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."

Comments

Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Murdock! This distro is still one of the easiest to maintain over a long period of time.

Re:Thank you

[Jurily]

Damn right it is. Debian is the distro you install on your mom's computer when you're moving 2000+ miles and don't want to fly home for tech support.

Over the course of two years, I've had exactly one problem with that box, and all it needed was a phone call + ssh.

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

2003 called. It wants its dipshit back. It's sending a reply-paid time machine for you to get in.

I remember my first Debian...

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

I was coming from Slackware and apt-get seemed magical. Never left the boat since.
Long life to Debian!

Re:I remember my first Debian...

[Anonymous Coward]

True enough! Debian was the best idea around when they started introducing the concept of dependency resolution and meta data. It has been one of my faves ever since.

Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[kwabbles]

It's actually kind of sad that most people identify Debian solely as being "that one that Ubuntu's based on".

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[druke]

Anyone who really feels this way doesn't understand open source.

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[arkane1234]

Actually most base Ubuntu as "That one that's based on Debian".
I refer to it as Red Hat on training wheels :)

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

Is it about understanding Open Source? Or giving credit where credit is due?

I'm not saying the guys at Ubuntu just sit there and do nothing, but Debian deserves way more than being called "the distro Ubuntu is based on".

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[Kepesk]

It's actually kind of sad that most people identify Debian solely as being "that one that Ubuntu's based on".

Not really, I'd say that's a compliment to Debian. To create a basic system solid enough that the most popular Linux distribution is based on it? That rocks!

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[kwabbles]

Okay lemme make sure I have this straight...

Premise 1:
Being a Debian user for 15 years I'm sad to see it relegated to being only identified in the mainstream as something that a dumbed-down desktop distro is based on.

Premise 2:
Anyone who feels that way doesn't understand open source.

Therefore:
I don't understand open source.

It's all crystal clear to me now. My eyes have been opened.

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[StormReaver]

It's actually kind of sad that most people identify Debian solely as being "that one that Ubuntu's based on".

Why? Debian is incapable of appealing to a mass audience. Ubuntu is a necessary extension that fills that need. Debian is exactly where its developers put it.

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[Abcd1234]

Being a Debian user for 15 years I'm sad to see it relegated to being only identified in the mainstream as something that a dumbed-down desktop distro is based on.

As opposed to what?

Look, my path to Linux took me through Slackware 15 years ago (wow I don't miss installing Linux from dozens of floppies) through RedHat, and then Debian. And I was happy for a while. Sure, Debian packages are decidedly archaic, but you couldn't ask for a more stable Linux distribution. Everything just seemed to work.

And then I tried Ubuntu. Suddenly things I just assumed wouldn't work out of the box (basic crap like wireless, USB printers and mass storage devices just working and integrating with the desktop, and god knows what else) just... did. I mean, sure, I could always get Debian there eventually, with enough tinkering. But dear god, Ubuntu did all the tinkering for me! And I got a more modern package set to boot. Not to mention PPAs, which make taking on non-standard repositories dead simple.

So, because Ubuntu took the rather rough diamond that is Debian and polished it up, it's somehow "dumbed down"? Really?

Frankly, it seems to me there is a choice: either you run a rough distro that forces the user to roll up their sleeves and get dirty, and then you can feel all smart and superior, or you can make something that actually works for your average user, and lets us power users just fucking get on with it already, and then get labeled "dumbed down". Which is, frankly, pretty fucking stupid, but such is the world of tech geeks who feel its cool to have to manually hack files in /etc in order to get their god damned printer to just print already.

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[CrkHead]

I think you summed it up fairly well.

As a project, Debian is most interested in Freedom and stability. Although someone coming from a *nix back ground shouldn't have much trouble, someone new to computers or coming over from one of the dark sides is likely to.

Enter Ubuntu. Their primary interest is getting Linux on the desktop. Debian is an ideal base because it has everything, so you just need to keep current on the unstable version and put some chrome on it.

Grey beards keep their Debian and the whipper snappers stay off the lawn.

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[kwabbles]

"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.

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Ubuntu this and Ubuntu that

[kwabbles]

Dammit, you're supposed to keep arguing with me. Now what am I supposed to do with my Monday morning at work? Parse my syslogs?

apt-get install love

[doublebackslash]

Debian, making installing dependencies a reflex rather than a compulsory chore. That alone would have gotten my praise. Then they also bolted on an incredibly stable and useful kernel and software stack on top of that.

Good show! (I know I got the order wrong, but thats the order of importance to me)

Re:apt-get install love

[marsu_k]

I really, really wish people would stop comparing Apt and RPM, the actual comparison would be dpkg vs RPM. And just as pretty much nobody uses dpkg directly, the same applies to RPM. People use one of the various frontends (yum, urpmi, what have you). While at one time automatically resolving dependencies was godsend, it's nothing special now.

