Trouble on the Debian Front?

Linux.com is reporting that Matthew Garrett, one of the more active Debian developers, has called some ongoing problems with the Debian project into focus with his resignation. While he didn't hold any actual office, many prominent Debian developers described Garrett as "high profile". From the article: "In his own blog, Garrett relates his gradual discovery that Debian's free-for-all discussions were making him intensely irritable and unhappy with other members of the community. He contrasts Debian's organization with Ubuntu's more formal structure. In particular, he mentions Ubuntu's code of conduct, which is enforced on the distribution's mailing lists, suggesting that it 'helps a great deal in ensuring that discussions mostly remain technical.' He also approves of Ubuntu's more formal structure as 'a pretty explicit acknowledgment that not all developers are equal and some are possibly more worth listening to than others.' Then, in reference to Mark Shuttleworth, the founder and funder of Ubuntu, Garrett says, 'At the end of the day, having one person who can make arbitrary decisions and whose word is effectively law probably helps in many cases.'"

Comments

Debian's demise has been fortold for years

[nurhussein]

Especially when Ubuntu was released, everyone thought Debian was "dead" or "irrelevant", despite Ubuntu being based off Debian.

However, Debian's release cycle is picking up the pace, as Etch is set to be released soon (a quicker release cycle than Sarge's). Things are looking good as far as a mere user like me is concerned. There are a lot of hardworking people working on Debian, and the politicking is nothing new.

Re:Debian's demise has been fortold for years

[cloricus]

Debian's demise is an annoying catch cry for all those who want to start pointless flamewars instead of helping the community move forward. Ubuntu has many problems and cannot hope to replace Debian, ever, as the focus just isn't the same. Linux isn't Windows, in that it wants to be everything for every one, people so please remember that and really if you don't like the way some thing is run go where you do like it...That being said I hope any well thought out points that make sense in this mans blog are implemented for the betterment of the Debian community.
 
Just for the record I use Debian and Ubuntu in server and desktop configurations daily at home and work and I enjoy both.

Re:Debian's demise has been fortold for years

[Simon Garlick]

I think of Debian and K/ubuntu as akin to BSD and OS X. One is just the other with a cool GUI.

Re:Debian's demise has been fortold for years

[morgajel]

The Community didn't want help moving forward; that was part of the problem. There's a saying on freenode that #Debian is where all the assholes go. It's sort of amusing sitting in another [unnamed] distro channel and watching a trickle of debian people come in (the same way I did) and were shocked at how friendly the channel was despite having almost 1000 people in one of it's 20 or so channels.

I also know a developer (who is probably one of the more skilled developers I know) try to get in and help with the debian project and he was denied at pretty much every step. He finally said screw it and that there were better uses for his time than battling Debian beaucracy.

Debian got too big for their britches and got complacent. They need to be taken down a few pegs.

difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[darkonc]

In the early net, some people would regularly confuse the anarchy (lack of fixed leaders) of the Usenet/Internet universe with lack of any rules... ("I can do whatever I want! (and you can't -- i.e. you have to put up with my stupidity).)

Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules, and I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.

Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[mdhoover]

The thing is, even with rules in place, mailing-lists always end up being a place for megaphone diplomacy, he who shouts loudest and longest (even if they have no clue) wins.
The lists end up being political flamefests so anyone of actual consequence (ie: folks that do the work) will just depart the list to use IM/IRC/private email so as to avoid the bullshit and get on with work.

Maybe to avoid this projects should use Slash instead of mailing lists, at least the smack-tards could be moderated out of existence ;-)

Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[suv4x4]

Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules

It's not the same but you'll quickly find out how you emulate "authority" with your set of rules sooner or later, effectively ending up with leaders.

It's the natural way. We all want to be leaders, or be equal, and that's ok, because it means there's a competition and possibility of change for the better. But if there's no concentration or "strategy" in a system, what results is a mess.

Every system needs just about the right amount of "chaos" and "order" for it to thrive. Even democracy has elections once a few years, no every day or every hour.

Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[Anonymous Coward]

"Smack-tard" is not a word, ass-hat.

Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[Dorsai65]

Is too, butt-munch!

Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[LordLucless]

Actually, that's representative democracy; true democracy would have no elections. Rather, every law would be voted on by everyone before it was enacted. That's the way it was in ancient Greece. Of course, there's a large difference between an ancient Greek city-state, where only male landowners can vote, and a continent-spanning nation with general suffrage - true democracy would result in chaos in most modern nations, especially with the number of laws we currently have (although I think that a lot of that is an outgrowth of having professional lawmakers). But still, the American system of representative democracy should not be used interchangeably with democracy; they are very different beasts.

Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[asuffield]

I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.

Partly, but another problem is a small but vocal contingent in Debian who either don't understand its approximately-anarchistic nature, want to be rulers, or want to be ruled - and then create a ruckus when something happens that they don't like. I used to be a Debian developer, and I recognise all of the names in this article as being members of that contingent.

Fortunately, the Debian project has a history of being self-correcting. People like this tend to get frustrated and resign.

Hey, it's still working.

For the record, I quit for entirely different reasons, and some of my thoughts at the time on Debian's problems can be found here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg 00073.html

Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all

[NoOneInParticular]

So you say that the American, German, English, French, Dutch, Argentinian, Brazilian, ..., ..., ..., ..., system of representative democracy should not be described by the word 'democracy'. That general word is reserved for the form of government that was in vogue in a small city state, 2.5 millenia ago (and in small kantons in Switzerland). Sorry dude, but in the real world we'll be using the general form for the general case. I.e., if we're talking about modern age governments, 'democracy' always means 'representative democracy'. We can reserve the word 'direct democracy' for the exception: Switzerland.

Interesting...

[SaDan]

It's kinda interesting, the last comment regarding having a single individual who's word is basically law in a project. It's worked for the Linux kernel, and the longest surviving Linux distribution (Slackware).

I was never a fan of the political backend of Debian, but I recognize the developers' contributions to the distribution. Maybe now that Ubuntu is popular and succeeding, a change in the way politics are done at Debian is on the horizon?

Take from this what you will

[BadAnalogyGuy]

NetBSD is dying

What you have here is someone who has taken an either/or position on formal structure. This is a fallacy that is refuted every single time it is used. 'You're either with us or against us', 'Emacs, not vi', and 'cathedral, not bazaar'.

What is necessary is not a central bureaucracy that keeps people in line. Nor is it absolute freedom that allows any idiot to speak with equal stature of someone with multiple credentials. There are no hard and set rules that will make one project more successful or attractive than another. The best you can do is to take care of the community members that are productive and useful and try to avoid those members who are more prone to religious wars than code reviews.

Could it have happened any other way?

[pepeperes]

I doubt many of Debian's greatest contributors would have been there building stuff for these years had the organization been different. Much of Debian's beauty and attractive for many is based precisely on its 'loose' or rather free structure. If it survives, or if it will disappear we do not know yet, but it right now its offspring have shown they are really strong and effective, and I guess thats one of the main reasons-to-be for almost any entity, be it living or algorithmic.

Paraphrasing Uncle Ben...

[ciurana]

...with great power comes great responsibility.

I believe that Ubuntu is on the right track because of the rules they have in place. Some open-source advocates confuse structure with lack of innovation, or with coerciveness, and thus eschew these rules which, in the long run, will hurt their cause. Anarchist behavior appears to be a good thing only in fiction. In real life it leads to erosion of the institutions that harbor it.

The open-source community wields great power now that our software is being adopted for solving a wider range of problems. Our responsibility is to create an environment that will promote cooperation and the continuous evolution of our products and services. An environment where flamewars and egos are flaring all the time will always end up hurting the projects until they wilt and die. This hurts our collective credibility and hinders our ability to bring more open-source projects in-house.

Cheers,

E

Garrett

[Cutter7]

Welcome to the light.

rulemaking isn't pretty either

[SuperBanana]

Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules, and I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.

The sad bit is that you usually need a leader to help make rules; when it comes down to it, the top couple of people most interested/involved/popular/whatever set some basic rules. Too many cooks etc. Add in egotistical or socially clueless people...and the number of practical cooks drops. Radically.

The really sad bit is that "just enough" of the people left out will devote endless amounts of time to arguing about said rules. BTDT in many clubs, for example. The best approach is to write the first draft of rules to be simple, un-evil, and able to be modified in the future, but not too easily.

Geeks without rules = too many pissing contests

[winkydink]

Put a group of alpha geeks in a room and start a discussion. Inevitably, they spend more time trying to prove to each other who is the smartest than they do actually pushing forward the discussion. Why is that?

Re:Geeks without rules = too many pissing contests

[grammar fascist]

Because we're all a bunch of intellectually narcissistic gits?

That's a serious answer.

