Slashdot Mirror


Is Ubuntu a Compatibility Nightmare for Debian?

An anonymous reader submits "Following Friday's release of Ubuntu Linux 5.04, Ian Murdock, founder of the Debian project, told internetnews.com: 'Ubuntu's popularity is a net negative for Debian.' He explained: 'It's diverged so far from Sarge that packages built for Ubuntu often don't work on Sarge. And given the momentum behind Ubuntu, more and more packages are being built like this. The result is a potential compatibility nightmare.' Ian suggests a method for averting crisis on his blog."

11 of 638 comments (clear)

  1. Funny thing, perspective. by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And given the momentum behind Ubuntu, more and more packages are being built like this. The result is a potential compatibility nightmare.

    Funny how two people can look at the same thing and see something different. My perspective was that; the result is a potential deprecation of Sarge and perhaps Debian itself.

  2. Similar problem when Mandrake forked by NotFamous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of when Mandrake forked from Redhat. Initially the RPM packages were fairly interchangeable. Eventually I learned to only use actual Mandrake RPMs on Mandrake. Somehow, the world kept turning...

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
    1. Re:Similar problem when Mandrake forked by natrius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You say that Debian's problems come from having too many packages and too many architectures, but those are precisely the features that Debian's users like about it.

      Unfortunately Ubuntu doesn't really tackle the packaging problem seriously: it improves on Debian by only stabilising a small base system

      This is exactly what you said Debian should do, but now that Ubuntu does it, it's a problem?

      (a) an out of date and small but stable repository (main) or (b) a large and up to date but often broken repository (universe).

      (a) is precisely what most normal users want. Normal users use their computers as tools, and don't care if they have the latest whizbang version of Gaim, as long as they can IM their friends. On (b), universe isn't often broken, and only one package (gtk-gnutella, repeatedly) has broken for me, and is the only one I remember seeing mentioned on the mailing lists. Also, universe doesn't get updates either, it just includes the rest of the Debian repository that Ubuntu hasn't chosen to explicitly support.

      Unfortunately the Ubuntu developers only go so far - they still believe it's possible for Ubuntu to package everything end users will ever need, even though at least in Warty, universe wasn't even enabled by default.

      Universe isn't enabled by default because main is supposed to contain all the software that most users need to get their work done. Any new user that spends more than a day or two administering an Ubuntu system will be aware of universe. If there's a piece of software that you think should be included in main, there are places on the wiki to make suggestions.

      I don't see any way for Ubuntu to stabilise universe without getting bogged down in the same mud that Debian did.

      Time based releases. You do as much as you can within six months. If there's a package in universe that a user's workflow depends upon that's broken in a release, they can stick with the old release for up to another year while still receiving security updates.

      The end result is Ubuntu - a fork.

      Ubuntu is a fork. Forks aren't inherently bad. All the work on Ubuntu goes back into Debian. Sure, it shows that people weren't satisfied with Debian and wanted something else. Is this a bad thing for Debian? It depends on what their goals are. The work of Debian developers is being used by far more people that it work before Ubuntu, so I think that's a good thing.

  3. Re:Problem? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now imagine if Ubuntu had instead been a group of developers who decided to combine their efforts with the Debian group to improve Debian?

    The people-who-control-Debian isn't always friendly towards new users, novice developers, or people ask simple questions like 'Why is x.org NOT in Debian-unstable?'.

    More often then not, if I ask a question in a Debian forum, IRC channel or here on Slashdot, somebody will basically tell me to shut up and live with it.

    It's this additude which has kept many people from using Debian, and is the same reason why many people are now reviewing Ubuntu.

  4. Should be interesting... by Tuross · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like most people I agree its a bit of a "duh" to have moved far away from sarge. It's difficult to remain compatible with something that is so far behind the times it will be obselete on release. Even sid has moved away in some regards; yet even it is obselete in many areas. There is no business sense whatsoever in being chained to the old sloth.

    Part of the compatibility problem is on Debian's side: many maintainers are annoyed that Ubuntu exists and choose to not work with them out of pride/arrogance. This attitude is something I hope Branden breaks in his new tenure as DPL.

    This is where I think it will be very interesting. Branden has always been a progressive and practical person, with extremely little time for the kind of political rubbish that has prevented sarge from being released. We know that the platforms Ubuntu has chosen are the ones that matter for their market, and the ones that matter for the near future in the desktop and server market (with Sun dropping UltraSPARC for amd64) in general. We know there's already been talk of refocussing Debian such that architectures like arm that usually hold everything up will no longer do so.

