Re:What does a version release *really* mean?
on
Ubuntu 6.10 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Why not just have
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade
give you the latest and greatest?
Heh, heh. Debian Unstable just upgraded Frozen Bubble to version 2.0.0 while Ubuntu Edgy distributes the old version of Frozen Bubble (1.0.0). Yeah, I know that Frozen Bubble is in Ubuntu's "universe," that is not officially supported, and I also know that the maintainer of Ubuntu's Frozen Bubble package is actually the same person that packages Frozen Bubble for Debian. Still, if you want the "latest and greatest," Debian is a better choice than Ubuntu. Maybe Ubuntu users will get the "latest and greatest" Frozen Bubble in the next Ubuntu release (if you can just wait for six more months).;-)
Here's what Jesse Keating, Fedora's Release Engineer, has to say about Firefox and its security updates:
"firefox.org doesn't care about Linux. They produce "updates" that are first Windows precompiled binaries." [...] "They really really suck
for trying to work out security updates, especially for Linux where they
aren't providing the binaries. They care about what they provide as
precompiled clients and nothing else (at least that's how it appears from the
outside)."
Only 6 users? I think Debian has a bit more users than that.
In "2006 Desktop Linux Survey" by desktoplinux.com Debian was the second most popular distro with 12.2 % of all the votes. Ubuntu won that poll with 29.2 %.
DistroWatch statistics show that 32.2 % of their visitors use Linux. 7.7 % of their visitors use some version of Ubuntu (or their derivatives) and 4.3 % of their visitors use Debian or its derivatives (excluding Ubuntu and its derivatives, which actually are also Debian's derivatives). So Ubuntu's percentage of the Linux-using DistroWatch visitors is over 20 % and well over 10 % of the Linux-using DistroWatch visitors use Debian. That must be more than 6 users.:-)
Of course, Debian is mainly used on servers and less on desktops. However, Debian testing/unstable works quite nicely as an up-to-date desktop system. (Ubuntu is a popular desktop distro but it has yet to establish its position as a server distro.)
My prefered solution would be Epiphany in main as the default browser, Mozilla version of Firefox in restricted or multiverse and Iceweasel in universe.
That sounds reasonable -- give users a good default choice and then make the other choices available in case someone wants to switch away from the default. Hopefully they can come to some conclusion before Edgy Eft is released.
I wonder how Ubuntu is going to manage their Firefox problem, because it seems to be identical to Debian's problem -- although the Mozilla people haven't yet (at least publicly) come hard on them about this issue like they have done with Debian.
Also Ubuntu distributes Firefox without the official icon but they still call it Firefox. And, just like Debian, also Ubuntu has to backport security fixes for Firefox in their "Long Term Support" releases a long time after Mozilla has officially ceased to support their version of Firefox.
Of course, Ubuntu has a more secretive and business-like approach in everything they do. They don't like to wash their dirty laundry in public like Debian. There may be currently some secret negotiations going on between Mozilla and Canonical and money may change hands to ensure that Ubuntu doesn't have to face the same troubles as Debian.
But this is just idle guessing, I don't really know what's actually going on behind the scenes. Nevertheless, it would be nice if Ubuntu (I mean Mark Shuttleworth) told openly about what they're planning to do with this Firefox/IceWeasel issue. Now it looks like they're just going to stand back and let Debian take all the heat, although it seems like Ubuntu is in a similar position with Debian and they could possibly help Debian a bit if they wanted to.
At least, Ubuntu could keep their users informed about what's going on.
This totally insignificant and absolutely trivial renaming issue has produced so much silly controversy and ignorant bickering on slashdot and other geek forums that maybe Debian and Ubuntu should rename their versions of Firefox to Flamefox.
That's because Debian is a project that has high ideals:
Debian aims to support Free Software.
Debian aims to produce a high quality product for their users to enjoy.
Debian aims to be a non-profit volunteer project.
Debian aims to be a democratic organization where everyone has the freedom of speech.