Re:Geeks without rules = too many pissing contests

[gardyloo]

Put a group of alpha geeks in a room and start a discussion. Inevitably, they spend more time trying to prove to each other who is the smartest than they do actually pushing forward the discussion. Why is that?

      Is THAT your best attempt at starting a discussion?!? What a freaking IDIOT!!!

Other *nix OSes, and a little rant

[lullabud]

It's also worked for Apple's OS X, which claims to be the most widely distributed desktop version of *nix ever.

I tend to agree that there needs to be somebody to make final decisions on matters of wide questionability. Just the other day I compiled an app on Ubuntu and moved it to RHEL3 only to find that the static libraries were in a different location. I praised Apple's build system as well as the efforts of LSB and gave up on my quest to run hacked code on RHEL3 since I'm nowhere near a guru developer. (The app compiled and ran flawlesly on OS X and Ubuntu using debian packages.)

Re:Other *nix OSes, and a little rant

[TheRaven64]

The difference with FreeBSD is that it is a meritocracy. If you regularly contribute code, you will be invited to become a committer, and granted write access to the repository. The core team is then elected by the committers. You only get to vote if you are an active contributor, and the elected core team then sets policy. This helps to insulate the project from people who have a lot to say, but nothing helpful to contribute.

No.

[MrNaz]

I disagree with this developer's comments, and suggest that perhaps his way of thinking is perhaps not suited to a meritocracy. Perhaps he needs an authority to appeal to in situations of disagreement.

While having one point of authority is good if you are looking to conduct a project under corporate type structures, it is undesirable if you are looking to adhere to principles of community involvement and community focused agendas.

I agree that it must be acknowledged that not all developers are equal, but disagree that this must be explicitly stated somewhere. In an open, meritocratic forum, relative skill levels become apparent fairly quickly, and if you need full and formal recognition of your work, then you are out of place in the open source community.

I have found the Debian mailing lists to be quite helpful, and if there genuinely is a lack of an appropriate forum for technical discussions, then this is a minor administrative problem (i.e., get a moderator to keep discussions on topic in the developer lists), not an intractable structural problem.

In any case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I find it difficult to accept that the "Debian Way" is broken when the project is so old, so well regarded, and so successful.

Garrett: If you are unable to work in the Debian project becuase your ideas conflict with it, then don't be blaming the Debian project. It may simply be the case, as with many relationship breakdowns, that your ideals and theirs are simply incompatible.

Re:No.

[JanneM]

I disagree with this developer's comments, and suggest that perhaps his way of thinking is perhaps not suited to a meritocracy. Perhaps he needs an authority to appeal to in situations of disagreement.

"Meritocracy" means having authority - selected with skill in the field as the criterion (as opposed to connecitons, external resources, charisma or what have you). It means some people have more say than others based on their skill, not that there is no authority.

Re:No.

[jsebrech]

In any case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I find it difficult to accept that the "Debian Way" is broken when the project is so old, so well regarded, and so successful.

Speaking as a disgruntled ex-debian user, I can assure you that a lot of people only consider the project old, not well regarded or successful. I consider it a niche OS that will remain a niche OS until it gets its act together.

The failings of the debian project that made me move away from it were numerous but revolved around a lack of direction. The project came across as a collection of developers that solved their own pet problems, instead of a community focused on a clearly defined central goal, led by knowledgeable leaders. What I wanted out of debian was first of all for it to be up-to-date (something it never succeeded in, despite many attempts to "fix" the system), and for it to be well-suited both as a server OS and as a desktop OS. It was well-suited as a server OS, but only if you didn't need to run anything too new, and only if you weren't afraid of the command-line. The only way to make it usable as a desktop OS was endless tinkering.

It's no mystery why the most successful OSS projects have strong central leadership. Vision can't be parallellized. You can maintain a piece of software in cooperative fashion, but if you try to apply direction to it you need one or a few people who have the authority on what that direction is, or your ship will just sail in circles.

Re:No.

[Anthony Boyd]

While having one point of authority is good if you are looking to conduct a project under corporate type structures, it is undesirable if you are looking to adhere to principles of community involvement and community focused agendas.

While that may be true in some cases, it's not true in cases like Linux, or Perl, or Ubuntu. Therefore, while I am not going to suggest that your point is incorrect, I am going to suggest that your point is diminished by counterpoints.

I agree that it must be acknowledged that not all developers are equal, but disagree that this must be explicitly stated somewhere. In an open, meritocratic forum, relative skill levels become apparent fairly quickly, and if you need full and formal recognition of your work, then you are out of place in the open source community.

