Forking (was Ubuntu Under Attack)

[Scott]

Old Rocker wrote:
> Since I started this thread, a number of people have contacted me off 
> list and basically asked:
> 
> "Does it matter if Ubuntu/Kubuntu is a fork of Debian?" or "What do you 
> mean by a fork anyway?"

It doesn't matter to me.  Ubuntu's relationship to Debian is fine, just 
the way it is.

> 
> As most people have probably realised, it matters to me and I hope it 
> matters to the whole of our community.  The best explanation I have 
> been able to find is in the book "Rebel Code: Linux and the Open Source 
> Revolution" by Glyn Moody.  Although published first in 2001, the book 
> still stands up today.  Here is the quote:
> 
> "Large-scale forking is generally regarded as a kind of fratricidal 
> civil war, the worst thing that can happen to a hacker community and to 
> be avoided at all costs....

I don't see it being a "civil war".   To the best of my knowledge a 
bunch of dissatisfied Debian developers didn't become unhappy and start 
Ubuntu did they?

> 
> In terms of Linux distributions, there are various Debian based distros 
> "out there", and most of these provide a better installer that the 
> Debian installer or specialist software.  These are part of the 
> "rainbow" to which Moody refers and add to the total benefit of the 
> whole Debian Project community. 

Ever tried Installing Knoppix and then installing a package from one of 
the Debian repositories?  It can get tricky at times. Been there. Done that.

 > However, Ubuntu/Kubuntu has its own
> repositories and code base, which are close to Debian, but not 
> interchangeable with it.    Simply, you can't guarantee that Debian code
> will run with Ubuntu, its has to be code recompiled for Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is hardly the only Debian-based distro that has this "problem". 
The same applies to RPM based distros as well.

 >  This
> situation is similar to the way in which Gentoo sets up its binaries.  
> The difference is that Gentoo doesn't claim to be part of the Debian 
> community, whereas Ubuntu does.

I think Gentoo would be hard pressed to claim to be part of any 
"community".  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other distro 
using portage.

> 
> A fork duplicates effort (why should two set of people be developing 
> essentially the same software?) and holds back development (we should 
> be working together, not apart).

If Ubuntu "worked with" Debian as you desire, I might have to wait three 
years for the next stable release. No thanks. That's exactly why I chose 
Ubuntu. I has all the advantages of Debian, without most of the 
Disadvantages.   Why should Ubuntu modify it's operation at this point? 
They would be messing up a perfectly good thing.  That makes no sense.

BTW, isn't Fedora, SUSE, Mandriva, Slackware, Gentoo, YOPER, Arch, 
Vector, YellowDog, RedHat and countless others also duplicating efforts? 
They all produce Linux distributions with much of the same software as 
Debian too.

But they're there because the founders perceived a need (real or 
imagined) and so they are. With a few exceptions most distros have roots 
in either RedHat, Slackware or Debian.

Ubuntu happens to be one of those in the Debian camp.  So, what's the 
big deal?   If anything, Debian benefits from Ubuntu's contributions to 
the community and vice-versa.

Why people wish to make this into a big deal, that really isn't is 
beyond me.


 >  It may be my opinion (as one poster
> has said) that this situation is to be deprecated, but that opinion is 
> shared by many others in the open source community.

And they're all wasting time making much ado over nothing.
> 
> 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.  

Why worry? I don't care myself.  I sometimes wonder if Debian developers 
aren't just jealous that Ubuntu can produce something in 6 months, when 
it takes them three years to accomplish the same.   Maybe they feel 
slighted that the stable distribution of Ubuntu has current or 
reasonably current software, while their stable distro is old and tired.

> Far better if Ubuntu could use the software developed in the various 
> Debian repositories than going off on its own.

Take a look at the changelogs on any Ubuntu package. You'll find most of 
the notes in there are from people with email addresses ending in 
"@debian.org".   It seems to me Ubuntu uses most of Debian's software. 
They just improve upon it.

> I like Ubuntu/Kubuntu.  Mark Shuttleworth has put his money where his 
> mouth is, and produced for we users, a one-disk distribution that has 
> based its philosophy around the sharing of software.  However, it has 
> the seeds of becoming a fork and with it the possibility of dividing 
> the whole Debian community.  That is the threat I see, and I am giving 
> warning.
> 

You're hardly the first to give this warning, but again, I see it no 
more as a threat to Debian than OpenSUSE is a "threat" to Fedora or KDE 
is a "threat" to  GNOME.

If Debian can't cope with Ubuntu, it's nobody's fault but their own.

BTW, this discussion really belongs on sounder and not ubuntu-users




-- 
Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
© 2005 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved