3 ms·

Sure, I understood the logic behind that. And having a more tight release cycle will also intrinsically help Debian, since maintaining backports/patching a syst

Sure, I understood the logic behind that. And having a more tight release cycle will also intrinsically help Debian, since maintaining backports/patching a system for a longer time is also more demanding. My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. This means that it's actually more likely that you can find your $commercial package pre-built for Ubuntu, while there's no official support for Debian. Obsolete releases for commercial software are actually helpful (less support required). Not to mention that in most cases there's zero effort in making the package exactly the same....

opendais 12y ago
> My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. Yes, it tried to make Linux more "mainstream" and mostly succeeded. That is what happens when you have a ton of money you can throw at a problem. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted-revenue-in-2013-but-doubled-loss-to-21-million/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted... It is still losing double digit millions a year. Debian can't match that kind of loss. I don't think Debian even has $20 million in a year in terms of donations? {not counting labor)