I'm impressed that so many cities seem to get the idea of blanketing the metro area with wireless, but it also concerns me because the technology changes so quickly.
If Cringely is to be trusted, all these cities are making a huge mistake. 802.11g absolutely sucks for what these cities are trying to do. When WiMax starts being deployed, the citizens of these WiFi cities are going to be mighty angry that these companies are providing a service that is far better than what their legislators are pushing through. In addition, they're polluting the 2.4 GHz spectrum for people who want their own WiFi networks. It's just a bad idea, and there are better solutions in the pipeline.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't know what you're talking about.
People are being paid full time to work on Ubuntu. This work goes back into Debian proper. From what I've heard, the Ubuntu team is about ten people, and not all of them are Debian developers. I'm not sure what roles they played within Debian, but I can guess that they were pretty important ones, or why would Mark have chosen them? Hiring them to work on Ubuntu does hurt sarge, but it doesn't hurt Debian as a whole. I don't see how you can turn paying people to do work that goes back into Debian as a bad thing in the long run.
The demotion of the SCC arches probably would've happened with or without Ubuntu. There just aren't that many people who do the grunt work necessary to maintain all those arches that aren't being used by many people. Those arches aren't going away, they're just not holding back the releases of future releases. It's not a big deal.
And you wankers who want the latest and best but cannot see past the inconsequential metric of a release date of a "stable" set of packages, are selling your souls and that of the best distro of Linux to ensure it will happen.
1) Running Ubuntu is better than running Debian sid, hands down.
2) Debian isn't going away.
3) Ubuntu is good for post-sarge Debian.
But see how Fedora was ahead of them in all of these areas, and in some still is. That's because the Red Hat team focussed purely on the base distro instead of trying to package everything in the world, which is impossible.
That's also because Red Hat has more people working on those things than Canonical does. I think the count for the paid Ubuntu developers is at ten. I agree with the point that you're making though: it's easier to focus on those features in the base of the OS if you're not packaging the world.
Now, Ubuntu basically has a chance to do this. Strip even more out of main - why is Inkscape there? How many Ubuntu users are also vector graphics artists? It's out of date already, and has been for months, yet you can get up to date packages direct from inkscape.org.
Even though the Inkscape package is a version old, I think it's still very valuable to have. I know that I can install Inkscape and it will work. I don't think that the few extra features that are developed in six months time are worth sacrificing stability and reliability.
All distributions do is take free software and put it together in a package that works. Few things are created in house; the effort goes into making sure that all the pieces work together well. I think the best way to do that is with a centralized repository. Who do you go to when people with different base systems are all using the same upstream package and having different, distro dependent bugs? That's where these centralized distros excel. When there are problems with a program, you go to the distro first. They figure out what's wrong, and either fix it or notify upstream if that's where the problem is. The vision that you have for the role of the distribution only works if everyone is using the same distribution and package format. Then things would be easy. Application developers would run their own repositories and just tell the user to add it to install. Updates would happen automatically and everyone would be happy. The problem is, the upstream developers can't take on that responsibility with so many distributions out there. The distributors have to take over and make everything work.
Ubuntu universe includes Coq, a theorem prover whos own authors estimate that it has only 100 regular users, yet does not include gaim-vv, which adds webcam support to Gaim. What is wrong here?
Someone has to request it for it to get packaged, especially when it's in heavy development and doesn't do much at the moment. I added it to UniverseCandidates.
I'm sure there are better ways to handle software packaging that what's going on right now, but I think this is the best way that's been proposed and works within the current restraints. I'm glad there are people out there trying to think of better ways though.
That's because most people aren't really thinking through the issues here. It's a lot more fun to say things are dying than it is to think. See *BSD.
Debian only dies if the Debian developers stop developing Debian. Fedora dies if Red Hat stops making money. Ubuntu dies if Mark Shuttleworth decides that his investment isn't paying off. (I don't actually think Ubuntu would die without Canonical's backing though, as it already has plenty of outside developers and infrastructure for operating without Canonical. Plus, most of the work is done by Debian developers themselves. I don't know how Fedora works.) Debian will exist as long as people want to develop it, and that's one of the reasons why I only use Debian and Debian derived distros. I can't think of anything that would make all the Debian developers decide to pack up and go home.