    So the way I see it, there's a lot of hand-waving going on here that could be completely irrelevent in the future as Debian is architecturally focussed the same as Ubuntu which should foster greater cooperation. Of course Ubuntu is clearly on the desktop side and not the server, so I guess it will have more of the eye-candy and desktop apps while Debian has a far greater range of packages; though it doesn't necessarily need to be that way. It would be fantastic if Ubuntu is simply re-branding the Debian desktop packages in a co-maintenance fashion.

    My greatest gripe with Debian over the past 6 years is how they seemed to have wasted time arguing over pathetic things like should this document licensed under the GFDL really be in Debian, and have hence fallen from their position as the #1 distribution on the ball technically, always up-to-date (at least in sid) with what's out there, to being so far behind its becoming very tempting to switch. Come on, the commercial distros used to be the last to get anything new, now they are becoming the first. Okay, so Novell *wrote* Beagle but the source has always been available, why is is still not in sid (even an old version?). Call me out for not packaging it myself, but neither have you so that's hardly an argument. That's just one minor example.
    (and fwiw I did try packaging it myself, but the dependencies were also either not packaged or out of date and it became a much bigger and riskier task than I have time for)

    I can understand Ian's frustration, he created Debian and then went on to found Progeny and I guess there's some angst/jealousy there over how popular Ubuntu has become in such a short time while Progeny hasn't quite seen that kind of success for however many years (most people forget it even exists unless prompted by some mention somewhere). Get over it. I've seen more cooperation from Ubuntu maintainers with "upstream" Debian than any other Debian fork as witnessed by changelogs of packages I use, I put their success down to this and their good business strategy/vision. Credit where credit is due. I hope this cooperation will increase in the future.

    --
    Matt
    1. Read Slashdot
    2. ???
    3. Profit
  5. Solution: Ubuntu - Debian co-maintainers by jab · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a reasonably simple and very effective solution here. The Debian project supports, and in fact encourages co-maintainers for packages. This is a great way to get more manpower into the process and improve the quality of packages. The co-maintainer doesn't even have to be an official member of Debian if the maintainer sponsors the combined work.

    I am a Debian developer, and one of the packages that I maintain has been patched by Ubuntu. I only found out about it by looking over the Ubuntu patch site. What I would like to see is the Ubuntu developer contact me, ask to be a co-maintainer, and get those changes directly into the Debian package. This is good for Debian - we get additional help in doing a good job. This is good for Ubuntu since they don't have to re-merge patches every six months. It helps the two groups act as a team, feel good about each other, and save on overall work. And, as the article points out, the increased compatibility between Debian, Ubuntu and all other Debian based distributions (including Knoppix) is a win for end users.

    Now that Ubuntu is a rising star, and Debian has just finished Project Lead elections, I would like to see the leadership of the two organizations get together, discuss the idea, and hopefully agree that this is a good way to work together. The leadership can then promote co-maintainership as a 'best practice' within their own organizations, inform the userbase (i.e. get it mentioned on slashdot), PLUS appoint an interoperability liason. The liason's job is to hassle^H^H^H^H^H^H talk with individual developers to help make sure this actually happens. Branden, don't you think this would be a great first accomplishment as DPL?

    Of course, there will still be some places where Debian and Ubuntu want to do something differently, so some packages will always be a little incompatible. But the bulk of the 'heavy lifting' across the thousands of packages is all about stuff developers generally agree on. Updating software, finding and fixing problems, improving quality. Ian Murdock is worried an impending 'nightmare'. I think if we can work together well, the upcoming Ubuntu/Debian relationship is going to be software distribution's finest hour.

    1. Re:Solution: Ubuntu - Debian co-maintainers by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously, don't you think all that is up to Debian? I think Ubuntu may or may not agree, but I don't see them having a problem.

      The further Ubuntu diverges from Debian, the less benefit they'll receive from the huge amount of work that goes into Debian development. Ubuntu's rapid growth has been entirely because they've had such an excellent base upon which to build, but if they diverge too far from Debian they will lose that advantage and will have to do all of the work themselves, at which point their progress will slow dramatically.

      It's clearly in the interest of both projects to cooperate, and I fully expect it will happen. The "problems" currently being experienced are primarily a result of the youth and rapid growth of Ubuntu. When a new process is developing, problems occur, it's normal. Debian and Ubuntu developers will cooperate, and both will win. Debian excels at providing a vast, solid foundation that is great for those who need stability and great for experienced Linux users/developers, but has a hard time maintaining a good, usable desktop for less capable (or dedicated) users. Ubuntu does an excellent job of that, but requires a the Debian bedrock underneath.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Solution: Ubuntu - Debian co-maintainers by |>>? · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Jeff,

      I think your idea has great merit, but I must confess that I think your idea will be buried in politics and name calling.

