29 ms·

I live in a region with a lot of government contracting businesses, so Red Hat Enterprise Linux is something I have to maintain a working familiarity with. How

I live in a region with a lot of government contracting businesses, so Red Hat Enterprise Linux is something I have to maintain a working familiarity with. However, I use Debian for all of my personal projects and infrastructure. The reason? There's no for-profit corporate interest directly controlling the project. The project's organizational structure resembles a constitutional democracy: https://www.debian.org/intro/organization https://www.debian.org/intro/organization There is an incorporated entity in the United States to handle a number of intellectual property and financial concerns: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/ https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/ However, it exists as a non-profit with a very narrowly defined, specific set of purposes: https://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/certificate-of-incorporation/ https://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/certificate-of-incorporati... Because of this, I feel like the Debian project has a good combination of people and resources, making it easy to rely on long-term, but without the for-profit corporate interests that may conflict with my own in the future.

fragmede 4y ago
Comes full circle as Ubuntu is derived from Debian
- nine_k 4y ago
  As somebody said, "Ubuntu is Debian-based the same way milk is grass-based".
  - fragmede 4y ago
    What a smarmy thing for that somebody to have said! They use the same package manager and many of the Ubuntu devs were originally Debian devs.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      The same package manager, but different enough packages, PPAs, etc, and a different release process. Many different technical decisuons. A very different project governance. I'm not implying that these things are bad! But different enough they undeniably are. The fact that I can install .deb packages on my box using a port of apt does not make it Debian. (Saying this as a dedicated Debian user since 1998 and until the switch to systemd.)
      - fragmede 4y ago
        I realize the above comment took more effort than parroting someone else's 9-word statement. Thanks for putting the effort to expounding on the differences between milk and grass.
  - a-dub 4y ago
    ubuntu started out as "debian, but with more up to date packages and some light polish." as a long time debian user in the 90s, ubuntu was an exciting new step for debian based distros.
loxias 4y ago
I've used exclusively Debian on all my servers and laptops for the last 20ish years. Can confirm, it will continue to keep working, however there might be some things that piss one off in a similar manner as Ubuntu's snaps. I hate systemd for example, but grudgingly accept it.
- bleuuuu 4y ago
  why the aversion to systemd?
  - janmarsal 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - loxias 4y ago
    I don't like the design at a fundamental level. It feels brittle, bloated, and not very unixy. I'd rather have my init system be a handful of microscopic executables, using text files or symlinks for configuration and text files for logging. I don't like everything depending on systemd it feels like too much complexity at the wrong part of the stack. It doesn't jive with my sense of architecture, it's not well designed software.
    - hyperpl 4y ago
      Do you think we'll get lucky with a systemd replacement similar to how pulseaudio has been deprecated by a much more reasonable implementation Pipewire?
      - amluto 4y ago
        In my copious free time, I have a vague idea of designing and implementing a mechanism called kpid1. Basically, a task running as pid 1 (including in a container) could call a new kpid1() syscall, which would cause the kernel to completely take it over. The kernel would take care of all the usual init work, and it would expose the minimal API (presumably using a new kind of fd) to allow a different task to give it instructions and manage zombies as needed. And that’s it. It’s worth noting that the entire concept of pid 1 is very unixy, but not in a good way. Reasonable modern designs (e.g. all the Windows variants) don’t have any real equivalent.
ungawatkt 4y ago
Yeah, I just set up a new personal server, and after experimenting with Linux Mint a bit, decided that mint wanted to be a desktop with a gui more than a server (which is totally fine!) and ended up at Debian, after years of defaulting to Ubuntu. Debian feels more or less the same once I gave myself the option of installing unstable packages (which I probably wouldn't do for a professional server, but seems fine for a personal one).
every 4y ago
The Gray Lady of distros...
thomastjeffery 4y ago
Ubuntu exists because Debian stable releases were inconveniently outdated, and Debian unstable was occasionally broken. Ubuntu also explicitly compromised "software freedom" in favor of utility, particularly by making non-free video and wifi drivers easy to install; in contradiction to Debian's pro-copyleft design. This situation has not changed. I suspect OP is considering a change from Ubuntu because Ubuntu itself has diverged so far from its original identity as a reasonably stable Debian-unstable fork. It was several years ago that I abandoned Ubuntu in favor of Archlinux for that very reason. These days, I'm almost exclusively using NixOS, but can't recommend it to impatient or non-technical users. NixOS is incredibly stable, very fresh/up-to-date, and incredibly chaotic to use. Someday, I expect, there will exist something of a "distribution" of NixOS that - much like Ubuntu did circa 2008 - caters to the average user. I hope that day comes soon.
- asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y ago
  slightly wrong. Ubuntu succeed in part because of what you mention, plus lots of marketing money. debian have caught up now. and most people seriously wanting up to date is over at gentoo or arch. But back to the "ubuntu exists" premise you started, it is because a rich guy wanted to take over debian and sell an enterprise solution based on it. remember at the time enterprise was all the rave. google was pushing their enterprise suite, and there was ton of startups (zoho, etc) it was a crowded space then and red hat, suze were completely fumbling with their linuxes.
  - stubish 4y ago
    Marketing money? For about the first decade I think the only marketing was shipping CDs for free to anyone who wanted them. A billboard or two might have been rented over the decades in highly targeted circumstances. There is approximately zero marketing.
    - asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y ago
      you think free CDs worldwide is cheap?! they paid for "CD vending machines" at several locations where you could get free cds... that is more expensive than a billboard and practically buys you a spot on specialized magazines. They were going those marketing campaigns all over the place.
awill 4y ago
I don't know about claiming Debian is free from corporate interest. As a packager, sure. And for its own stuff like APT, yes. But that's just a fraction of the overall Debian codebase. Debian ultimately follows the OSS community for most stuff, and the 'community' is often corporation backed. Just look at systemd. A lot of distros didn't want it, but ultimately were stuck between maintaining masses of stuff themselves, or accepting Red Hat to maintain it for them. There are many other examples.

