3 ms·

Defining a good release strategy for everybody is difficult I suppose. You can't make everybody happy, because the intersection of interests from Server/Desktop

by Bjoern 18y ago

Defining a good release strategy for everybody is difficult I suppose. You can't make everybody happy, because the intersection of interests from Server/Desktop people is just different I think. Of course Debian's rather slow release strategy is not so great either, which if I understand correctly was one of the factors why Ubuntu could grow in the first place? The GPL issues, e.g. firefox->iceweasel naming issue etc. are really nitpicking I concurr, but that happens when you have your own constitution :). You can base a business on Ubuntu? I actually don't know, it would be very interesting to hear advice from somebody who really knows Ubuntu and Debian very well. I mean have extensive Debian experience but Ubuntu rather little. Could you give me some advice on that? I mean I have been working with Debian since forever and I know my way around. What do you e.g. mean with "doesn't break most of the time"? I haven't encountered anything even when using experimental which gives me too much headache. At least when I switch from apt-get'ing to aptitude for some rather weird dependency issues. Than on the other hand your argument is that I want to base my business on that. If I really want to do that, why would I pick so new software anyway? (I read bugtraq, fd etc. that is a bad idea as far as I understand.) That screams for a xen/vserver based solution where I run my host system in a stable (very stable) environment and control my unsecure systems via virtualization. Or is that a bad idea? Anyway, thanks for your insights.

davidw 18y ago
Debian is not just slow, but slow and irregular with their releases. There's nothing that says "about every 2 years" or "let's try for once every 18 months" or something like that. It happens when it happens. That can be kind of maddening. With Ubuntu you have the choice to either grab on to the every-six-months version, or use the long term support version. The "just use unstable/experimental" thing is fine if you have no memory of really big transitions... libc5 -> glibc6, for instance, caused a lot of breakage. There are no guarantees that that kind of thing won't happen again. Using unstable is fine if you're a hacker and don't mind helping out when something goes awry - I'm glad people do that, and did it myself at one time. But if you're not in a position to drop what you're doing to go chase down some obscure bug in a package, then perhaps unstable should be approached with caution. Ubuntu and Debian really aren't that different - file layouts, tools... pretty much everything is the same. Which is good... it makes Ubuntu Debian + money for usability improvements + a more unified vision + a regular release schedule. Oh, another thing I like with Ubuntu is that I can run exactly the same code on my laptop and server, which has proved to be quite convenient more than once. Debian is fantastic though... if Ubuntu ever falters, I will go back without a second thought. They get a ton of things right and do great work.

by Bjoern 18y ago

davidw 18y ago

Debian is not just slow, but slow and irregular with their releases. There's nothing that says "about every 2 years" or "let's try for once every 18 months" or something like that. It happens when it happens. That can be kind of maddening. With Ubuntu you have the choice to either grab on to the every-six-months version, or use the long term support version. The "just use unstable/experimental" thing is fine if you have no memory of really big transitions... libc5 -> glibc6, for instance, caused a lot of breakage. There are no guarantees that that kind of thing won't happen again. Using unstable is fine if you're a hacker and don't mind helping out when something goes awry - I'm glad people do that, and did it myself at one time. But if you're not in a position to drop what you're doing to go chase down some obscure bug in a package, then perhaps unstable should be approached with caution. Ubuntu and Debian really aren't that different - file layouts, tools... pretty much everything is the same. Which is good... it makes Ubuntu Debian + money for usability improvements + a more unified vision + a regular release schedule. Oh, another thing I like with Ubuntu is that I can run exactly the same code on my laptop and server, which has proved to be quite convenient more than once. Debian is fantastic though... if Ubuntu ever falters, I will go back without a second thought. They get a ton of things right and do great work.