Discussion:
[Media] Jesse pans Ub 12.10
(too old to reply)
Mike Easter
2012-10-29 12:19:45 UTC
Permalink
DistroWatch Feature Story by Jesse Smith

// After a day and a half of using Ubuntu 12.10 it was an internal
struggle not to wipe my hard drive and just find another distribution to
review. During the first twenty-four hours Ubuntu spied on me, provided
performance which was distinctly sub par, the interface regularly popped
up errors (sometimes so frequently the first pop-up wouldn't have faded
out of view before the next one appeared), the update notification
didn't work and it wasn't possible to turn off accessibility features
through the graphical interface. Adding insult to injury, the Unity dash
kept locking up or losing focus while I was trying to use it and the
operating system crashed more times than not while trying to shutdown or
logout. //

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20121029#feature


DW hpd hitsperday last 7 days relects continued weakness of Ub compared
to the recent interest in the new releases of Puppy and Lite, and also
the continue hits on Mageia and Mint which are also seen in longer
tallies of 6, 3, and 1 month.

1 Mint 3773
2 Mageia 2742
3 Ubuntu 2383
4 Puppy 1905
5 Lite 1664

To Ub's credit 4/5 of those are based on Ub.
--
Mike Easter
Cybe R. Wizard
2012-10-29 14:08:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:19:45 -0700
Post by Mike Easter
To Ub's credit 4/5 of those are based on Ub.
Debian. They are based upon Debian. So is Ubuntu.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
T I M is a voluble asshat of the community.
Cybe R. Wizard
Mike Easter
2012-10-29 16:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Mike Easter
Post by Mike Easter
To Ub's credit 4/5 of those are based on Ub.
Debian. They are based upon Debian. So is Ubuntu.
To me, what is (more) important than history is whose repos the distro uses.

Ub uses ub repos. Mint uses ub repos. Lite uses ub repos. Puppy 5.4
and predecessors use the ub repos. Not Deb -- (notwithstanding .deb
packaging).

In my experience, Mint Debian based on Deb is significantly different
from Mint based on Ub, each having its advantages and disadvantages.

I understand Ub being historically based on Deb, but at this point it is
more of a forked derivative than the type of relationship Mint and Lite
and Puppy 5.4 (still) have with Ub. They are 'closer' to Ub than Ub is
close to Deb.
--
Mike Easter
Soupe
2012-10-29 17:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
I understand Ub being historically based on Deb, but at this point it is
more of a forked derivative than the type of relationship Mint and Lite
and Puppy 5.4 (still) have with Ub. They are 'closer' to Ub than Ub is
close to Deb.
Ubuntu still relies on Debian IIRC. They're still pulling from Debian
testing or unstable, not going directly to upstream.

Has this changed recently?
Mike Easter
2012-10-29 17:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Mike Easter
Post by Mike Easter
I understand Ub being historically based on Deb, but at this point it is
more of a forked derivative than the type of relationship Mint and Lite
and Puppy 5.4 (still) have with Ub. They are 'closer' to Ub than Ub is
close to Deb.
Ubuntu still relies on Debian IIRC. They're still pulling from Debian
testing or unstable, not going directly to upstream.
Has this changed recently?
How Ub creates its (own, version specific) repositories is surely based
on (Debian) .deb/s; but the 'normal'/default Ub user isn't using any of
Debian's repos, just Ub repos.

To me, whose repo/s tells the tale about how closely a particular distro
is 'kin' to its heritage.

There are Puppy versions which aren't based on Ub at all like the
current 5.4 and its predecessors are.
--
Mike Easter
Soupe
2012-10-30 13:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by Mike Easter
Mike Easter
Post by Mike Easter
I understand Ub being historically based on Deb, but at this point it is
more of a forked derivative than the type of relationship Mint and Lite
and Puppy 5.4 (still) have with Ub. They are 'closer' to Ub than Ub is
close to Deb.
Ubuntu still relies on Debian IIRC. They're still pulling from Debian
testing or unstable, not going directly to upstream.
Has this changed recently?
How Ub creates its (own, version specific) repositories is surely based
on (Debian) .deb/s; but the 'normal'/default Ub user isn't using any of
Debian's repos, just Ub repos.
To me, whose repo/s tells the tale about how closely a particular distro
is 'kin' to its heritage.
I could setup my own repos that mirror Debian's and call my distro
Soupix. They'd be my repos, right? I'd rename all the packages to add
-soupix- to the names.