fragmede 4y ago

Comes full circle as Ubuntu is derived from Debian

nine_k 4y ago
As somebody said, "Ubuntu is Debian-based the same way milk is grass-based".
- fragmede 4y ago
  What a smarmy thing for that somebody to have said! They use the same package manager and many of the Ubuntu devs were originally Debian devs.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    The same package manager, but different enough packages, PPAs, etc, and a different release process. Many different technical decisuons. A very different project governance. I'm not implying that these things are bad! But different enough they undeniably are. The fact that I can install .deb packages on my box using a port of apt does not make it Debian. (Saying this as a dedicated Debian user since 1998 and until the switch to systemd.)
    - fragmede 4y ago
      I realize the above comment took more effort than parroting someone else's 9-word statement. Thanks for putting the effort to expounding on the differences between milk and grass.
- a-dub 4y ago
  ubuntu started out as "debian, but with more up to date packages and some light polish." as a long time debian user in the 90s, ubuntu was an exciting new step for debian based distros.

loxias 4y ago

I've used exclusively Debian on all my servers and laptops for the last 20ish years. Can confirm, it will continue to keep working, however there might be some things that piss one off in a similar manner as Ubuntu's snaps. I hate systemd for example, but grudgingly accept it.

bleuuuu 4y ago
why the aversion to systemd?
- janmarsal 4y ago
  [flagged]
- loxias 4y ago
  I don't like the design at a fundamental level. It feels brittle, bloated, and not very unixy. I'd rather have my init system be a handful of microscopic executables, using text files or symlinks for configuration and text files for logging. I don't like everything depending on systemd it feels like too much complexity at the wrong part of the stack. It doesn't jive with my sense of architecture, it's not well designed software.
  - hyperpl 4y ago
    Do you think we'll get lucky with a systemd replacement similar to how pulseaudio has been deprecated by a much more reasonable implementation Pipewire?
    - amluto 4y ago
      In my copious free time, I have a vague idea of designing and implementing a mechanism called kpid1. Basically, a task running as pid 1 (including in a container) could call a new kpid1() syscall, which would cause the kernel to completely take it over. The kernel would take care of all the usual init work, and it would expose the minimal API (presumably using a new kind of fd) to allow a different task to give it instructions and manage zombies as needed. And that’s it. It’s worth noting that the entire concept of pid 1 is very unixy, but not in a good way. Reasonable modern designs (e.g. all the Windows variants) don’t have any real equivalent.

ungawatkt 4y ago

Yeah, I just set up a new personal server, and after experimenting with Linux Mint a bit, decided that mint wanted to be a desktop with a gui more than a server (which is totally fine!) and ended up at Debian, after years of defaulting to Ubuntu. Debian feels more or less the same once I gave myself the option of installing unstable packages (which I probably wouldn't do for a professional server, but seems fine for a personal one).

every 4y ago

The Gray Lady of distros...

thomastjeffery 4y ago

Ubuntu exists because Debian stable releases were inconveniently outdated, and Debian unstable was occasionally broken. Ubuntu also explicitly compromised "software freedom" in favor of utility, particularly by making non-free video and wifi drivers easy to install; in contradiction to Debian's pro-copyleft design. This situation has not changed. I suspect OP is considering a change from Ubuntu because Ubuntu itself has diverged so far from its original identity as a reasonably stable Debian-unstable fork. It was several years ago that I abandoned Ubuntu in favor of Archlinux for that very reason. These days, I'm almost exclusively using NixOS, but can't recommend it to impatient or non-technical users. NixOS is incredibly stable, very fresh/up-to-date, and incredibly chaotic to use. Someday, I expect, there will exist something of a "distribution" of NixOS that - much like Ubuntu did circa 2008 - caters to the average user. I hope that day comes soon.

asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y ago
slightly wrong. Ubuntu succeed in part because of what you mention, plus lots of marketing money. debian have caught up now. and most people seriously wanting up to date is over at gentoo or arch. But back to the "ubuntu exists" premise you started, it is because a rich guy wanted to take over debian and sell an enterprise solution based on it. remember at the time enterprise was all the rave. google was pushing their enterprise suite, and there was ton of startups (zoho, etc) it was a crowded space then and red hat, suze were completely fumbling with their linuxes.
- stubish 4y ago
  Marketing money? For about the first decade I think the only marketing was shipping CDs for free to anyone who wanted them. A billboard or two might have been rented over the decades in highly targeted circumstances. There is approximately zero marketing.
  - asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y ago
    you think free CDs worldwide is cheap?! they paid for "CD vending machines" at several locations where you could get free cds... that is more expensive than a billboard and practically buys you a spot on specialized magazines. They were going those marketing campaigns all over the place.

awill 4y ago

I don't know about claiming Debian is free from corporate interest. As a packager, sure. And for its own stuff like APT, yes. But that's just a fraction of the overall Debian codebase. Debian ultimately follows the OSS community for most stuff, and the 'community' is often corporation backed. Just look at systemd. A lot of distros didn't want it, but ultimately were stuck between maintaining masses of stuff themselves, or accepting Red Hat to maintain it for them. There are many other examples.