On 6/11/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> > Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.
>
> More true in theory than in practice.  There was a lot more noise
> about the fear that Ubuntu would be a fork back in 2005 when Debian
> users were getting tired of waiting for Sarge and Ubuntu started to
> appear on the horizon.
>
> But the truth is, at least, more nuanced. And even guys like Ian
> Murdoch pointed that out at the time:
>
> http://ianmurdock.com/?p=167
>
> And for a view from the Ubuntu "camp" at that time:
> http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html
>
> Ubuntu takes packages from sid, stabilizes them before debian, but
> feeds whatever changes they make back to the sid stream.
>
> So it provides a stream of debian derived releases but instead of
> using the traditional Debian model of "we'll ship the next stable
> version when it's ready," Ubuntu has a time-box ship model.  Ubuntu
> makes the final decision on what's going to actually make the next
> release based on which packages have achieved stability in time to
> make it, instead of waiting until all of the packages which were
> picked at the time the release was started get there. One way of
> looking at this is that Debian has a more waterfall release cycle
> while Ubuntu is managed using more of the agile project management
> approach.  Back when Ubuntu "Badger" was in the throes of being
> released, Debian Woody was several years old, and Sarge looked to be
> slipping almost faster than the release date was approaching,
> something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.
>
> The tension is/was? between the needs of server administrators who
> favor a stable platform with security maintainence, and developers who
> want more recent versions of the upstream code.  Back then Ubuntu was
> better for the latter.  Then they introduced 'long term support'
> releases which are specific Ubuntu releases which will have committed
> support for five years (or there abouts).  This helps the server
> users, since the downside of Debian's support policy is that they only
> provided maintenance for an older stable release for a limited time
> after a new stable release becomes available.  The net is that Ubuntu
> provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
> and more predictable support of older releases for those who need
> stability.
>
> > It has less in common with Debian itself than
> > PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have less
> > in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.
>
> I don't know enough about those distributions to make the comparison,
> but from my experience, Ubuntu doesn't feel like a fork.  Even if
> Debian doesn't take ALL of ubuntu's packages as time goes on, I
> predict that the bulk of the code will remain compatible.
>
> That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
> versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
> because of Ubuntu but because of Debian.  In the case of Ruby one
> major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
> recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
> Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
> Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.
>
> --
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>
>

Last time I looked at it there was some weird philosophy for not
having gems support in apt.  If I remember correctly it was because
gem uses a folder per package type deal and that goes against the
grain of apt.  I can't find where I read this, so you'd need to do
lots of googling to find it.

-- 
-fREW