Some other distros and projects have "self appointed benevolent dictators for life" but that's hardly democratic, is it? You can laugh at other peoples' ideals if you want to but does that make you a better person than those you laugh at? I'd say no.
You could also take a different approach and look at the resulting products instead of the seemingly chaotic development process. Then you'd see that Debian has repeatedly produced high quality releases that their users can rely on. If the upcoming Debian 4.0 release (codenamed "etch, planned for December 2006) will be in any way technically inferior or outdated, then I'll admit that Debian is in trouble -- but not before that.
Linus Torvalds started to build a Unix-like kernel "just for fun" and his fun project soon attracted contibutions even though Linus never offered any bounty or payment. So what's the difference between Work and Play? The former often sucks all the fun out of doing things while the latter usually encourages people to contribute simply because it's fun.
Raising funds to employ one or two release managers for a short period of time just before the "etch" release may actually be a very good idea but I hope that the people behind this "Dunc-Tank" idea keep in their mind that fun and play will always be much more powerful motivators than money in a volunteer project like Debian. A crash course into understanding why this should be so can be found in the second chapter of "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" by Mark Twain:
You got it wrong. It's not about greed for money becoming a motivator in developing Debian, it's about enabling some release managers to take a holiday from their day jobs and to concentrate full-time on making sure that Etch gets released according to the schedule.
I think this is a good idea. Volunteer developers don't always have enough time for their GNU/Linux work no matter how motivated they are.
The 2.4 kernel is still being developed and it's regularly updated to include security fixes.
Debian with 2.4 kernel is a good choice if you have old hardware (and Debian with 2.6 kernel is a good choice for new hardware;-). Sarge defaults to 2.4 kernel and, although the upcoming Etch release will default to 2.6, I think that 2.4 will still be supported as an option that you choose in the Etch installer.
Also, Debian doesn't force you to install KDE or GNOME if you don't want to. You can install XFCE or Fluxbox instead (depending on how old your hardware is) to build a more lightweight GUI environment. The desktop BSD options, AFAIK, all default to installing KDE, which may be too heavyweight for older machines.
Mark Shuttleworth is not in a position to tell other projects how to manage a project without conflicts. I recall that just before the Dapper release some German Kubuntu developers threatened to leave the project because Canonical refused to communicate with them. One of these rebelling German guys was the main developer of K/Ubuntu's new live-cd.
Part of the problem seemed to be that these Kubuntu developers were not paid employees. There was one paid employee in the lead of the Kubuntu project and this employee did his best trying to convince people that there was no conflict, although obviously there was. Hiding problems and denying conflicts seems to be the official policy of Mark Shuttleworth's pet project and this carefully built image of easy success that they want to project to the public makes Shuttleworth now think that he can advise other projects about their goals.
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone," but Mark Shuttleworth is not as innocent as he'd like to appear. He has faced conflicts in managing his own project and I'm not at all sure that he's the right man to tell other projects how to avoid conflicts. And advising Debian to concentrate its efforts on improving Sid is definitely a bad advice, although such decision would certainly suit Ubuntu that is built upon snapshots of Sid.
Is it just me, or is the Debian project moving a LOT faster now that the Debian Daughter Distributions--Ubuntu included!--have vastly expanded the pool of developers, testers and users?
This is the way it looks to me, too. MEPIS switched from Debian to Ubuntu, complaining that it had become too difficult to follow Debian Testing because it was changing in such a fast pace. Well, Debian's fast progress might be bad news for the derivative distros but it's certainly good news for the users.:-)
Precisely. Ubuntu releases are synced with GNOME releases and every new Ubuntu release packages a new version of GNOME. So it looks like Ubuntu is making great progress although it's actually GNOME that is making progress.
When Debian packages the latest GNOME, you suddenly realize that Debian feels very much like Ubuntu. The underlying system in Ubuntu (integration, package management, ideals, carefully thought-out policies, internationalization, documentation, menus, debconf, etc.) comes straight from Debian. Ubuntu just has less developers, less originality, fewer development branches, poorer quality, less supported architectures, less choices, less everything. But it always has the latest GNOME and that's what matters to many users, it seems.