I'm going to 100% disagree here. It has been my sad experience that -- as someone else mentioned here on Slashdot -- "megaphone democracy" is what you get. The person who speaks loudest the longest wins. But I'm not even upset about that, now that I've experienced that and understand it. You see, the core group that does the most is very often very small. And they're surrounded by a large group of sorta-disconnected sometimes-contributors. That large group is not well informed, and you cannot blame them. They have lives. They've decided that other things are priorities. That's fair. But that also means that they cannot be expected to judge who has skills. All they know is who has been helpful for the 3 interactions they've had on the project. And sometimes, the person who has been helpful to them was a PITA to everyone else.

This is how humanity is. I do not blame, because I've had to pick & choose what gets my attention, too. But now that I understand this, I know that your argument that skill levels become apparent just ain't so. Not for the majority. It's a pipe dream. Especially in this context -- chatter on mailing lists.

Garrett: If you are unable to work in the Debian project becuase your ideas conflict with it, then don't be blaming the Debian project. It may simply be the case, as with many relationship breakdowns, that your ideals and theirs are simply incompatible.

That may be true. It may also be the case that as an insider who has been a good contributor, he has seen the core of the apple, so to speak. He may be in a good position to reveal what's rotten. Write him off at your own peril.

Re:Moo

[grammar fascist]

In work environments Debian rocks. Ubuntu is... not for work, it is a windows replacement. What else can I say?

It really depends on what you mean by work, doesn't it? I mean, what does "work" mean to you, and why would it describe any work that could possibly be done?

My work is computer science research, and Ubuntu is perfect for that. It just sets itself up (on both my laptop and lab desktop) and gets out of my way. The development libraries are all there when I need them. This is as opposed to Windows, where I'd have to hunt for and/or pay for libraries or IDEs I want (been there, done that, never again), or Debian, where I'd have to spend a lot longer getting the software to talk to the hardware.

Re:I blame the PC users

[misleb]

Wow, this wasn't even off topic. Try -1 nonsensical

Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution

[WebCowboy]

Besides, Ubuntu would not exist and remain in existence without Debian.

Errr, what would keep Ubuntu from continuing if Debian simply and abruptly came to an end? Perhaps it would somewhat affect the course of Ubuntu's development but it wouldn't spell the end of Ubuntu or any other successful Debian-based distribution should Debian itself become defunct.

H. Sapiens remain in existence today despite the fact that H. Erectus ceased to exist long ago. Perhaps Debian is reaching the end of its predominance and the frontrunning Debian-based offshoot, Ubuntu, is finding its place as a replacement. It really looks to me like evolutionary development occurring within the Free Software ecosystem--Linux went from being a student hacker's experiment, to a hobbyist/enthusiasts toy, to a few rough-around-the-edges distributions managed usually by individuals (eg. Slakware), to full-fledged community-driven collaberative efforts (Debian) and commercially-driven products (Red Hat, SuSE).

Since the commercially-driven efforts continually evolve (Red Hat dropping consumer-level products and establishing Fedora, Mandrake and Connectiva merging and re-inventing their businesses, SuSE being bought by Novell and releasing a community edition of its own) what should keep purely community-driven efforts from evolving as well? Ubuntu is a reponse to influences and pressures of the Free Software community--it shares the same technology, much of the same content and has some common roots in its founders and contributers. It keeps Debian's strengths (package management system loved by many, lack of direct corporate influence and commitment to the concept of Free Software, relatively high commitment to stability etc.) and abandons other characteristics that are weaknesses (lack of organisational structure, political disputes impeding on technical progress, slow pace of development at times, unpredictable release cycle).

This is exactly what makes Free Software so valuable--even if Debian were to disintegrate as a project there will be nothing to keep Debian's code and heritage from living on in new projects that pick up the pieces and move forward in great and exciting new directions. I have personally seen a couple of closed software applications of great value pretty much die because the companies responsible for development went insolvent, and for what I can only think are financial reasons nobody ever let the code go Free (perhaps doing so would make the intellectual property asset worthless from a balance-sheet perspective--in one case the receiver sold all IP to a competitor and all that remained of its applications were what was incorporated in the competing product. In the other case much of the software became abandonware).

So while this news may be cause for sadness towards a legendary Free Software project, it is far from cause for alarm. Debian itself will evolve into something better, or perhaps go extinct while its resources fully migrate over to a new project, likely Ubuntu. In the end we'll all get better software as a result.