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.
So what's the point of having generic Debian keep trying to support the latest bleeding-edge GUI packages?
A question that really needs to be answered is "What does Debian see as its role?" They've said that they want to speed up the release cycle. How much? At a certain point, won't it be redundant given Ubuntu releases with a six month release cycle? Who is going to use Debian proper? Who does Debian want to use Debian?
I think Debian functions exceptionally as a platform to base derivative distributions off of. Why make actual releases if other distributions are making releases that are more attractive? There are a few good reasons to, but I think alternative solutions would be better.
1) Ubuntu's support period isn't long enough.
Ok, so instead of making a release, pick up an Ubuntu release after it is deprecated and support it for another year.
2) Ubuntu's value comes from its corporate backing. We can't change the fundamental processes that we have going in the non-profit Debian world because Ubuntu could disappear someday.
The work that Debian proper does is far more than the few Ubuntu developers do. They just build on top of what is already there. If Canonical decides to stop supporting Ubuntu, just adopt it as part of the normal operations of Debian. Think of it as another branch.
I think once sarge gets out, some discussion needs to occur about what the future holds for Debian so its users can make choices accordingly. There are better ways to operate than what's currently proposed.
If you're running woody, why would you even expect a new package made today to work correctly? If you try to mix in a new piece of software into woody, you'll end up updating quite a few libraries and end up with sarge basically.
When etch is getting ready for release, what will be the reasons to use it over the Ubuntu release that comes out nearby? If they're planning on faster release schedules, how long are they planning to support old releases with security updates? I don't see the point in yelling at Ubuntu to wait up while Debian proper is being left behind.
There's been lots of talk about changes that need to be made within Debian, but not so much about how it's going to happen. Until then, Ubuntu is a better option for almost anyone, because they have a set plan of what's going on. In another year, I'll have to update any Warty installs I have around. That's nice to know so I can plan ahead. I also know that there'll be a new release coming out right as Warty becomes unsupported, and also that there'll be another older release that has gone through six months of use that will definitely be stable for me to use with a year of support if I want to choose that instead. With Debian, I have no clue what's going on in the future.
Packages made for sid don't even work on sarge all the time without pulling in extra packages from sid. That's the same thing that happens with packages meant for Ubuntu. When you have different sets of software installed on various computers, one single package isn't going to work correctly on all of them unless you're willing to mix packages from different repositories.
I don't think it's really fair to say that Ubuntu is a net negative for Debian. It's definitely a net negative for sarge, since very little, if any, of the work put in to Ubuntu has trickled down to sarge. However, it's good for Debian as a whole because when the ball gets rolling for etch, most of the work will already be done. Ubuntu puts out stable releases for three of the four release arches for etch, so I doubt much extra work will be needed there, although I don't really know that much about what additional work would be necessary.
Sure, Ubuntu's existence has various downsides, such as the proliferation of deb packages provided by developers that only work on Ubuntu, but would those people have made Debian packages in the first place? The packages are merely a byproduct of Ubuntu's popularity, and more people using Debian and Debian derived distributions is definitely a net gain for Debian. I don't see why he would write off all the benefits that Ubuntu provides while focusing on a few issues that are negligible IMO.
The packaging issue is one that's never really going to go away. On his blog, Ian cites software developers and ISVs as reasons for unifying Debian and Ubuntu packages. All free software developers have to do to get their software packaged by Ubuntu is request it. The Ubuntu packagers work fairly close with the Debian developers to make sure that the work trickles down to Ubuntu proper as well. For commercial software it's a bit harder, but that's one of the things to deal with in the Linux ecosystem. Like I said before, packages made for sarge wouldn't even necessarily work on woody. You have to target specific sets of available software, or just distribute binaries that install the software based on various LSB assumptions.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Pope John Paul II is dead.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Catholic community when the Vatican confirmed that John Paul II has died, ending his long papacy. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Catholicism has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Catholicism is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent survey of world religions.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Catholicism's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Catholicism faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Catholicism because Pope John Paul II is dead. Things are looking very bad for Catholicism. As many of us are already aware, Catholicism continues to lose mindshare. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that Catholicism has steadily declined in market share. Catholicism is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Catholicism is to survive at all it will be among religion dilettante dabblers. Catholicism continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Catholicism is dead.