And Debian has showed us what, that packages should be old and outdated?
Debian, as we covered previously, tends to have the oldest, most outdated packages around. There may be reasons for that but it does users little to no good.
You are just showing your ignorance. Debian Stable has older packages than Ubuntu but they're also better tested and less buggy. Then there are Debian Unstable and Testing that both have newer packages than Ubuntu.
And both Debian Stable and Testing get security updates for ALL their packages while the Ubuntu Security Team doesn't provide any security updates for "universe," "multiverse" or "backport" packages.
So any way you look at it, Debian wins and Ubuntu loses. Debian has more, newer and better supported packages. In short, Debian has all the goodies without Ubuntu's shortcomings.
>> MEPIS has recently confirmed the fears of some that Ubuntu is turning into a platform, displacing Debian itself...MEPIS is/was a KDE desktop based on Debian. The founder's concern with the stability and reliability of the Debian base recently led him to base his distro on Ubuntu sources instead.
A slight correction: MEPIS has never been based on Debian Stable, it was based on Debian Testing/Unstable. And the MEPIS founder was never concerned with the stability and reliability of Debian. The actual concern that Warren Woodford expressed was that Debian Testing was changing too fast for MEPIS to keep up with it!
The stable release of Debian 3.1 (codenamed Sarge) was delayed several times and these delays practically stalled the development in Debian's development branches, Unstable and Testing. After Sarge was released, development in Debian Unstable and Testing was back to full speed again. Several large-scale upgrades on the Debian base system followed one after another. MEPIS just couldn't cope with all these changes.
Now, just one year after the Sarge release, Debian Testing is just as up-to-date as Ubuntu Dapper. And Debian Unstable is more up-to-date than Ubuntu.
For those who don't know yet: Debian has two development branches -- called Unstable and Testing. When new packages are introduced, they first go to Unstable. If no release critical bugs have been found within ten days or so, the packages are moved from Unstable to Testing. Stable Debian releases are made from the Testing branch by freezing it for a while and making it go through some extra bug-fixing and polishing.
The packages in a stable Debian release don't get any version upgrades, only security updates. In contrast to this, the Testing and Unstable branches are upgraded all the time when new versions of different programs are packaged and added to Debian repositories. The Unstable and Testing branches of Debian are usually more up-to-date than Ubuntu's stable releases.
I have a desktop system that tracks Debian's Testing branch and sometimes I pull a couple of packages from Unstable to stay on the cutting edge. This kind of Debian installation suits my needs better than Ubuntu. Debian's advantages when compared to Ubuntu are newer software, better quality control, and security support for ALL the packages in Debian Testing (while the official Ubuntu Security Team doesn't support "universe" & "multiverse" packages or Ubuntu backports at all).
>> What's more, unlike ordinary Debian, the packages are right there on the CD; so you don't need a working internet connection just to install it.
You are wrong. Also Debian's installer CDs have the packages right there on the CD; in this respect Debian is just like Ubuntu. And both Debian and Ubuntu want to fetch the latest security updates from the Net right after installation -- so you're wrong also there.:-P
apt-get dist-upgrade is better for upgrading between releases. It can handle situations where new dependencies have been added or old dependencies removed. apt-get upgrade is good for upgrades where dependencies don't change (like getting security updates for the stable release).
They've had a bit of a bad luck because a new version of Xorg was recently released and it didn't make its way to Ubuntu. Also, KDE 3.5.3 and Gnome 2.14.2 were released just today, so naturally Ubuntu doesn't have them.
And Ubuntu's kernel is not the latest version.
All software in Ubuntu is actually quite new -- they've just had some bad luck in timing the dapper release and this makes lots of packages look older than they actually are.:-(
> it's a major pain to download the dozens of daily updates just so I can have libxyz 1.1.2-cvs20060530 instead of 1.1.2-cvs20060525.
It's not really compulsory to upgrade every day, you know. Instead, you could choose to upgrade weekly or monthly -- whatever suits you best.
