Ubuntu Linux, Free and free, actually free'er than free

[Calum]

i agree with the implications behind those three questions. after trying to install debian again recently and having far too many configuration issues once it was up, i can say that with ubuntu the install process was painless, and despite my highly vigorous apt repository changes and upgrades and things, the computer has stayed remarkably unbroken. I would say ubuntu is what debian has never got round to being.

Perhaps the ubuntu people didn't believe their work would have such successful results if they just offered it into the normal debian releases, and perhaps they were right to do their own distribution. I don't agree that ubuntu is a "fork" of debian though, it's as much of one as mandrake was a fork of red hat. Surely it's just another distro trying to make an easy to use package for new users.

[Void Main]

Actually Mandrake *was* a fork of Red Hat. That is, it started with Red Hat as a base and broke off and did their own thing not depending on Red Hat from that point on. Ubuntu is not a fork of Debian though because it continues to base each release off of Debian. It's just a customized version of Debian complete with an installer, trademarked logos/artwork, and custom default settings. It's not unlike Red Hat except Red Hat does not base their distro off of another distro, they start from scratch and even wrote their own package management system that many others use today for better or for worse.

[Ice9]

Calum wrote:

I don't agree that ubuntu is a "fork" of debian though

Now this is fully debatable
What would you call it when a group of people take an existing codebase, write some snippets of code and some config tools on top of it and sync their codebase with debian's codebase every 6 months?

Serioulsly now, call it a fork, call it derivative work or give it another name, ubuntu is based off debian and that's what I was implying, nothing more, nothing less ...


Edit: Void Main posted while I was writing the reply, but I see his point.

[Void Main]

Actually as I said, the distribution itself isn't a fork but it is certainly derived from Debian as is each new release derived from the the latest Debian base. I looked back on the first page to see where "fork" was actually used previously and you actually mentioned the "project" (ubuntu, kubuntu, edubutu, etc) being forked, not the distribution and that might in fact be an accurate term for the projects themselves, not sure.

[Calum]

well, i have to agree with what you said in reply to me above, but i can't see anything wrong with ubuntu releasing their own distro, which is based on each debian release. In a way, it's comparable to buying a car that's already painted the right colour, instead of having to paint it yourself once you get it home.

[Void Main]

I don't believe anyone said there was anything wrong with it. In fact it's one of the great things about open source projects, you have the right to do this. I think where some of the heartburn comes in is that many Ubunutu n00bs don't seem to understand where the the heavy work was done, in Debian. It's all hail Ubuntu and no credit for Debian. It's not all that big of a deal but that's the way it is.

[worker201]

I think where some of the heartburn comes in is that many Ubunutu n00bs don't seem to understand where the the heavy work was done, in Debian. It's all hail Ubuntu and no credit for Debian. It's not all that big of a deal but that's the way it is.

I think Debian has earned their credibility. They may not get the acknowlegement from the mainstream public, but the core of the Linux community understands what they have done, and appreciates it. And those guys probably consider "l33t" respect more important than "n00b" respect.