It'd be nice to have a special prize for every advancement that someone wants, but I don't think this needs it. The money factor of the X-Prize isn't even what made Spaceship One happen. All the it added was the competition and a sense of urgency, as it needed to be done by a specific date. The thing about that X-Prize is that it and Ansari, the sponsors of the prize, will be mentioned in textbooks forever, just like the Orteig Prize. As you said yourself, mecha aren't "sexy" enough to be worthy of someone making a prize for it, because in the future it probably won't be as earth-shattering as flight or spaceflight.
In post-9/11 America, the Department of Homeland Security has noticed an increased level of chatter on the terrorist communications lines. Among the discussions has been unusually prevalent talk of cliche enrichment. We suspect that these terrorists have allied with "Korea", "Soviet Russia", and "Natalie Portman covered in hot grits" to obtain the sophisticated equipment necessary to enrich cliches. We have no choice but to amend the Constitution to disallow speech that contains cliches.
To enforce this amendment, any discussion involving cliche proliferation will be punished with negative moderation. For good measure, the poster will also be sent to Guantanamo.
If we developers can produce easily used, real RSS clients, with adequate support, these serverside aggregators will pave the way for people to take control of our news consumption.
It's been done. Bloglines is lowers the bar to RSS use slightly, but there's still too large of a barrier for most normal people to overcome. First you have to explain what RSS is, then copy the link to each RSS feed you want and paste it into Bloglines. If the site doesn't provide an explicit link to the feed (which they really shouldn't have to if they include a link tag pointing to it in the HTML), then they might have to wade through the HTML to find it. They also have to install a notifier to get the full, I'm-plugged-straight-into-the-Internet benefits that RSS feeds make possible. What normal users need is a web browser that tells them when an RSS feed is present, but does so without them needing to know much about RSS. Firefox does this sufficiently well for most novice users, but most novice users don't use Firefox. I assume Safari does it well also.
I think another thing that helped Ubuntu out in terms of popularity is that it came out right when Linux on the desktop was getting it's shit together. Ubuntu was the first distro I used back in September that had HAL and the Project Utopia stack, so when I plugged in a digital camera and it asked me if I wanted to import the pictures, it was pretty amazing.
Another good thing is Ubuntu's code of conduct, which basically ensures a friendly community. The Debian community was notoriously hostile, while people can ask questions on the Ubuntu IRC channels and mailing lists and not worry about being flamed.
Replace "au" in the source lines with your country code.
Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio
on
VLC & European Patents
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure they were aware of it, but if the compression algorithm used in a certain video format is patented, how are you supposed to encode or decode a compatible file without infringing on the patent?
Considering the impending IP/DMCA/copyright/etc doom that is coming soon to open source in an attempt to stamp it out, how would one propose to create and retain ones own source code 'repository' of all the pertinent packages that one would need when the eventual happens and lots of code disappears ( or is simply not allowed to run on the new 'drm-chips'.. )
None of those things you mentioned can directly harm open source. IP is just a concept. Someone can claim that their IP has been infringed upon in an open source project, which would be bad. The DMCA has no bearing on open source. Copyright is what allows the privileges granted to the user by open source software to be passed down without being taken away. Without copyright, there is no GPL. With that said, if there were DRM chips that would somehow stop open source software, how would having the code help you?