> Ubuntu provides relatively up-to-date packages with a reasonable release schedule.
That's certainly true but it's not what the post I responded to suggested. It said that Ubuntu always has more up-to-date packages than Debian.
> Downloading a couple hundred megs of updates every six months while still being relatively assured of security/stability is worth it to me.
Good for you. Just remember that Ubuntu Security Team doesn't provide any security updates for the "universe" repo.
> Sure, I may not be running the latest beta of software X [or even the latest stable, such as Firefox], but I consider the trade-off worth it.
Hmm... Ubuntu fans usually say that they always get the latest and greatest stuff before anyone else. But I think those Ubuntu fans are wrong and you're right.:-)
> Your arguments seem to contradict. Debian offers a lot of CD sets and such, but typically only for stable
Nope. There are weekly built full snapshot CD sets available for both Debian "testing" and "unstable".
> Debian and Ubuntu are both great distros in my opinion and I have uses for both of them.
I'm glad to hear that.
> For relatively recent software and a good update cycle for desktops, I'll stick with Ubuntu.
My choice is Debian "testing" -- for the very same reasons.:-P
> Debian users should get over their dislike for Ubuntu and realise that it's a quality product, just like Debian is.
That's much better. Arrogant Ubuntu users usually claim that Ubuntu is always in every possible way better than Debian for any given task or purpose. I was just responding to such elitist Ubuntu user who claimed that Ubuntu has always newer packages than Debian and that Ubuntu is always easier than Debian. Well, this can certainly be true under certain circumstances -- BUT NOT ALWAYS!
This is all I'm trying to argue here. Ubuntu users should really learn some manners and some respect to other distros. Ubuntu might currently be the most popular distro but there are also other quality distros out there.
Nope. The free support covers only security updates -- and only for the "main" category, not for the "universe".
For the paying corporate customers Ubuntu (or Canonical, actually) offers bugfixes and other technical support that ordinary users won't get. Don't forget that Ubuntu is a for-profit distro and so Canonical needs to be able to sell extra support if they want to make money.
If ordinary users notice bugs and want them fixed, they can report them before the release -- after the release it's too late and if you don't pay any extra you only get security updates (and not even these for "universe").
Please check your facts -- they're just plain wrong.
Debian "testing" and "unstable" get upgrades every day while Ubuntu is upgraded only once every six months. Debian "unstable" is now more up-to-date than Ubuntu "dapper" and one month from now also Debian "testing" will be more up-to-date than Ubuntu "dapper". And still Ubuntu fans keep parroting the same old myth that Ubuntu is always more up-to-date than Debian.
Ubuntu being easier to install & configure than Debian is another myth. Most people who claim that haven't recently installed Debian, so they just don't know what they're talking about. Try Debian "sarge". Try the most recent beta-version of Debian-Installer. Find out how Debian keeps developing all the time, becoming easier all the time. You might learn that Ubuntu's installer comes from Debian. You might also learn that Ubuntu's configurations are managed by debconf that also comes straight from Debian.
Yeah, Ubuntu "dapper" will come on a live-cd with a new installer. But guess what happened when I tried the latest RC of this new installer -- it overwrote my default bootloader without asking me first. I DIDN'T LIKE THAT AT ALL. This is what Ubuntu being "easier" than Debian is all about: Ubuntu asks you fewer questions than Debian and it also does a lot of things (without asking you first) that Ubuntu developers have decided is best for you. If you like what the Ubuntu devs have chosen, then that's all right. But if you don't like what Ubuntu has decided for you -- then Ubuntu quickly becomes a royal pain in the butt.
Despite many user requests, Ubuntu has refused to distribute their packages on more than one CD. This is a real bummer if you don't have a net connection.