Re:Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution

[smilindog2000]

What's wrong with having Debian be the technology proving ground while Ubuntu builds stable desktop operating systems for average people?

What are the odds that all those Debian developers will wake up one day and decide to work for Ubuntu instead? Clearly, many of them are bitter that Ubuntu is stealing their thunder. It's doubtful that Debian developers will abandon ship anytime soon for Ubuntu. It's also doubtful that Ubuntu will get the huge numbers of developers needed to compete with RedHat anytime soon. For at least the near future, Ubuntu requires Debian to thrive.

As for me, I trust Debian's open style of development to never be corrupted by any single person. It's amazing growth and activity is a tribute to the spirit of the open-source community. Sure, there's no all-powerful leader who can make things happen quickly. But then again, that can be a good thing. It's kind of like the US vs European Union.

Re:Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution

[jthill]

What's wrong with having Debian be the technology proving ground while Ubuntu builds stable desktop operating systems for average people?

It would be nice if Ubuntu put a splash-screen acknowledgement, say on install or as a deselectable login twinkie. Kinda, "Ubuntu is the best user interface we can build on the Debian core".

Re:Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution

[smilindog2000]

Er... well, yes. I hate to compare Shuttleworth, who I respect greatly, to GW, who makes me wish I were Canadian. I doubt Debian would like to be compared to the EU, but that's kind of where I was going.

As I grow older (I'm 42), and gain more experience, one thing I've come to appreciate is the impact of strong individual leaders. Linus for Linux, Shuttleworth for Ubuntu, Regan for the Republicans, etc. When it's important to get things done quickly, there's no substitute for a strong leader.

The downside is you can't always trust a strong leader. I'm stuck with GW running (and ruining) the US. I would never trust our free OS, or our democratic government to a single individual. Let Debian insure software freedom, and let Ubuntu lead the charge against Windows.

Re:Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution

[cortana]

The Ubuntu community doesn't respect Debian? From what I hear about the "Fuck Ubuntu" t-shirts being worn at Debconf6, and the (verbal) attacks on DDs who also contribute to Ubuntu, I think the problem is exactly the opposite. :(

Re:Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution

[fuzzix]

The downside is you can't always trust a strong leader. I'm stuck with GW running (and ruining) the US.

There's a difference between a democratically elected asshole and a Benevolent Dictator For Life. :)

There's a trust relationship between the users of a distro and the distro's BDFL. As a Slackware user I trust Patrick Volkerding to make sound decisions and he mostly does. If he started making a lot of decisions I didn't like I'm free to fork Slackware and do it my way or simply choose another distro.

You can't fork a nation state so easily but I suppose you can choose another one to "use"... at least until the establishment of The World Government ;)

Yeah, What Problems?

[twitter]

Things are looking good as far as a mere user like me is concerned.

Exactly. What problems are actually showing up in software?

A developer is leaving, that's a problem. It's sad to see a talented developer go, but someone else will step up the the plate and prove that every developer indeed deserves a voice.

A developer claims that mailing lists made him irritable. That's a problem that has one of two causes, the lists have been infiltrated by trolls or he needs to more tolerant and less easily bothered. The solution treats both causes. Realize that some people on your list are intentionally provoking you and ignore them. Realize also that differences can always be worked out and that not everything has to go exactly your way. If you are right, the project will get back to your way even when it makes mistakes.

Free software has enemies, that's a problem. Back in 1998, Microsoft declared war on free software with their Halloween Document and targeted the user community. Trolling lists is something they have been doing all the way back to Steven Barkto. It disrupts useful activity, promotes ill will and distrust of your neighbor and can even move organizations to the wrong conclusions and in the wrong directions. Eventually, the truth comes out so the strategy is ultimately wasteful. There is nothing M$ can do to make non free software competitive and they can't really shut down free software. There are far too many projects and damaged communication channels are routed around. The co operative spirit of free software depends on good will, but free software creates that good will in abundance.

The answer is not to make a king. If you think your peer is annoying now, imagine them with the king like power to make decisions you want for yourself.

None of these problems is an actual software problem. The kind of people who pretend such things are a big deal are the kinds of people that said free software could not make a friendly user interface, usable documentation, a coherent distribution, a kernel, a compiler, a text editor, etc. Etch is a fantastic distribution that shows that things are working very well.