I think you should be more worried about the Internet. Without the Internet, where are you going to download all your software? All that has to be done to stop the flow of open source software is to take down the Internet. The developers wouldn't be able to collaborate, and the users wouldn't be able to download the software. It would take some sort of doomsday scenario for either of these situations to occur, in which case I'm sure you'd have better things to worry about, such as killing terrorists with steak knives as they push the front lines forward through your neighborhood. Instead of worrying about a failsafe stash of code, you should probably be assembling a redundant transcontinental wireless network, completely independent from the major backbones. Impossible? I know. That's why paranoia's overrated.
Except that version number is incorrect. The versions are "year.month" with leading zeroes dropped for the year. Warty was version 4.10 (October 2004). Hoary is 5.04. Breezy will be 5.10.
The general rule is use the Ubuntu repositories unless you really need something else. If there are packages that have been updated after the upstream version freeze, there are probably going to be several programs you want that fall into this category. In this case, you're probably more of a tinkerer than a normal user, so you probably want to join the people running the development branch of the distro. I've only been running Hoary for a month, and that was after most things stablized, so my experience isn't really typical. However, I hear that there weren't any problems for people who were running it from the start. I'd recommend upgrading to Breezy (the next version) once it opens up, which should be pretty soon.
To answer your question more directly, I personally don't think that you'd run into any big problems by using debian packages do to the way Ubuntu versions its packages. An Ubuntu package uses the same base package version as the Debian one, then for each revision of the package, "ubuntu" followed by the revision number is appended. This means the subsequent Debian package version will be higher than Ubuntu's, and it will replace it. Technically, since Debian receives all of Ubuntu's packages, the new package may contain the patches and you won't have many problems. There are probably a few Ubuntu specific things out there, and those will break.
Installing a new version of gaim won't break much, but upgrading glibc is probably a bad idea.
I really don't like it when software tries to be everything for everyone.
Out of the box, Ubuntu tries to be the friendly desktop distribution that most people recognize it as, which satisfies the home requirement and the office one with a bit of customization. Under the surface, it's merely a collection of packages that can be put together however you like. If you install the packages containing the server software you need, you've got a server distribution. When you have the many individual application developers along with the many hands within Debian proper and Ubuntu itself working to make sure all the packages work well together, it's not that hard to see how you can accomplish many things.
The submitter makes it sound like it's horrible for the plaintiff, but would we really want to live in a world where we have to keep every single file forever? I think not.
Do we really want to live in a world where there is no such thing as electronic evidence, since anyone can just say, "oops, it got deleted in the routine operations of my business... last night." I think not. See Burst v. Microsoft.
I agree that there some justification to put this out, but do we *really* need yet another distro?
Yes. If you don't like the distro, don't use it. Distro proliferation only causes two problems: package compatablility and information overload for newbies. The first problem is a very small one if you're using an open, community based distribution. Normal users have all their needs met in the repositories for that distro, and users who need special software either ask someone to package it for them, use alien on a provided package, or compile it themselves. The second problem can be solved by simply asking someone for a distro recommendation. Most people recommend Ubuntu or Mandrake for newbies these days, so it's not really that big of a deal.
So what happens if you declare a moratorium on distribution proliferation? Well, if you did that six months ago, we wouldn't have Ubuntu, which is fairly popular after being out for a short period of time. New distributions bring different ideas to the table, and if it works well, people will use the distro, or other distros will assimlate the ideas. Who knew that you could take Debian unstable's wide array of packages, stabilize them for a month or so, and combine them with simple configuration tools and a community that is friendly by mandate, and end up with what many people were apparently waiting for?
There are many distros out there that build upon a good existing distro and try to make it better. Some try out new packaging systems. I disagree that eliminating all these would be better for Linux as a whole. The benefits from their existence far outweigh the pitfalls, if any.
Now, if only the number of users who downloaded and installed it made a commercial difference to the company, that'd matter.
Try telling Adobe and Macromedia that the number of people who download warez copies of their software doesn't matter. They gain mindshare from these downloads, and the more mindshare they have, the more likely they are to be suggested as a solution in a corporate environment, where the software (or support in this case) is paid for.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm impressed that so many cities seem to get the idea of blanketing the metro area with wireless, but it also concerns me because the technology changes so quickly.
If Cringely is to be trusted, all these cities are making a huge mistake. 802.11g absolutely sucks for what these cities are trying to do. When WiMax starts being deployed, the citizens of these WiFi cities are going to be mighty angry that these companies are providing a service that is far better than what their legislators are pushing through. In addition, they're polluting the 2.4 GHz spectrum for people who want their own WiFi networks. It's just a bad idea, and there are better solutions in the pipeline.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't know what you're talking about.
People are being paid full time to work on Ubuntu. This work goes back into Debian proper. From what I've heard, the Ubuntu team is about ten people, and not all of them are Debian developers. I'm not sure what roles they played within Debian, but I can guess that they were pretty important ones, or why would Mark have chosen them? Hiring them to work on Ubuntu does hurt sarge, but it doesn't hurt Debian as a whole. I don't see how you can turn paying people to do work that goes back into Debian as a bad thing in the long run.
The demotion of the SCC arches probably would've happened with or without Ubuntu. There just aren't that many people who do the grunt work necessary to maintain all those arches that aren't being used by many people. Those arches aren't going away, they're just not holding back the releases of future releases. It's not a big deal.
And you wankers who want the latest and best but cannot see past the inconsequential metric of a release date of a "stable" set of packages, are selling your souls and that of the best distro of Linux to ensure it will happen.
1) Running Ubuntu is better than running Debian sid, hands down.
2) Debian isn't going away.
3) Ubuntu is good for post-sarge Debian.
But see how Fedora was ahead of them in all of these areas, and in some still is. That's because the Red Hat team focussed purely on the base distro instead of trying to package everything in the world, which is impossible.
That's also because Red Hat has more people working on those things than Canonical does. I think the count for the paid Ubuntu developers is at ten. I agree with the point that you're making though: it's easier to focus on those features in the base of the OS if you're not packaging the world.
Now, Ubuntu basically has a chance to do this. Strip even more out of main - why is Inkscape there? How many Ubuntu users are also vector graphics artists? It's out of date already, and has been for months, yet you can get up to date packages direct from inkscape.org.
Even though the Inkscape package is a version old, I think it's still very valuable to have. I know that I can install Inkscape and it will work. I don't think that the few extra features that are developed in six months time are worth sacrificing stability and reliability.
All distributions do is take free software and put it together in a package that works. Few things are created in house; the effort goes into making sure that all the pieces work together well. I think the best way to do that is with a centralized repository. Who do you go to when people with different base systems are all using the same upstream package and having different, distro dependent bugs? That's where these centralized distros excel. When there are problems with a program, you go to the distro first. They figure out what's wrong, and either fix it or notify upstream if that's where the problem is. The vision that you have for the role of the distribution only works if everyone is using the same distribution and package format. Then things would be easy. Application developers would run their own repositories and just tell the user to add it to install. Updates would happen automatically and everyone would be happy. The problem is, the upstream developers can't take on that responsibility with so many distributions out there. The distributors have to take over and make everything work.
Ubuntu universe includes Coq, a theorem prover whos own authors estimate that it has only 100 regular users, yet does not include gaim-vv, which adds webcam support to Gaim. What is wrong here?
Someone has to request it for it to get packaged, especially when it's in heavy development and doesn't do much at the moment. I added it to UniverseCandidates.
I'm sure there are better ways to handle software packaging that what's going on right now, but I think this is the best way that's been proposed and works within the current restraints. I'm glad there are people out there trying to think of better ways though.
That's because most people aren't really thinking through the issues here. It's a lot more fun to say things are dying than it is to think. See *BSD.
Debian only dies if the Debian developers stop developing Debian. Fedora dies if Red Hat stops making money. Ubuntu dies if Mark Shuttleworth decides that his investment isn't paying off. (I don't actually think Ubuntu would die without Canonical's backing though, as it already has plenty of outside developers and infrastructure for operating without Canonical. Plus, most of the work is done by Debian developers themselves. I don't know how Fedora works.) Debian will exist as long as people want to develop it, and that's one of the reasons why I only use Debian and Debian derived distros. I can't think of anything that would make all the Debian developers decide to pack up and go home.
