Debian Vs. Ubuntu

megamaced

megamaced

Geek Geek Geek!
Tension between Debian and Ubuntu developers continues to brew underneath the blanket of seemingly peaceful coexistence between the two projects.

From the artical

There's a related point, namely jealousy about Ubuntu's success, and the fear that it steals Debian's users. In response, it is often said that while Ubuntu depends on Debian, the reverse is not the case: Debian does not need Ubuntu. This is false and true at the same time. Debian surely need derivatives like Ubuntu, for derivatives bring users, and users bring improvements and weight. However, Debian does not need any one derivative more than any other, and in fact it has been considered harmful if any derivative stands out.

Read it in full here
 
It's a shame that there is brewing tension between the two. There aren't these type of issues between Debian and other deb derivitives (Xandros, the debunk Libranet, Mepis and so on). I'm interested to see if the Mepis switch to Ubuntu core will aggrivate things.
 
Basically the Ubuntu project would not exist nor would it progress at all if it wasn't for Debian, yet Ubuntu contributes almost nothing back upstream. If I was on the Deb development team, I'd be pissed too! [ot]On a side note, Debian is a better distro than Ubuntu if you're not afraid of the CLI. There, I said it. Let the flame wars begin! ;-)[/ot]
 
Anti-Trend said:
[ot]On a side note, Debian is a better distro than Ubuntu if you're not afraid of the CLI. There, I said it. Let the flame wars begin! ;-)[/ot]
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't get over sudo. It is stupid and generally a bad idea. "Ok, so let's make every user root." Dill holes.

Ubuntu could NEVER work in a business environment because of sudo. Every user can gain root access with their OWN password? WTF? Not a good idea. Disgruntled employees will have a field day.

What is so scary about root passwords?
 
Anti-Trend said:
Basically the Ubuntu project would not exist nor would it progress at all if it wasn't for Debian, yet Ubuntu contributes almost nothing back upstream. If I was on the Deb development team, I'd be pissed too!
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this point. As much as I love *ubuntu and their developers, the fact of the matter is they don't give acknowledgement to Debian and the work they do. The idea of open source is that anyone can take a piece of software, improve on it and give it back to the community. Ubuntu it seems, keeps those improvements to itself.

It is true that Ubuntu could not survive without Debian, but I also think that Debian would be a lot worse off without Ubuntu. It is without a doubt that Debian gets attention through Ubuntu. I've never used Debian before, but I am quite tempted to now, because I've been impressed with *ubuntu.

*ubuntu might be seen as a beginner's distribution, but what's wrong with that? Surely the common goal for all Linux distributions is to make it easier and more attractive to new users? How else are they going to tempt user's away from the clutches of Microsoft, and on to their own platforms?
So on this front, Ubuntu wins over Debian hands down

Not to mention Ubuntu's excellent wiki and support forums. I've never seen such a helpful and understanding community.

kenji san said:
I can't get over sudo. It is stupid and generally a bad idea. "Ok, so let's make every user root." Dill holes.
Ubuntu could NEVER work in a business environment because of sudo. Every user can gain root access with their OWN password? WTF? Not a good idea. Disgruntled employees will have a field day.
What is so scary about root passwords?
Click to expand...

This is something that has been brought up many times on this forum. And i'll admit, it is a big bogey in what is otherwise a great distribution. That being said though, it is relatively easy to switch back to the traditional root system. Look it up in the ubuntu wiki.
 
megamaced said:
This is something that has been brought up many times on this forum. And i'll admit, it is a big bogey in what is otherwise a great distribution. That being said though, it is relatively easy to switch back to the traditional root system. Look it up in the ubuntu wiki.
Click to expand...

I just read the wiki. It is simple but its 'not recommended'. Is su disabled in ubuntu? I like su because it is simple and it locks out regular users. Maybe I'm just biased or feeling old school.
 
Well, for a desktop system with one user, sudo is great. Not so much for multiple users. Its good that you can tweak security setting to get what you want. Ubuntu is designed to be for n00bs so I can see why they did this.

I have tried ubuntu (4.x and 5.0x something or other) and the new kubuntu in live version. Not bad but not for me. I thought it was sluggish and ugly. The ugly part can be fixed but not the speed. Usability was acceptable but it didn't 'wow' me like I had expected based on all the reviews I read.

Anyway I'm not trying to bash ubuntu. Its a solid system and I would recommend it to a friend over debian.
 
Anti-Trend said:
MO, if you can't remember your root password, you should not be root anyway. :)
Click to expand...

Exactly :D

What ubuntu should do at installation is ask the question: 'Do you want to enable the root account, yes or no?

People who are too dumb to remember two passwords can select 'NO', and everyone else can select 'Yes'. Problem solved :)
 
Hmmm nice, flame wars :P.

Anyway, I like Ubuntu, and I have to give it credit for being very easy for new users. But it seems to have gone a bit too self centric, not keeping with the standards if you know what I mean. Just my opinion. I think this because Mandriva and other distros I've tried have used a standard version of X (don't actually know if it was X, but something wasn't right) and nvidia drivers wouldn't work. It always worked with other distros.

Downloading Debian as I type this. I have many spare partitions, doesn't hurt to try more than one.
 
I think its ironic that ubuntu ships free CD's to whoever wants them and gives Debian the shaft. Humanity indeed.

'biting the hand that feeds you' comes to mind.
 
Can't be too harsh on Ubuntu, they are just like the rest of them a free Linux distribution. They may not contribute much back to Debian, but its not as if they're making money out of it.

Anyway, the real enemy is Windows. Co-operation is needed between the distributions to steal market share.
 