Re:Yeah, What Problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful?

It's paranoid shit. This guy actually blames people's irritability with FOSS mailing lists, not on zealots, leeter-than-thou sorts, etc... no, couldn't be them, I mean, after all, no-one's seen anything like that on Slashdot. It must be ... Microsoft!

Re:Yeah, What Problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

• As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
• Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
• A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
• Don't bite if offered flame-bait. Too many threads degenerate into a "My O/S is better than your O/S" argument. Let's accurately describe the capabilities of Linux and leave it at that.
• Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
• Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
• Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
• Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
• Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
• Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
• There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

Doo?

[twitter]

i feel like a traitor, but should i at least look at ubuntu?

That depends on what you want to do. If you want to play games with accelerated graphics or watch YouTube or other flash stuff, you need Ubuntu's non free goodies. If you want a sane place to put your email, web research and 95% of what computers do for people, you want Debian's free goodness. Debian runs well and upgrades gracefully. A simple rule might be: Stable on the server, Testing on your desktop, Ubuntu, Mepis, Xandros, Linspire, etc on your toybox. If playing with the software itself is your thing, go for Sid. Give the people what they want. That includes yourself.

Re:Doo?

[Aadain2001]

I think you have some good points, and some bad points. For any server that will be accessed by the public or even just on the company intra-net, Debian Stable is the best choice. But that doens't mean that Ubuntu is a 'toy' Linux distro. Don't discount the developer-GUI interaction. I've found Ubuntu very stable with a clean, consistent GUI that makes it easy for even beginner Linux users to interact with the system. You call it a Windows replacement, which I will agree with. It does provide a complete desktop OS, not just a 'toy' developement environment. With Ubuntu you can develope, research, and do business desktop operations such as Email, office documents, etc. That doesn't sound like a 'toy' box to me.

who would've thought...

[CAIMLAS]

Who would've thought that civilized, focused discussion would be more productive than a free-for-all...

I love Debian, but I've long had the suspicion that part of the reason Debian has such a long time between releases (which I view as a mostly good thing) is because they've got too much of a "free form" development process. That's good for small projects, and it served Debian well in the past, but Debian's scope has broaded so much in the last 5+ years that new considerations should be made...

Re:Drop it.

[Paolo DF]

strange: number three result is :"Gates says Linux best OS ever". Really. try it yourself

Re:Without Debian

[natrius]

Without Debian, where would we have the amazing, huge codebase for every Ubuntu, Jibbajabba, or Lilixinidros distribution out there?

No one is questioning the contribution Debian developers have made to the Linux ecosystem as a whole. The question is, is Debian able to do anything groundbreaking on its own anymore? If someone were to try to move to a new init system in Debian, how long would it take to actually get done?

Personally, I think Debian should embrace its role as a distribution that others derive from. It is doing an excellent job in that respect, and I don't think the current organizational structure of the project could allow it to function as anything else in a more effective way. If some of the developers would stop antagonizing Ubuntu and embrace it instead, I think we'd all be better off.

Re:Castles in the sky.

[LordLucless]

Nope. The Cathedral and the Bazaar talks about the source of contributions. This is talking about project management. Ubuntu can still receive code from anyone who wants to write some; that's the Bazaar model. The project management decides which code, of all received, they want to use. If someone disagrees with the project management of Ubuntu, they can fork it, and manage it in the way they say fit. It's all still Bazaar.

Two problems with the comments -

[tonymercmobily]

Hello,

I can see two problems with the way people are interpreting what happened.

The first one is that a lot of people are implying "One developer has left. Big deal. Somebody will step in". FALSE. A single, skilled developer can make the difference between a successful project and an unsuccessful one. As many good manages know, replacing a good worker is _very_ hard - sometimes impossible.

The second problem, is that a lot of people here have written comments without reading the mailing lists. Somebody implied "oh, it's the developer's fault, he shouldn't have been bothered in the first place". FALSE. Garrett really cares about the debian project; I generally agreed with what he said; lately, I was thinking "Geee, if I were him, I would quit". He found some of the tones grating as you guys would have if you cared about the project - and, above anything else, if you had read some of the messages in the mailing list. Accusatory. Unnecessary. Excruciating. Always coming from the "usual suspects" - who nobody seems to be able to shut up.

More and more people will leave, unless things change - rapidly.

