Forking (was Ubuntu Under Attack)

[Niran Babalola]

On 12/21/05, Old Rocker <old.rocker at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> As yet, I don't think Ubuntu/Kubuntu is a fork, just a difference of
> ideology.  Ubuntu developers work with others in the Debian community
> it is true, but the vibes coming out of what I've read and seen, is
> that there is no close developing of software, and this worries me.
> Far better if Ubuntu could use the software developed in the various
> Debian repositories than going off on its own.

Forking is not inherently bad. The main problem you seem to have is
incompatibility between Ubuntu and Debian packages. It should be noted
that packages with separate branches of Debian itself are not even
compatible with each other. Ubuntu can't be compatible with stable
because no progress would be able to be made in the base of the system
between Debian releases. One of the main reasons for Ubuntu's
popularity is its relatively fast release cycle. Forcing compatibility
with stable sacrifices progress. Testing and unstable are both moving
targets, and are much harder to support. For Ubuntu to remain
compatible with either of those, it would have to get rid of actual
releases and become a moving target as well. Not only is that harder
to support, it's also less desired by users. Users want a stable
desktop that has been vetted for bugs, and Ubuntu's release cycle
accomplishes that for the most part.

Unless Debian releases as frequently as Ubuntu does (which is rather
undesirable), Debian packages will remain incompatible with Ubuntu
packages.

> Please could we have some word from the Ubuntu developers?

Scott James Remnant:
http://www.netsplit.com/blog/work/canonical/ubuntu_and_debian.html
Benjamin Mako Hill: http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html

--
Niran Babalola
http://niran.org