What really counts IMO is at what point source tarballs are turned
into distro-specific packages. With Ubuntu, that happens at Debian.
Canonical then takes Debian packages (source or binary I believe), and
tailors them to an Ubuntu release.

I haven't been paying that much attention recently to this, so this
could have changed. I don't remember seeing any announcements that
Canonical was going directly upstream and bypassing Debian testing
though.

I guess the acid test is - if Debian went away tomorrow, could Ubuntu
proceed without change? If not, then Ubuntu is based on Debian, rather
than a fork of Debian. AFAIK, Ubuntu would be in big trouble if Debian
went away.
Cybe R. Wizard
2012-10-30 17:15:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:28:48 -0400
Post by Soupe
What really counts IMO is at what point source tarballs are turned
into distro-specific packages. With Ubuntu, that happens at Debian.
Canonical then takes Debian packages (source or binary I believe), and
tailors them to an Ubuntu release.
Just so. ...at least as I understand it.
Post by Soupe
I haven't been paying that much attention recently to this, so this
could have changed. I don't remember seeing any announcements that
Canonical was going directly upstream and bypassing Debian testing
though.
I, too, have been lately in the dark on Ubu changes, but can't remember
any substantial changes vis-a-vis packaging.
Post by Soupe
I guess the acid test is - if Debian went away tomorrow, could Ubuntu
proceed without change? If not, then Ubuntu is based on Debian, rather
than a fork of Debian. AFAIK, Ubuntu would be in big trouble if Debian
went away.
...and that says it all. Debian-based, all of 'em that are 'called'
Ubu-based are.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
T I M is a voluble asshat of the community.
Cybe R. Wizard
mechanic
2012-10-30 22:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cybe R. Wizard
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:28:48 -0400
Post by Soupe
What really counts IMO is at what point source tarballs are
turned into distro-specific packages. With Ubuntu, that happens
at Debian. Canonical then takes Debian packages (source or
binary I believe), and tailors them to an Ubuntu release.
Just so. ...at least as I understand it.
Post by Soupe
I haven't been paying that much attention recently to this, so
this could have changed. I don't remember seeing any
announcements that Canonical was going directly upstream and
bypassing Debian testing though.
I, too, have been lately in the dark on Ubu changes, but can't
remember any substantial changes vis-a-vis packaging.
Post by Soupe
I guess the acid test is - if Debian went away tomorrow, could
Ubuntu proceed without change? If not, then Ubuntu is based on
Debian, rather than a fork of Debian. AFAIK, Ubuntu would be in
big trouble if Debian went away.
...and that says it all. Debian-based, all of 'em that are
'called' Ubu-based are.
Not really got the hang of this open source stuff, have you?
Mike Easter
2012-10-30 18:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Mike Easter
Post by Mike Easter
Post by Mike Easter
Mike Easter
Post by Mike Easter
I understand Ub being historically based on Deb, but at this point it is
more of a forked derivative
Ubuntu still relies on Debian IIRC. They're still pulling from Debian
testing or unstable, not going directly to upstream.
Has this changed recently?
How Ub creates its (own, version specific) repositories is surely based
on (Debian) .deb/s; but the 'normal'/default Ub user isn't using any of
Debian's repos, just Ub repos.
To me, whose repo/s tells the tale about how closely a particular distro
is 'kin' to its heritage.
I could setup my own repos that mirror Debian's and call my distro
Soupix. They'd be my repos, right? I'd rename all the packages to add
-soupix- to the names.
I think there is more recompiling than simple renaming.
Post by Mike Easter
What really counts IMO is at what point source tarballs are turned
into distro-specific packages. With Ubuntu, that happens at Debian.
I don't understand exactly what you are saying there about how an Ub
package is made out of a Deb/deb. I believe it is recompiled not
usually simply renamed.
Post by Mike Easter
Canonical then takes Debian packages (source or binary I believe), and
tailors them to an Ubuntu release.
... where 'tailors' means more than renaming.
Post by Mike Easter
I haven't been paying that much attention recently to this, so this
could have changed. I don't remember seeing any announcements that
Canonical was going directly upstream and bypassing Debian testing
though.
We agree that Ub is starting with Deb stuff, not building the vast
majority but only some Ub specific stuff from scratch, such as Unity.
Post by Mike Easter
I guess the acid test is - if Debian went away tomorrow, could Ubuntu
proceed without change? If not, then Ubuntu is based on Debian, rather
than a fork of Debian. AFAIK, Ubuntu would be in big trouble if Debian
went away.
Certainly Ub depends on Deb, so it isn't the kind of 'fork' that doesn't
continue to reach back to its roots for its continued development. I
think I would call the fork process to be ongoing rather than past
history of forking.

The wikipedia's article addresses the subject with reference links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)#History_and_development_process
Ubuntu is a fork of the Debian project's codebase. ... Ubuntu packages
are based on packages from Debian's unstable branch ... Debian and
Ubuntu packages are not necessarily binary compatible with each other,
however, and sometimes .deb packages may need to be rebuilt from source
to be used in Ubuntu. ... Ian Murdock, the founder of Debian, has
expressed concern about Ubuntu packages potentially diverging too far
from Debian to remain compatible.

Shuttleworth answers: Why was Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary Hedgehog) not "binary
compatible" with Debian Sarge?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth#Why_was_Ubuntu_5.04_.28Hoary_Hedgehog.29_not_.22binary_compatible.22_with_Debian_Sarge.3F


Murdock: Whether the Ubuntu folks realize it or not, they need Debian
(for the record, I do think the developers realize this). Without
Debian, they wouldn’t have to the time to focus on all the polishing
work they’re doing now. I read somewhere (here ’tis) that it would cost
over a billion dollars to do something like this from scratch. I don’t
care how deep your pockets are, that’s a lot of money.
http://ianmurdock.com/debian/ubuntu-vs-debian-reprise/
--
Mike Easter
T i m
2012-10-30 19:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
http://ianmurdock.com/debian/ubuntu-vs-debian-reprise/
Hmmm, skimming though that seems to read very much like much of what mike
(and others) have been saying:

" A pile of packages can change over time with respect to compatibility,
particularly if compatibility isn’t a foremost priority. Look at Red Hat
and the various distros Red Hat spawned and see how compatible they are
today–after all, you can still say today that Red Hat, Mandrake^HMandriva,
and Turbolinux have a common lineage. We in the Debian world have to
avoid this same fate. I’m in the middle of an effort to clean up the RPM
mess now, so I’m acutely aware of where this road leads.

To avoid this same fate, we must ensure that the various Debian-derived
distros are based on compatible packages, not just a set of packages that
have a common lineage. A package built on Progeny should work on Linspire;
a package built on Linspire should work on Ubuntu; a package built on
Ubuntu should work on Progeny. You get the basic idea. "

So, Canonical have raised the profile of Linux with Ubuntu (and then all
it's spin-offs), (then lowered it again with Unity (but that's another
story)) but it's still not big or unified enough to carry the Linux
message to the masses.

Again, still not taking anything away from the nerds and DLU / purists.

Cheers, T i m
Dirk T. Verbeek
2012-10-29 16:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
DistroWatch Feature Story by Jesse Smith
// After a day and a half of using Ubuntu 12.10 it was an internal
struggle not to wipe my hard drive and just find another distribution to
review. During the first twenty-four hours Ubuntu spied on me, provided
performance which was distinctly sub par, the interface regularly popped
up errors (sometimes so frequently the first pop-up wouldn't have faded
out of view before the next one appeared), the update notification
didn't work and it wasn't possible to turn off accessibility features
through the graphical interface. Adding insult to injury, the Unity dash
kept locking up or losing focus while I was trying to use it and the
operating system crashed more times than not while trying to shutdown or
logout. //
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20121029#feature
DW hpd hitsperday last 7 days relects continued weakness of Ub compared
to the recent interest in the new releases of Puppy and Lite, and also
the continue hits on Mageia and Mint which are also seen in longer
tallies of 6, 3, and 1 month.
1 Mint 3773
2 Mageia 2742
3 Ubuntu 2383
4 Puppy 1905
5 Lite 1664
To Ub's credit 4/5 of those are based on Ub.
Weird, I'm since the Alpha's using 12.10 and have not seen any serious
problems.
But then I run the Kubuntu version.