Merc.
Editor In Chief
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/

Churchill

[Britz]

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

That's what Churchill had to say about such matters. Indeed many people still don't know how to deal with trolls. Some people just like to get all up in arms from time to time I suppose. Other than that maybe he should have just announced that he was ignoring some people and that replies to those people should be marked somewhere so that he can sort them as well automatically. So that those people that like to respond to trolls can do so and don't confuse the ones that don't.

Traditional corporate structures

[bettyfjord]

Although no one's come and out explicitly mentioned it yet, it strikes me that Mr Garrett is saying that traditional corporate structures work best when developing software.

Enforced rules of conduct, a formal structure, an acknowledgement that not everyone is equal is skill or knowledge and a single leader who has the power of final decision. Strip out the jargon and it sounds pretty much exactly like a traditional office environment.

Does this mean that while OSS has made many people rethink distribution and revenue models, open source development will mature into exactly what we have now?

Cause of death yet unknown

[QuaintRealist]

I have to agree with you - Debian is still live and kicking. Still I also think that Debian, like everything else, will have its day and then pass into history.

That's what the ensuing flameware will be about if you boil it down. How fast is Debian dying.

All this developer is saying is that he personally feels that the egalatarian/authoritarian balance is probably skewed in favor of the former in Debian.

And I have no opinion re Mark Shuttleworth, but ask all students of history: When does a benevolent authoritarian run a more efficient state than a republic/democracy? Every time. The trick is how to keep a succession of benevolent authoritarians...

Wait a minute.

[crhylove]

Just because having one person at the top (fascism) is simpler in some ways for some issues, doesn't mean it's the best way, the right way, or the even the easiest way. It's not like the debian project couldn't VOTE to administer a code of conduct. It's not like the chaos method they've been using the whole time hasn't resulted in one of THE BEST OSES IN HISTORY. Can we get more news, and less arbitrary opinions from nut jobs who admire low level thinking as it's own virtue? That goes for the government here, as well as for /..

Re:Interesting, in light of some of the NetBSD iss

[LizardKing]

Interesting, in light of some of the NetBSD issues posted by Charles... Maybe this is OSS evolution in action.

The real story behind Charles Hannums little rant has now been revealed - see the NetBSD-users mailing list. It turns out that Hannum had fucked up the day to day running of The NetBSD Foundation, to the point were it was not conforming to the regulations in Delaware where it was incorporated. Christos Zoulas and others sorted the mess out, but Hannum was totally uncooperative (the "fraudulent coup" crap that he was harping on about was him being ignored after being a jerk).

Re:The....

[Russ Nelson]

I have to agree. That's why I moved away from Debian. Too much political bullshit. As the t-shirt I got at OSCON says "Shut the fuck up and write some code." Thanks, Jesse!

Re:Moo

[thrillseeker]

i just use google when i need something, and then find it in dselect.

I think, as a continuous debian user (not developer, but I read through the occassional debian "discussions") since the very beginning, FWTFW, that the recent crowing about a better "graphical installer" as being so damned important is reflective of the frustration many longtime users and developers feel with the current debian anarpolitical process. The fact that the majority of a gaggle thinks blinking lights are the important part of a system does not make it so. Form must follow function, or we end up with Windows quality, where an evolutionary process of continuous improvement is interrupted by those that love the blinking lights, because they are the ones buying the product - in the free software world, for many years the "buyer" of the product was the developers themselves - anyone else was free to use it if they found it useful, not blinking light pretty, or not as they chose - trying to attract the unwashed masses is antithetical to success. In an evolutionary process that which works is that which succeeds. "Success" is where the defintion needs to be set - if it's defined as that which gets the most Windows weenies to switch, then you're going to get a different group of people drawn to the process than if it's defined as that which absolutely insists on quality and stability and fit and function and continuous improvement. The latter is an evolutionary process that results in systems good enough to go to the stars.

Totalitarianism vs. Freedom

[alcmaeon]

This discussion sounds a lot like the divisiion between Marx's authoritarian communism and Bakunin's libertarian socialism.

Garrett's comments can be summed up as: "I don't develop for Debian because people don't treat me with the respect I think I deserve. Debian needs a dictator to make everyone be nice and make me feel happy."

Free 2B U and Me

[Doc Ruby]

So Garrett didn't fit in with the rest of the Debian community, despite his technical aptitude. There are plenty of social specs that take priority in communities, even mailing lists, which are often independent of technical qualities. Garrett apparently didn't like the Debian "anything goes" style in developer discussion, so he left.