But Ubuntu does have business interests. Mark Shuttleworth has never been shy about that. Yes, Ubuntu is going to make money for canonical, eventually.

Read this article. There are others this is just one I thought was interesting.

From the article:
Now, Ubuntu is trying to imitate Debian; Since it refuses to integrate inside the Debian framework, it captures its own community, and takes all the goodwill of volunteers who used to travell from and to projects like Knoppix and Debian for itself.
It's rather shameful to do this in my opinion, but I hope it is now clear that Ubuntu has at least an agenda. It is now progressively forking from its Debian core base, and is also forking its community.
Thanks to the millions of Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu became the number one distribution for desktop by giving away CDs to the masses and living in parasite on the Debian core base.
Well done Mr. Shuttleworth, well done Ubuntu, you have showed us how to take power inside a community and turn it to your own advantage.
Click to expand...

So yes, we can bash ubuntu if we want to. I'm not doing it because I don't really care that much. Just another perspective.
 
Re: sudoers in Ubuntu

I use the sudoers concept in my systems every single day, I wouldn't have it any other way. Sudoers was intended to make Linux/Unix more secure by allowing certain privileges to be delegated but not others. Ubuntu, on the other hand, uses sudo to replace the root account by delegating all privileges to an "admin" user group. Users in this group have the capability of running any command on the system by providing their own password, but processes they run on a normal basis are not run with root privileges, they are run with user privileges. This makes it still imminently more secure than Windows, but not as much so as it could be. Consider this: on a normal *nix system, if a user account is compromised, they really can't do anything outside of the user's home; they must somehow elevate their credentials before they can perform a system wide exploit. With Ubuntu, all they need is a user who is in the admin group, and they have the whole system. Instead of one root account which is rarely used being the target of attack, you get a much easier target -- a commonly-used account which runs a large quantity of the software on the system. This is just plain stupid.


Re: Ubuntu biting Debian

It's perfectly legal what Ubuntu is doing with Debian, it's developers, and community. But it's not very ethical, now is it? Ubuntu has resources to spare, and yet nothing makes it back upstream to Deb. Why is this?

Addis said:
Anyway, the real enemy is Windows. Co-operation is needed between the distributions to steal market share.
Click to expand...
Open-source is on our side. It empowers us to do what we want to do with our computers and nothing we don't (such as upload all your info to Microsoft or Symantec). We can learn from, contribute to and participate in the code and community freely. Microsoft, on the other hand, is on MS's side. They are for them and their shareholders. As long as Ubuntu is based on GNU code, that source code will always be available under the terms of the GPL. So, no matter the intentions of Mr. Shuttleworth, he will recontribute one way or another. However, I do not think it unfair that the Debian developers are crying foul that Ubuntu is taking so much without giving, especially since the distro is so ironically named. In fact, I think we should all be calling faux pas on Ubuntu for not being more proactive with it's involvement with the larger Linux community, especially since they undoubtedly have the capacity and reosurces to do so.
 
Whether Mark has other plans or not, doesn't bother me too much. Ubuntu is free as in free speech, and as long as it remains under the GPL i am satisfied.
As far as I am concerned, if you modify free software, you should give it back to the community. I do not agree with the idea of somebody taking free code and selling it on for a profit. Considering the basis of that code was not their original work in the first place. This is why I do not like the BSD license, as it lets companies such as Microsoft take someone else's work, rebadge it, put a hefty price tag on it and not give a cent back to the community.

I am not against making money from software. And if that's what Mark's ultimate plans are, then so be it. I don't use Linux just because it's open source. I use Linux because I think it's actually quite good. I don't hate Microsoft because they are a business, I hate Microsoft because of the dirty tricks they use to make their money. Likewise, I don't hate Windows because it costs money, I hate Windows because it's... well... crap :)

Theres nothing in the script that says Ubuntu have to keep to their roots. I find that to be rather restrictive. Why shouldn't they be able to branch out and explore new paths of their own? Would SuSE be the same today if they had stuck to their Slackware roots? I don't think so.
So long as ubuntu continues to make free software under the GPL, I cannot see anything wrong.
 
megamaced said:
I am not against making money from software. And if that's what Mark's ultimate plans are, then so be it. I don't use Linux just because it's open source. I use Linux because I think it's actually quite good. I don't hate Microsoft because they are a business, I hate Microsoft because of the dirty tricks they use to make their money. Likewise, I don't hate Windows because it costs money, I hate Windows because it's... well... crap :)
Click to expand...
Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more. :)
megamaced said:
Theres nothing in the script that says Ubuntu have to keep to their roots. I find that to be rather restrictive. Why shouldn't they be able to branch out and explore new paths of their own? Would SuSE be the same today if they had stuck to their Slackware roots? I don't think so. So long as ubuntu continues to make free software under the GPL, I cannot see anything wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything wrong with using Debian as a spring board. In fact, that's part of the whole spirit of OSS, right? But what Ubuntu is currently doing is akin to leeching on BitTorrent -- all get and no give. Sure, you can do it that way, but it's bad form. Especially when the one doing the leeching has far more resources available than those being leeched from, which is the real reason so many people are upset about Ubuntu's current relationship with Debian.

As for me and my part, I don't take it personally. As long as they are in compliance with the GPL I don't see it as a really bad thing. I just think the Ubuntu project could do a lot more than they are in the interest of the larger OSS community. Consider the fact that not only is Ubuntu not actively assisting with the Debian project, they are actually hurting indirectly by siphoning off their developers. It would be a sign of good faith to at least make an effort to offset the harm done, if not just help for the sake of recontributing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top