(I'm quite impartial to the debate, pacman is where it's at. It would be nice to see an actual apples to apples comparison for a change though)

Damn you slashdot

[Spyware23]

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.

Happy birthday

[drunkennewfiemidget]

To the distro I keep crawling back to. I always go off searching for the next great thing, and realise debian was the great thing all along.

And ubuntu is second rate (at best) compared to debian. Ubuntu's got severe stability problems. debian almost never fails me.

Thank You for Debian

[samoht]

If you want to say thanks:

http://thank.debian.net/

Re:Debian or IE to last?

[Kjella]

In terms of name, my bet would be on IE. If the Debian leaders manage to act retarded enough the community might have to fork and pick a new name but the project would live on. While with IE I figure there's a good chance Microsoft will eventually figure out that developing their own browser engine is a waste of resources and create their own Webkit-based browser, but still under the IE name. So one could have the same content with a different name, the other different content with the same name.

They grow up so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

When did having birthday parties for software programs become all the rage? It's almost as disturbing as how so many of these programs are now teenagers. Here's some of the drama we'll be able to look forward to over the next year:

- Internet Explorer will get its driver's license and crash its first car, because everyone knows how unstable it is.
- Debian will join the Army rather than go to college, as mandated by the Debian Constitution. And because it has no friends.
- OS X will pick a fight with Firefox on the elementary school playground after Firefox steals on WebKit's lunch money.
- Windows will be that creepy adult chaperone that hangs around at, like, every high school dance because it wants to be cool.

Wrong about one of those

[temojen]

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).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Google

[phrostie]

What, and no custom page from Google?

I feel unloved.

Don't knock Ubuntu

[rueger]

I don't entirely get all of the Ubuntu complaints.

Over the years I tried maybe fifteen or twenty different Linux distros. (back to the days of buying boxed sets of Mandrake floppy disks!) Each time I went back to Windows because I invariably ran into some problem that I just didn't have the time to figure out and fix. You know, little things like printers, modems, and video.

It's not that I don't like fixing things, or even learning new stuff, just that with Linux it was always so damned painful.

Two months ago I installed Ubuntu using their little Windows installer app, and I haven't looked back. Aside from one occasion when a specific Windows program wouldn't run under WINE, I have had no reason to fire up Windows. And when I did.. well, yuck.

You may call Ubuntu "dumbed down", but it's honestly the first distro I've seen that worked flawlessly out of the box with virtually no fiddling.

And of course you can still fire up a terminal window and enjoy the command line.

Re:Don't knock Ubuntu

[Abcd1234]

Simple: geeks like to justify their superiority complex.

No, really. I started off in the bad old Slackware days, and you couldn't help but feel hardcore when you got your damned printer to work after fiddling with lpd and magic filters. But guess what happens as you get a little older? You stop giving a shit about that stuff. You just want to get on with it, already. Suddenly tweaking and fiddling with config files in /etc doesn't feel hardcore, it feels really fucking boring.

So while the rest of us pick a distro that just works out of the box, and so is labeled "dumbed down" because we don't have to manually edit config files, the young geeks can go on showing off how awesome they are because they switched to Gentoo and get to fiddle with their compiler flags.

As an aside, I still think Debian kicks ass. But no one would ever claim its a polished desktop Linux distribution (it can certainly become one with a bit of effort, but I've gotten past enjoying that kind of effort)... for a server, though, it's peerless, IMHO.

PS. Debian, seriously, you guys rock.

[Abcd1234]

'course, I just realized my post makes it seem like I think Debian sucks.

Frankly, Debian kicks ass. For a server, I'd consider nothing else. I've long believed that apt is, hands down, the best package management system ever invented. And Debian has done a truly marvelous job of ensuring that upgrades Just Work... unlike Ubuntu or Redhat, I have never feared doing a full distro update on Debian. Their package quality is simply through the roof (well, minus that pesky sshd bug they introduced ;).

Heck, I should given Debian a try again. It's been a couple years since I made the leap to Ubuntu, and it may be that Debian unstable could now fill the roll that Ubuntu fills for me today (as a modern desktop distro)... particularly given how incredibly painful Ubuntu in-place upgrades can be. OTOH, I am spoiled by the fact that Ubuntu has the nVidia blob drivers incorporated into their software repo...

This from a debian user

[SmallFurryCreature]

Men use Gentoo. REAL Men use Linux from scratch. REALLY REAL MEN, write their own OS.

Debian is for wussies. Ubuntu is for wussies who at least have the balls to admit they are wussies.

Re: Incredibly painful Ubuntu upgrades

[TaoPhoenix]

This.

I just giggled at these comments, where everyone's saying "Ubuntu just works" ... except in upgrades. It's like a fancy haircut from a stylist that just works, except you can't duplicate it the following evening for your date.

Just updating things like Open Office and Firefox caused dependency clashes - sorry, that's totally unacceptable. I met my share of the version upgrade bugs too.