Debian, on the other hand, has many alternative installation options to choose from. You can install the base system from the netinst CD and download the rest of the packages that you need via network. Or you can just download the first and maybe also the second CD from the installation set -- the most popular packages are on the first CD's. Or you can download the whole installation CD set (available also on two DVD's) if you're planning to install Debian on a computer that doesn't have a net connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just have
give you the latest and greatest?Heh, heh. Debian Unstable just upgraded Frozen Bubble to version 2.0.0 while Ubuntu Edgy distributes the old version of Frozen Bubble (1.0.0). Yeah, I know that Frozen Bubble is in Ubuntu's "universe," that is not officially supported, and I also know that the maintainer of Ubuntu's Frozen Bubble package is actually the same person that packages Frozen Bubble for Debian. Still, if you want the "latest and greatest," Debian is a better choice than Ubuntu. Maybe Ubuntu users will get the "latest and greatest" Frozen Bubble in the next Ubuntu release (if you can just wait for six more months). ;-)
Here's what Jesse Keating, Fedora's Release Engineer, has to say about Firefox and its security updates:
"firefox.org doesn't care about Linux. They produce "updates" that are first Windows precompiled binaries." [...] "They really really suck for trying to work out security updates, especially for Linux where they aren't providing the binaries. They care about what they provide as precompiled clients and nothing else (at least that's how it appears from the outside)."
http://lwn.net/Articles/200885/Only 6 users? I think Debian has a bit more users than that.
In "2006 Desktop Linux Survey" by desktoplinux.com Debian was the second most popular distro with 12.2 % of all the votes. Ubuntu won that poll with 29.2 %.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/survey. cgi?view=archive&id=0821200617613
DistroWatch statistics show that 32.2 % of their visitors use Linux. 7.7 % of their visitors use some version of Ubuntu (or their derivatives) and 4.3 % of their visitors use Debian or its derivatives (excluding Ubuntu and its derivatives, which actually are also Debian's derivatives). So Ubuntu's percentage of the Linux-using DistroWatch visitors is over 20 % and well over 10 % of the Linux-using DistroWatch visitors use Debian. That must be more than 6 users. :-)
http://distrowatch.com/awstats/awstats.DistroWatch .com.osdetail.html
Of course, Debian is mainly used on servers and less on desktops. However, Debian testing/unstable works quite nicely as an up-to-date desktop system. (Ubuntu is a popular desktop distro but it has yet to establish its position as a server distro.)
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/03/14/fedor a_makes_rapid_progress.html
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/12/05/stron g_growth_for_debian.html
http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=205
That sounds reasonable -- give users a good default choice and then make the other choices available in case someone wants to switch away from the default. Hopefully they can come to some conclusion before Edgy Eft is released.
I wonder how Ubuntu is going to manage their Firefox problem, because it seems to be identical to Debian's problem -- although the Mozilla people haven't yet (at least publicly) come hard on them about this issue like they have done with Debian.
Also Ubuntu distributes Firefox without the official icon but they still call it Firefox. And, just like Debian, also Ubuntu has to backport security fixes for Firefox in their "Long Term Support" releases a long time after Mozilla has officially ceased to support their version of Firefox.
Of course, Ubuntu has a more secretive and business-like approach in everything they do. They don't like to wash their dirty laundry in public like Debian. There may be currently some secret negotiations going on between Mozilla and Canonical and money may change hands to ensure that Ubuntu doesn't have to face the same troubles as Debian.
But this is just idle guessing, I don't really know what's actually going on behind the scenes. Nevertheless, it would be nice if Ubuntu (I mean Mark Shuttleworth) told openly about what they're planning to do with this Firefox/IceWeasel issue. Now it looks like they're just going to stand back and let Debian take all the heat, although it seems like Ubuntu is in a similar position with Debian and they could possibly help Debian a bit if they wanted to.
At least, Ubuntu could keep their users informed about what's going on.
This totally insignificant and absolutely trivial renaming issue has produced so much silly controversy and ignorant bickering on slashdot and other geek forums that maybe Debian and Ubuntu should rename their versions of Firefox to Flamefox.
That's because Debian is a project that has high ideals:
Some other distros and projects have "self appointed benevolent dictators for life" but that's hardly democratic, is it? You can laugh at other peoples' ideals if you want to but does that make you a better person than those you laugh at? I'd say no.
