Slashdot Mirror
Happy 17th Birthday, Debian!
An anonymous reader writes "Debian turns 17 today. Yes it has really come a long way from being Murdock's pet project back in 1993 to being the distribution on which the most popular Linux distribution, Ubuntu, is now based."
Is there -any- possible reason for this ./ article to link to http://digitizor.com/2010/08/16/happy-17th-birthday-debian-and-some-interesting-history/ instead of linking to the _official_ birthday page: http://thank.debian.net/
Also, like kwebbles mentioned, it's really sad you sad to bring up Ubuntu. It's Debian's birthday, you insensitive clods.
If you want to say thanks:
http://thank.debian.net/
Windows NT was first released in 1993, making it the same age as Debian. Before NT, windows was a user interface on top of DOS, not an OS on it's own (although it was doing VM as of 3.1 and networking as of 3.11, but not it's own filesystem management).
To get the fglrx and nvidia proprietary drivers in Debian all you have to do is add "non-free" to the urls in your sources.list file. Those drivers have been available in non-free for far longer than you've been using Ubuntu.
You're knocking Debian for what amounts to your own ignorance.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
"So, because Ubuntu took the rather rough diamond that is Debian and polished it up, it's somehow "dumbed down"? Really?"
Why does everyone think that what Debian is trying to be is a polished up desktop OS? I hear this time and time again "Ubuntu is a polished up Debian" or "Ubuntu took Debian and finished the job" blah blah... or that Debian is somehow some unfinished rough draft of a project that needed Mark Shuttleworth to come around and complete.
Debian is a general purpose GNU/Linux - server OS, appliance OS, embedded OS... you name it - Debian can be used for it. Ubuntu is a desktop OS. That's it - plain and simple... Ubuntu is made from the ground up with the end user in mind for a rich DESKTOP experience. It just HAPPENS to be BASED on Debian. Yes, there is a "server" version of Ubuntu (which I find silly and is a topic for another conversation) but not even that is meant to be as flexible as vanilla Debian.
Personally I think it's silly to "roll up your sleeves and get dirty" to use Debian as your desktop OS. When I want to install an operating system on my desktop for general purpose use I get out the Ubuntu or the Fedora CD. My firewall at home? Debian. My streaming media box? Debian. My servers at work? Debian. Each distro is tailored to excel at one or a set of different jobs. Those that have a limited understanding of computers in general have a myopic view of the whole thing and expect that Linux is something for a personal computer - and that any distro that doesn't make a PC sing and dance out of the box is simply "unfinished" and "needs work". I'm sorry, but my Debian doesn't need any work or any polishing. It does perfectly well doing what it's meant to do.
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
I'm sorry, but my Debian doesn't need any work or any polishing. It does perfectly well doing what it's meant to do.
I couldn't agree more, actually.
The only reason I might consider giving Debian a shot, again, is their stability, particularly across upgrades, is largely unparalleled in any other distro, which is rather nice on a machine that you use day-to-day, but want to keep up-to-date.