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.
So what's the point of having generic Debian keep trying to support the latest bleeding-edge GUI packages?
A question that really needs to be answered is "What does Debian see as its role?" They've said that they want to speed up the release cycle. How much? At a certain point, won't it be redundant given Ubuntu releases with a six month release cycle? Who is going to use Debian proper? Who does Debian want to use Debian?
I think Debian functions exceptionally as a platform to base derivative distributions off of. Why make actual releases if other distributions are making releases that are more attractive? There are a few good reasons to, but I think alternative solutions would be better.
1) Ubuntu's support period isn't long enough.
Ok, so instead of making a release, pick up an Ubuntu release after it is deprecated and support it for another year.
2) Ubuntu's value comes from its corporate backing. We can't change the fundamental processes that we have going in the non-profit Debian world because Ubuntu could disappear someday.
The work that Debian proper does is far more than the few Ubuntu developers do. They just build on top of what is already there. If Canonical decides to stop supporting Ubuntu, just adopt it as part of the normal operations of Debian. Think of it as another branch.
I think once sarge gets out, some discussion needs to occur about what the future holds for Debian so its users can make choices accordingly. There are better ways to operate than what's currently proposed.
If you're running woody, why would you even expect a new package made today to work correctly? If you try to mix in a new piece of software into woody, you'll end up updating quite a few libraries and end up with sarge basically.
When etch is getting ready for release, what will be the reasons to use it over the Ubuntu release that comes out nearby? If they're planning on faster release schedules, how long are they planning to support old releases with security updates? I don't see the point in yelling at Ubuntu to wait up while Debian proper is being left behind.
There's been lots of talk about changes that need to be made within Debian, but not so much about how it's going to happen. Until then, Ubuntu is a better option for almost anyone, because they have a set plan of what's going on. In another year, I'll have to update any Warty installs I have around. That's nice to know so I can plan ahead. I also know that there'll be a new release coming out right as Warty becomes unsupported, and also that there'll be another older release that has gone through six months of use that will definitely be stable for me to use with a year of support if I want to choose that instead. With Debian, I have no clue what's going on in the future.
Packages made for sid don't even work on sarge all the time without pulling in extra packages from sid. That's the same thing that happens with packages meant for Ubuntu. When you have different sets of software installed on various computers, one single package isn't going to work correctly on all of them unless you're willing to mix packages from different repositories.
I don't think it's really fair to say that Ubuntu is a net negative for Debian. It's definitely a net negative for sarge, since very little, if any, of the work put in to Ubuntu has trickled down to sarge. However, it's good for Debian as a whole because when the ball gets rolling for etch, most of the work will already be done. Ubuntu puts out stable releases for three of the four release arches for etch, so I doubt much extra work will be needed there, although I don't really know that much about what additional work would be necessary.
Sure, Ubuntu's existence has various downsides, such as the proliferation of deb packages provided by developers that only work on Ubuntu, but would those people have made Debian packages in the first place? The packages are merely a byproduct of Ubuntu's popularity, and more people using Debian and Debian derived distributions is definitely a net gain for Debian. I don't see why he would write off all the benefits that Ubuntu provides while focusing on a few issues that are negligible IMO.
The packaging issue is one that's never really going to go away. On his blog, Ian cites software developers and ISVs as reasons for unifying Debian and Ubuntu packages. All free software developers have to do to get their software packaged by Ubuntu is request it. The Ubuntu packagers work fairly close with the Debian developers to make sure that the work trickles down to Ubuntu proper as well. For commercial software it's a bit harder, but that's one of the things to deal with in the Linux ecosystem. Like I said before, packages made for sarge wouldn't even necessarily work on woody. You have to target specific sets of available software, or just distribute binaries that install the software based on various LSB assumptions.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Pope John Paul II is dead.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Catholic community when the Vatican confirmed that John Paul II has died, ending his long papacy. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Catholicism has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Catholicism is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent survey of world religions.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Catholicism's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Catholicism faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Catholicism because Pope John Paul II is dead. Things are looking very bad for Catholicism. As many of us are already aware, Catholicism continues to lose mindshare. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that Catholicism has steadily declined in market share. Catholicism is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Catholicism is to survive at all it will be among religion dilettante dabblers. Catholicism continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Catholicism is dead.