You could also take a different approach and look at the resulting products instead of the seemingly chaotic development process. Then you'd see that Debian has repeatedly produced high quality releases that their users can rely on. If the upcoming Debian 4.0 release (codenamed "etch, planned for December 2006) will be in any way technically inferior or outdated, then I'll admit that Debian is in trouble -- but not before that.
Linus Torvalds started to build a Unix-like kernel "just for fun" and his fun project soon attracted contibutions even though Linus never offered any bounty or payment. So what's the difference between Work and Play? The former often sucks all the fun out of doing things while the latter usually encourages people to contribute simply because it's fun.
Raising funds to employ one or two release managers for a short period of time just before the "etch" release may actually be a very good idea but I hope that the people behind this "Dunc-Tank" idea keep in their mind that fun and play will always be much more powerful motivators than money in a volunteer project like Debian. A crash course into understanding why this should be so can be found in the second chapter of "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" by Mark Twain:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/74/74-h/p1.htm#c2You got it wrong. It's not about greed for money becoming a motivator in developing Debian, it's about enabling some release managers to take a holiday from their day jobs and to concentrate full-time on making sure that Etch gets released according to the schedule.
I think this is a good idea. Volunteer developers don't always have enough time for their GNU/Linux work no matter how motivated they are.
The 2.4 kernel is still being developed and it's regularly updated to include security fixes.
Debian with 2.4 kernel is a good choice if you have old hardware (and Debian with 2.6 kernel is a good choice for new hardware ;-). Sarge defaults to 2.4 kernel and, although the upcoming Etch release will default to 2.6, I think that 2.4 will still be supported as an option that you choose in the Etch installer.
Also, Debian doesn't force you to install KDE or GNOME if you don't want to. You can install XFCE or Fluxbox instead (depending on how old your hardware is) to build a more lightweight GUI environment. The desktop BSD options, AFAIK, all default to installing KDE, which may be too heavyweight for older machines.
Mark Shuttleworth is not in a position to tell other projects how to manage a project without conflicts. I recall that just before the Dapper release some German Kubuntu developers threatened to leave the project because Canonical refused to communicate with them. One of these rebelling German guys was the main developer of K/Ubuntu's new live-cd.
Part of the problem seemed to be that these Kubuntu developers were not paid employees. There was one paid employee in the lead of the Kubuntu project and this employee did his best trying to convince people that there was no conflict, although obviously there was. Hiding problems and denying conflicts seems to be the official policy of Mark Shuttleworth's pet project and this carefully built image of easy success that they want to project to the public makes Shuttleworth now think that he can advise other projects about their goals.
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone," but Mark Shuttleworth is not as innocent as he'd like to appear. He has faced conflicts in managing his own project and I'm not at all sure that he's the right man to tell other projects how to avoid conflicts. And advising Debian to concentrate its efforts on improving Sid is definitely a bad advice, although such decision would certainly suit Ubuntu that is built upon snapshots of Sid.
PySol, Fish Fillets and FloboPuyo are also nice.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/pysol/http://fillets.sourceforge.net/
http://freshmeat.net/projects/flobopuyo/
This is the way it looks to me, too. MEPIS switched from Debian to Ubuntu, complaining that it had become too difficult to follow Debian Testing because it was changing in such a fast pace. Well, Debian's fast progress might be bad news for the derivative distros but it's certainly good news for the users. :-)
Precisely. Ubuntu releases are synced with GNOME releases and every new Ubuntu release packages a new version of GNOME. So it looks like Ubuntu is making great progress although it's actually GNOME that is making progress.
When Debian packages the latest GNOME, you suddenly realize that Debian feels very much like Ubuntu. The underlying system in Ubuntu (integration, package management, ideals, carefully thought-out policies, internationalization, documentation, menus, debconf, etc.) comes straight from Debian. Ubuntu just has less developers, less originality, fewer development branches, poorer quality, less supported architectures, less choices, less everything. But it always has the latest GNOME and that's what matters to many users, it seems.