The only recent broken application has been an instance of Virtual Box
with WinXP, after a fresh install it's again working fine.
Because the same (loss of the mouse) also happened on the 12.04 install
I assume it was a VB problem, not Ubuntu's.
andrew
2012-10-29 22:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
DistroWatch Feature Story by Jesse Smith
// After a day and a half of using Ubuntu 12.10 it was an internal
struggle not to wipe my hard drive and just find another distribution to
review. During the first twenty-four hours Ubuntu spied on me, provided
performance which was distinctly sub par, the interface regularly popped
up errors (sometimes so frequently the first pop-up wouldn't have faded
out of view before the next one appeared), the update notification
didn't work and it wasn't possible to turn off accessibility features
through the graphical interface. Adding insult to injury, the Unity dash
kept locking up or losing focus while I was trying to use it and the
operating system crashed more times than not while trying to shutdown or
logout. //
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20121029#feature
I have been with Ubuntu since 2006 and I have only very recently
removed my full installations of Ubuntu, deleted my last VMs and
departed from the Ubuntu Forums. The Ubuntu that I enjoyed for so many
years seems long gone...

Andrew
--
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
2012-10-30 08:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by andrew
Post by Mike Easter
DistroWatch Feature Story by Jesse Smith
// After a day and a half of using Ubuntu 12.10 it was an internal
struggle not to wipe my hard drive and just find another distribution to
review. During the first twenty-four hours Ubuntu spied on me, provided
performance which was distinctly sub par, the interface regularly popped
up errors (sometimes so frequently the first pop-up wouldn't have faded
out of view before the next one appeared), the update notification
didn't work and it wasn't possible to turn off accessibility features
through the graphical interface. Adding insult to injury, the Unity dash
kept locking up or losing focus while I was trying to use it and the
operating system crashed more times than not while trying to shutdown or
logout. //
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20121029#feature
I have been with Ubuntu since 2006 and I have only very recently
removed my full installations of Ubuntu, deleted my last VMs and
departed from the Ubuntu Forums. The Ubuntu that I enjoyed for so many
years seems long gone...
Andrew
--
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
Do you think these are intelligent developers you have been dealing
with?
Soupe
2012-10-30 14:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by andrew
I have been with Ubuntu since 2006 and I have only very recently
removed my full installations of Ubuntu, deleted my last VMs and
departed from the Ubuntu Forums. The Ubuntu that I enjoyed for so many
years seems long gone...
You might have found it easier to switch to XFCE or LXDE instead of
switching to another distro.

I moved away from Gnome on Ubuntu a long time ago. So, from my
perspective, Ubuntu hasn't changed at all. I still have LXDE, XFCE,
Windowmaker, Blackbox, and even KDE if I want it.

There is or was even a ppa to put cinnamon on Ubuntu (MATE too?), but
I don't like cinnamon.
andrew
2012-10-31 02:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soupe
You might have found it easier to switch to XFCE or LXDE instead of
switching to another distro.
More than happy with Slackware and Fluxbox :)

Andrew
--
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
Mirko K.
2012-10-31 08:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soupe
Post by andrew
I have been with Ubuntu since 2006 and I have only very recently
removed my full installations of Ubuntu, deleted my last VMs and
departed from the Ubuntu Forums. The Ubuntu that I enjoyed for so many
years seems long gone...
You might have found it easier to switch to XFCE or LXDE instead of
switching to another distro.
I moved away from Gnome on Ubuntu a long time ago. So, from my
perspective, Ubuntu hasn't changed at all. I still have LXDE, XFCE,
Windowmaker, Blackbox, and even KDE if I want it.
There is or was even a ppa to put cinnamon on Ubuntu (MATE too?), but
I don't like cinnamon.
There are PPAs for both:

<http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/download>

<https://launchpad.net/~gwendal-lebihan-dev/+archive/cinnamon-stable>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...