Fact: Pope John Paul II is dead.
It'd be nice to have a special prize for every advancement that someone wants, but I don't think this needs it. The money factor of the X-Prize isn't even what made Spaceship One happen. All the it added was the competition and a sense of urgency, as it needed to be done by a specific date. The thing about that X-Prize is that it and Ansari, the sponsors of the prize, will be mentioned in textbooks forever, just like the Orteig Prize. As you said yourself, mecha aren't "sexy" enough to be worthy of someone making a prize for it, because in the future it probably won't be as earth-shattering as flight or spaceflight.
In post-9/11 America, the Department of Homeland Security has noticed an increased level of chatter on the terrorist communications lines. Among the discussions has been unusually prevalent talk of cliche enrichment. We suspect that these terrorists have allied with "Korea", "Soviet Russia", and "Natalie Portman covered in hot grits" to obtain the sophisticated equipment necessary to enrich cliches. We have no choice but to amend the Constitution to disallow speech that contains cliches.
To enforce this amendment, any discussion involving cliche proliferation will be punished with negative moderation. For good measure, the poster will also be sent to Guantanamo.
If we developers can produce easily used, real RSS clients, with adequate support, these serverside aggregators will pave the way for people to take control of our news consumption.
It's been done. Bloglines is lowers the bar to RSS use slightly, but there's still too large of a barrier for most normal people to overcome. First you have to explain what RSS is, then copy the link to each RSS feed you want and paste it into Bloglines. If the site doesn't provide an explicit link to the feed (which they really shouldn't have to if they include a link tag pointing to it in the HTML), then they might have to wade through the HTML to find it. They also have to install a notifier to get the full, I'm-plugged-straight-into-the-Internet benefits that RSS feeds make possible. What normal users need is a web browser that tells them when an RSS feed is present, but does so without them needing to know much about RSS. Firefox does this sufficiently well for most novice users, but most novice users don't use Firefox. I assume Safari does it well also.
Internet Explorer is the barrier to RSS adoption.
IMO RSS is one of the best things to hit the net since porn.
And the weird thing about it is that porn didn't spur its adoption like it has for many other web technologies.
Unless there are porn RSS feeds that I'm missing out on.
(I just googled it. They exist.)
I think another thing that helped Ubuntu out in terms of popularity is that it came out right when Linux on the desktop was getting it's shit together. Ubuntu was the first distro I used back in September that had HAL and the Project Utopia stack, so when I plugged in a digital camera and it asked me if I wanted to import the pictures, it was pretty amazing.
Another good thing is Ubuntu's code of conduct, which basically ensures a friendly community. The Debian community was notoriously hostile, while people can ask questions on the Ubuntu IRC channels and mailing lists and not worry about being flamed.
Replace "au" in the source lines with your country code.
I'm sure they were aware of it, but if the compression algorithm used in a certain video format is patented, how are you supposed to encode or decode a compatible file without infringing on the patent?
It's been done.
Considering the impending IP/DMCA/copyright/etc doom that is coming soon to open source in an attempt to stamp it out, how would one propose to create and retain ones own source code 'repository' of all the pertinent packages that one would need when the eventual happens and lots of code disappears ( or is simply not allowed to run on the new 'drm-chips'.. )
None of those things you mentioned can directly harm open source. IP is just a concept. Someone can claim that their IP has been infringed upon in an open source project, which would be bad. The DMCA has no bearing on open source. Copyright is what allows the privileges granted to the user by open source software to be passed down without being taken away. Without copyright, there is no GPL. With that said, if there were DRM chips that would somehow stop open source software, how would having the code help you?
I think you should be more worried about the Internet. Without the Internet, where are you going to download all your software? All that has to be done to stop the flow of open source software is to take down the Internet. The developers wouldn't be able to collaborate, and the users wouldn't be able to download the software. It would take some sort of doomsday scenario for either of these situations to occur, in which case I'm sure you'd have better things to worry about, such as killing terrorists with steak knives as they push the front lines forward through your neighborhood. Instead of worrying about a failsafe stash of code, you should probably be assembling a redundant transcontinental wireless network, completely independent from the major backbones. Impossible? I know. That's why paranoia's overrated.
Except that version number is incorrect. The versions are "year.month" with leading zeroes dropped for the year. Warty was version 4.10 (October 2004). Hoary is 5.04. Breezy will be 5.10.
The general rule is use the Ubuntu repositories unless you really need something else. If there are packages that have been updated after the upstream version freeze, there are probably going to be several programs you want that fall into this category. In this case, you're probably more of a tinkerer than a normal user, so you probably want to join the people running the development branch of the distro. I've only been running Hoary for a month, and that was after most things stablized, so my experience isn't really typical. However, I hear that there weren't any problems for people who were running it from the start. I'd recommend upgrading to Breezy (the next version) once it opens up, which should be pretty soon.
To answer your question more directly, I personally don't think that you'd run into any big problems by using debian packages do to the way Ubuntu versions its packages. An Ubuntu package uses the same base package version as the Debian one, then for each revision of the package, "ubuntu" followed by the revision number is appended. This means the subsequent Debian package version will be higher than Ubuntu's, and it will replace it. Technically, since Debian receives all of Ubuntu's packages, the new package may contain the patches and you won't have many problems. There are probably a few Ubuntu specific things out there, and those will break.
Installing a new version of gaim won't break much, but upgrading glibc is probably a bad idea.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he meant gparted.
I really don't like it when software tries to be everything for everyone.
Out of the box, Ubuntu tries to be the friendly desktop distribution that most people recognize it as, which satisfies the home requirement and the office one with a bit of customization. Under the surface, it's merely a collection of packages that can be put together however you like. If you install the packages containing the server software you need, you've got a server distribution. When you have the many individual application developers along with the many hands within Debian proper and Ubuntu itself working to make sure all the packages work well together, it's not that hard to see how you can accomplish many things.
The submitter makes it sound like it's horrible for the plaintiff, but would we really want to live in a world where we have to keep every single file forever? I think not.
Do we really want to live in a world where there is no such thing as electronic evidence, since anyone can just say, "oops, it got deleted in the routine operations of my business... last night." I think not. See Burst v. Microsoft.
I agree that there some justification to put this out, but do we *really* need yet another distro?
Yes. If you don't like the distro, don't use it. Distro proliferation only causes two problems: package compatablility and information overload for newbies. The first problem is a very small one if you're using an open, community based distribution. Normal users have all their needs met in the repositories for that distro, and users who need special software either ask someone to package it for them, use alien on a provided package, or compile it themselves. The second problem can be solved by simply asking someone for a distro recommendation. Most people recommend Ubuntu or Mandrake for newbies these days, so it's not really that big of a deal.
So what happens if you declare a moratorium on distribution proliferation? Well, if you did that six months ago, we wouldn't have Ubuntu, which is fairly popular after being out for a short period of time. New distributions bring different ideas to the table, and if it works well, people will use the distro, or other distros will assimlate the ideas. Who knew that you could take Debian unstable's wide array of packages, stabilize them for a month or so, and combine them with simple configuration tools and a community that is friendly by mandate, and end up with what many people were apparently waiting for?
There are many distros out there that build upon a good existing distro and try to make it better. Some try out new packaging systems. I disagree that eliminating all these would be better for Linux as a whole. The benefits from their existence far outweigh the pitfalls, if any.
Now, if only the number of users who downloaded and installed it made a commercial difference to the company, that'd matter.
Try telling Adobe and Macromedia that the number of people who download warez copies of their software doesn't matter. They gain mindshare from these downloads, and the more mindshare they have, the more likely they are to be suggested as a solution in a corporate environment, where the software (or support in this case) is paid for.