Just use backports.org. It has up-to-date packages ported from Testing and compiled for Stable. Including PHP5.
http://backports.org/You are just showing your ignorance. Debian Stable has older packages than Ubuntu but they're also better tested and less buggy. Then there are Debian Unstable and Testing that both have newer packages than Ubuntu.
And both Debian Stable and Testing get security updates for ALL their packages while the Ubuntu Security Team doesn't provide any security updates for "universe," "multiverse" or "backport" packages.
So any way you look at it, Debian wins and Ubuntu loses. Debian has more, newer and better supported packages. In short, Debian has all the goodies without Ubuntu's shortcomings.
>> MEPIS has recently confirmed the fears of some that Ubuntu is turning into a platform, displacing Debian itself...MEPIS is/was a KDE desktop based on Debian. The founder's concern with the stability and reliability of the Debian base recently led him to base his distro on Ubuntu sources instead.
A slight correction: MEPIS has never been based on Debian Stable, it was based on Debian Testing/Unstable. And the MEPIS founder was never concerned with the stability and reliability of Debian. The actual concern that Warren Woodford expressed was that Debian Testing was changing too fast for MEPIS to keep up with it!
The stable release of Debian 3.1 (codenamed Sarge) was delayed several times and these delays practically stalled the development in Debian's development branches, Unstable and Testing. After Sarge was released, development in Debian Unstable and Testing was back to full speed again. Several large-scale upgrades on the Debian base system followed one after another. MEPIS just couldn't cope with all these changes.
Now, just one year after the Sarge release, Debian Testing is just as up-to-date as Ubuntu Dapper. And Debian Unstable is more up-to-date than Ubuntu.
For those who don't know yet: Debian has two development branches -- called Unstable and Testing. When new packages are introduced, they first go to Unstable. If no release critical bugs have been found within ten days or so, the packages are moved from Unstable to Testing. Stable Debian releases are made from the Testing branch by freezing it for a while and making it go through some extra bug-fixing and polishing.
The packages in a stable Debian release don't get any version upgrades, only security updates. In contrast to this, the Testing and Unstable branches are upgraded all the time when new versions of different programs are packaged and added to Debian repositories. The Unstable and Testing branches of Debian are usually more up-to-date than Ubuntu's stable releases.
I have a desktop system that tracks Debian's Testing branch and sometimes I pull a couple of packages from Unstable to stay on the cutting edge. This kind of Debian installation suits my needs better than Ubuntu. Debian's advantages when compared to Ubuntu are newer software, better quality control, and security support for ALL the packages in Debian Testing (while the official Ubuntu Security Team doesn't support "universe" & "multiverse" packages or Ubuntu backports at all).
>> What's more, unlike ordinary Debian, the packages are right there on the CD; so you don't need a working internet connection just to install it.
You are wrong. Also Debian's installer CDs have the packages right there on the CD; in this respect Debian is just like Ubuntu. And both Debian and Ubuntu want to fetch the latest security updates from the Net right after installation -- so you're wrong also there. :-P
apt-get dist-upgrade is better for upgrading between releases. It can handle situations where new dependencies have been added or old dependencies removed. apt-get upgrade is good for upgrades where dependencies don't change (like getting security updates for the stable release).
Ubuntu has Xorg 7.0 and Gnome 2.14.1.
They've had a bit of a bad luck because a new version of Xorg was recently released and it didn't make its way to Ubuntu. Also, KDE 3.5.3 and Gnome 2.14.2 were released just today, so naturally Ubuntu doesn't have them.
And Ubuntu's kernel is not the latest version.
All software in Ubuntu is actually quite new -- they've just had some bad luck in timing the dapper release and this makes lots of packages look older than they actually are. :-(
> it's a major pain to download the dozens of daily updates just so I can have libxyz 1.1.2-cvs20060530 instead of 1.1.2-cvs20060525.
It's not really compulsory to upgrade every day, you know. Instead, you could choose to upgrade weekly or monthly -- whatever suits you best.
> Ubuntu provides relatively up-to-date packages with a reasonable release schedule.