      Allow me to elaborate a little. I'm a debian user, have been for a number of years. I'm also a software developer with 24 years of experience and I run my own company. I use my workstation to get my job done and I report bugs as diligently as I am able to as they arise from time-to-time. On occasion I attempt to use IRC to ask questions in #debian and in the past I've offered my services to the debian community.

      In this context I've found that there are a few "loud" people within the debian community, those who are quick to dismiss those who are not a developer and "thus" have no visible track record. Members of the general community might perceive those "loud" people as representative of the debian developer community.

      Perhaps the reason that the perception exists that the debian community is hard to communicate with is because it appears that to become a debian developer requires a lot of passion, persistence and patience. Once you are a debian developer, there may be a sense of achievement and some form of separation, in that there is differentiation between a developer and the rest of the community.

      I'm not talking about the process of becoming a developer, I'm talking about how it makes you feel after you've done it.

      I'm struggling a little to get my point across, because I don't want this to turn into a moan about debian because /. has already well and truly taken care of that part of the discussion.

      What I'm talking about it that debian developers appear to me to require a strong personality, just to become a developer in the first place, that as a result, debian itself looses out.

      So, after many words, getting back to what I started with, politics and name calling. I think that we as debian users need to find a way to allow more cohesion between the various members of the community and then ideas such as yours can and will be embraced and encouraged.

      I've now re-read this numerous times and I'm still not sure that I've got my point across, but feel free to email me direct to discuss this further.

      --
      |>>? ..EBCDIC for Onno..
  6. Funny by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had the same issue! I once went to #debian on freenode, foolishly thinking that Debian people might want to help me double-check my CUPS article on Wikipedia. Instead, I got a lot of abuse, and after watching the channel members abuse some other guy (for who knows what), I decided this wasn't the channel for me and to leave.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. Re:That's what happens by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Interesting
    being stolen by a better company
    Debian isn't a company. I don't think Ubuntu is either, but I'm not sure.

    Ha! This is the greatest Freudian slip in the whole thread. Ubuntu absofuckinglutely is a company.

    Who do you think pays all those Debian developers to work on Ubuntu instead of Sarge? Mark's money will run out sooner or later, but I'm sure he's invested enough in Canonical that when it does run out, they'll be sitting pretty with exclusive control over Ubuntu support.

    Meanwhile, Bruce Perens and Ian Murdock have to rethink their businesses based on Debian support. Instead of working with and within the Debian project like Progeny and UserLinux, Canonical has purchased the Debian project and is letting it rot to draw users and developers to Ubuntu. This doesn't bode well either for Debian or for the people who work within the project to make their living, if that living isn't tied to Canonical.

    In the end, I'd expect Ubuntu to turn into something like Fedora, with the free distro really only being useful for people who like to upgrade every six months and one company (Canonical) monopolizing support for anyone who needs a longer life, security updates, stability, or even third party software support. That seems to have been their inspiration all along. Everyone but beta testers will get to pay and, if they do it right, Debian will no longer be a viable option. Two birds, one stone.

    So far, unfortunately, it seems they are doing it right. Only half of the eligible Debian developers voted for the new DPL. Sarge is way late with no end in sight (it still hasn't even been frozen). And it seems like the process of adding new developers to the project (who might upset the balance of power or actually work to release a stable version) has come to a grinding halt.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  8. Re:Problem? by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because it's not stable, it's fossilized.

    It's hard to set up a reasonable modern server with Debian. For example, a mail server. With Debian stable you get:

    ancient exim
    ancient spamassassin
    no clamav
    etc.

    The problem with that is that you go online and see lots of nice setups explained you simply can't do with the provided version, because it relies on packages a year old, and what's provided by Debian is much older.

    Sure, there are solutions. Mixed stable/testing, backports, building your own. But all of those suck.

    Mixed systems and ones with unofficial sources are error prone. Once in a while something screws up, and you suddenly find that the mail server that was supposed to be just upgraded for a security fix wasn't fully installed, and dpkg won't remove the package... and you're stuck with no mail server until you find a way of fixing it. Sure, at work you should have a test server, but this happened to me at home and it's annoying as heck.

    backports have the additional problem of that you have to trust the site, and that's rather difficult.

    Building your own seems like the best one in comparison, but can also be awfully problematic due to outdated development packages. Ideally you need more than one computer with Debian so that you avoid installing gcc on the server. And if I'm going to build from source I'd rather use Gentoo on the server, where things compile from source wonderfully well.