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."
for me to stay away from linux. Compatibility is the largest problem I had with linux when I used it and it still is. Sigh, things haven't changed in 5 years?
UPDATE IT YOU BASTARDS!
It's fun to watch how slashbots love to bash redhat and fedora. I guess it's too mainstream for all the more-alternative-than-you geeks that hangs out here. Nevermind that redhat continues to have huge market presence, fedora is growing rapidly, and both Redhat the company and the volunteers working on Fedora have done some nice things for linux over the last 10 years and recently.
Reminds me of that article earlier today about bitkeeper. In that article, local "enthusiasts" trashed the guy who game us rsync and helped give us samba. Amazing.
XML causes global warming.
People wanting RHEL software stability without the pricetag and still want to have security support would be using Woody for the last 3 years
No, we just run CentOS.
And it's a completely different situation with Windows. You can buy or download pretty much any software and run it on Windows 2000.
If you want a newer version of something on Debian, you have to play dependancy hell updating half of your system libraries to get it working.
And don't bet on apt doing that for you, unless you are very well versed in "pinning" and other exotic stuff. Or if you are lucky, it's in the backports repo, and it might work.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Troll. Right there.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Nice troll buddy.
Where were the SATA chipsets when NT4, Windows 98, Win2k or even WinXP was released?
That's right, they weren't.
On the other hand, it's not up to MS to package their system for use on All Computers.
I've got a shiny little (sata-only) dell at work, and guess what the dell oem version of windows xp does?
Bingo, it installs on sata drives without a problem.
Why?
Because in this case, the distributor included sata support.
There's a difference between whining about support for new pieces of hardware, and whining about support for hardware that's been out for a while now.