu is much faster in that respect (payed workers....) and more reliable. I simply can not flatten out the quirks of Debian unstable, let alone Sid. Basing Debris on Debian is limited to the stable branch. Etch is in the vicinity of Dapper (or rather the other way around)! This is rather old, even though I'm not necessarily hot for bleeding edge. However you can get almost everything to work through third party sources or an upgrade to Lenny, this is not an option to base Debris on - at least not for me.

R3