That's certainly true but it's not what the post I responded to suggested. It said that Ubuntu always has more up-to-date packages than Debian.
> Downloading a couple hundred megs of updates every six months while still being relatively assured of security/stability is worth it to me.
Good for you. Just remember that Ubuntu Security Team doesn't provide any security updates for the "universe" repo.
> Sure, I may not be running the latest beta of software X [or even the latest stable, such as Firefox], but I consider the trade-off worth it.
Hmm... Ubuntu fans usually say that they always get the latest and greatest stuff before anyone else. But I think those Ubuntu fans are wrong and you're right. :-)
> Your arguments seem to contradict. Debian offers a lot of CD sets and such, but typically only for stable
Nope. There are weekly built full snapshot CD sets available for both Debian "testing" and "unstable".
> Debian and Ubuntu are both great distros in my opinion and I have uses for both of them.
I'm glad to hear that.
> For relatively recent software and a good update cycle for desktops, I'll stick with Ubuntu.
My choice is Debian "testing" -- for the very same reasons. :-P
> Debian users should get over their dislike for Ubuntu and realise that it's a quality product, just like Debian is.
That's much better. Arrogant Ubuntu users usually claim that Ubuntu is always in every possible way better than Debian for any given task or purpose. I was just responding to such elitist Ubuntu user who claimed that Ubuntu has always newer packages than Debian and that Ubuntu is always easier than Debian. Well, this can certainly be true under certain circumstances -- BUT NOT ALWAYS!
This is all I'm trying to argue here. Ubuntu users should really learn some manners and some respect to other distros. Ubuntu might currently be the most popular distro but there are also other quality distros out there.
Nope. The free support covers only security updates -- and only for the "main" category, not for the "universe".
For the paying corporate customers Ubuntu (or Canonical, actually) offers bugfixes and other technical support that ordinary users won't get. Don't forget that Ubuntu is a for-profit distro and so Canonical needs to be able to sell extra support if they want to make money.
If ordinary users notice bugs and want them fixed, they can report them before the release -- after the release it's too late and if you don't pay any extra you only get security updates (and not even these for "universe").
Please check your facts -- they're just plain wrong.
Debian "testing" and "unstable" get upgrades every day while Ubuntu is upgraded only once every six months. Debian "unstable" is now more up-to-date than Ubuntu "dapper" and one month from now also Debian "testing" will be more up-to-date than Ubuntu "dapper". And still Ubuntu fans keep parroting the same old myth that Ubuntu is always more up-to-date than Debian.
Ubuntu being easier to install & configure than Debian is another myth. Most people who claim that haven't recently installed Debian, so they just don't know what they're talking about. Try Debian "sarge". Try the most recent beta-version of Debian-Installer. Find out how Debian keeps developing all the time, becoming easier all the time. You might learn that Ubuntu's installer comes from Debian. You might also learn that Ubuntu's configurations are managed by debconf that also comes straight from Debian.
Yeah, Ubuntu "dapper" will come on a live-cd with a new installer. But guess what happened when I tried the latest RC of this new installer -- it overwrote my default bootloader without asking me first. I DIDN'T LIKE THAT AT ALL. This is what Ubuntu being "easier" than Debian is all about: Ubuntu asks you fewer questions than Debian and it also does a lot of things (without asking you first) that Ubuntu developers have decided is best for you. If you like what the Ubuntu devs have chosen, then that's all right. But if you don't like what Ubuntu has decided for you -- then Ubuntu quickly becomes a royal pain in the butt.
Despite many user requests, Ubuntu has refused to distribute their packages on more than one CD. This is a real bummer if you don't have a net connection.
Debian, on the other hand, has many alternative installation options to choose from. You can install the base system from the netinst CD and download the rest of the packages that you need via network. Or you can just download the first and maybe also the second CD from the installation set -- the most popular packages are on the first CD's. Or you can download the whole installation CD set (available also on two DVD's) if you're planning to install Debian on a computer that doesn't have a net connection.
But doesn't GNOME 2.14 become a bit old in three years?