No problem. He can switch to Ubuntu's team. Sounds like they'll be glad to have him. And interested people in the Debian community can still use Garrett's Ubuntu work to improve Debian, as it's all GPL. This is the strength of openness, both in the software and in the groups of people. When we can choose how and with whom (and with what) we work, we can work the way most productive for us. And thereby, for everyone else in the cycle.

Re:Moo

[Cid Highwind]

"It may not be perfect, but there is a huge process behind things."

The same is true of federal tax regulations. That doesn't make them (or Debian) good, logical, or pleasant to deal with...

re: Moo

[Bishop]

Please install Ubuntu. You will probably stick with Debian, but you should give Ubuntu a try.

Install Ubuntu with the default Gnome desktop and without the Universe repository. It will give you the best feel for what Ubuntu is all about. I found the Gnome desktop to be well integrated and everything more or less just worked. (And I don't like Gnome.) If you find that you are adding multiple packages from Universe or switching to one of the other desktop environments, you are better to stick with Debian. Debian will generally have better support for those extras.

Why would you care what Ubuntu is like? Maybe you will prefer the well integrated Gnome desktop. Perhaps Ubuntu is just the thing for your parents computer.

Service to Self v.s. Service to Others.

[Fantastic Lad]

Ubuntu seems like a good idea, but for one item. . .

It's organized using the pyramid-power design. --That is, one all powerful individual at the top, and then cascading levels of management beneath. This is, of course, the standard model for most large organizations in the world, including business, military, government, religion, etc.

The problem is that such systems lend themselves to easy corruption by the forces of greed and self-service.

There is an alternative system for organizing, and it uses a cell-based power distribution system with no one individual at the top and no downward cascading power structure. Organic systems throughout the biosphere use the cell-based method of organization to great effect. --And many open source projects seem to work this way as well.

One of the noteworthy factors about Cell-Based systems is that they are far less easily corrupted by greed and self-serving individuals because everybody has the power to call attention to all manner of problems without the threat of recrimination or dismissal; without having their complaints arbitrarily over-turned by individuals who might be driven by ego and emotional concerns. Psychopaths are well suited to successfully infesting and rising through the ranks of pyramidally based power structures, because they are drawn to power. But when power is evenly distributed as it is in Cell-Based structures, where are they drawn to? --And how much more easily are problem individuals such as the psychpathic or sociopathic personality noticed and weeded out?

--It seems to me that the idea of being of non-self-service, but rather other-serving in orientation, (no multi-million dollar salaries for CEO's), is directly related to an entire pattern of thinking and awareness, part of which is intrinsically linked to the decisions for how the power and 'command' structure of the organization is laid out, either Cell-Based, or Pyramidal.

I think it serves well to be attentive of these two patterns and how they affect our world.

-FL

Re:Service to Self v.s. Service to Others.

[Fantastic Lad]

Ahh the Hitler argument and conspiracies theories. Well I prefer Occam's Razor and Darwin myself, just makes more sense.

What on earth does Occam have to do with anything?

Please help me understand how an 11th century monk who 'proved' the existence of god with his oft mis-applied (and highly flexible) logical razor has anything to do with what we're talking about.

And just because you happen to be part of the crowd who has decided that for whatever reason it is popular to ignore any historical evidence or patterns which reference World War II, (an insane and totally irrational trend IMHO), doesn't by any means render the argument invalid.

And what conspiracy theory are you talking about? The history about how economics is taught is straight-forward and available to anybody who takes a moment to do some research. You clearly haven't done that. Deliberate ignorance and lazy arguments are no substitute for informed, rational thought.

Someone has to take charge, be responsible, you need a mix in a team, leaders, grunts, visonaries etc. We are not all made equal.

You can achieve all of these things without a top-down system. A mix of visionaries, leaders and grunts can all fit into a cell-based system. If everybody in the system is aware and well-educated, isn't a lazy and easily manipulated thinker, then the moment leadership begins to falter, the focus can easily and naturally slide to the next most able for that role. I've worked in systems like this, and they function wonderfully. Leadership is exhausting at times, and visions of great ideas don't just come through single channels. Why not move responsibilities around to maximize efficiency?

labeling successful businessmen as psychopaths is a tad dramatic. Or is "guilty by association" an acceptable form of sentencing?

I didn't label successful business men as psychopaths or say that anybody was guilty by association. However, the top-down power structure does make things like Enron and the Bush government possible. Cell based systems would have prevented these kinds of problem. Why is that a problem?

-FL