A tale of two distributions [LWN.net]

If the net seems slow over the next week or so, it may well be due to the near-simultaneous releases from two major distributions. The long-awaited release of Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (also known as "sarge") was announced on June 6. As it happens, Fedora Core 4 was due on the same day, but has been pushed back one week to June 13. This delay was not due to any particular technical problems; instead, it seems, the lawyers were a little slow to sign off on the code name for this release.

A comparison of a few key packages in these two distributions can be instructive:

Package Debian 3.1 Fedora Core 4

Kernel 2.4.27
2.6.8 2.6.11

GNOME 2.8 2.10

KDE 3.3 3.4

X XFree86 4.3.0 Xorg 6.8.2

gcc 3.3.5 4.0

postgresql 7.4.7 8.0.2

MySQL 4.0.24/4.1.11a 4.1.11

These numbers will come as little surprise to most; it is in the nature of Debian releases to be slow in coming and mildly obsolete when they arrive, while Fedora releases run closer to the bleeding edge. The two distributions have different goals: Debian seeks to produce a highly stable distribution for its users; Fedora, instead, is a rapidly updated distribution providing current software to users and a real-world test bed for Red Hat.

The table listed above is not entirely fair; many packages in Debian sarge (including important ones, like Firefox) are at or near their current versions. Then, there is this table, which provides a different view:

Package Debian 3.1 Fedora Core 4

xine-ui 0.99.3 --

monotone 0.18 --

gforge 3.1 --

shorewall 2.2.3 --

GNUStep 3 --

xfce 4.0.5 --

This table could be made much longer, but the point should be clear: few distributions can offer the sheer variety of packages found in Debian. In all fairness, one should note that the Fedora Extras repository fills in some of the gaps on the Fedora side. Fedora Extras works reasonably well, but it remains a "second class citizen" repository without any commitment to future updates or security support. Debian also supports a much wider range of architectures than Fedora.

As these milestones are reached, both distributions are considering where they want to go in the future. On the Debian side, there is a general desire to improve the release process so that the next major release ("etch") comes a little more quickly. There is some planning happening for a painful gcc upgrade and a PostgreSQL transition, among other things. There is a continual low-level rumble on how Debian and derivatives (Ubuntu in particular) should work with each other. The "how many architectures should Debian support?" question still lacks a definitive answer. It also seems, however, that the Debian developers are taking a well-deserved break and deferring much of the "what now?" discussion until Debconf5, happening in mid-July. (As luck would have it, the conference has offered to fly LWN Distributions Page editor Rebecca Sobol to the event, so LWN will have coverage from Debconf5).

On the Fedora side, a deliberate effort was made to start a discussion on what should be in Fedora Core 5. A few goals were suggested: more security features and faster booting, for example. Most of the discussion, however, has centered around a suggestion to increase the length of the development cycle somewhat (to nine months or so). The current six-month cycle allows for a maximum of about two or three months before the stabilization efforts set in, and some developers are finding it difficult to get their changes in within that window. The suggestion has not been particularly well received by the powers that be within Red Hat, however.

In theory, opposition from Red Hat should matter less in the future. At the recently-concluded Red Hat Summit, the company announced that it planned to set Fedora free, and to put it under the control of an independent foundation. There have been no communications from the company on this subject outside of the conference, so details are scarce. Nothing has been said on how this foundation will be formed, funded, or governed. It remains to be seen whether Red Hat is truly willing to give up enough control to allow Fedora to pick its own directions. A truly independent Fedora, however, has the potential to combine a strong base distribution with a larger, more enthusiastic developer community; it could be a force to be reckoned with.

Debian and Fedora are two very different distributions. Debian is a huge, community-driven project with a "when it's ready" release policy. Fedora is, for now, a company-controlled, smaller distribution with scheduled releases. In many ways, however, they appear to be converging. Debian is facing the size issue (by considering which packages and architectures truly belong in the core distribution), release cycles, and, via efforts like Ubuntu, commercial appeal. Fedora, meanwhile, aims for a stronger community orientation and is debating package policies and release cycle issues of its own. Both distributions will remain part of our community for a long time - and we are richer for having both of them. But they are responding to many of the same pressures, so it would not be entirely surprising to see them look more alike in the future.

(Log in to post comments)

Fedora Extras

Posted Jun 9, 2005 2:25 UTC (Thu) by jwboyer (guest, #23296) [Link]

Calling Extras a second class citizen is a bit unfair. In the past few months Extras development has been increasing at a very impressive rate. The folks at Red Hat have done quite a good job at getting Extras community friendly and pretty easy to develop with.

As for updates and security issues, I fail to see how Extras is any different from Debian or Gentoo or any other non-corporation backed distribution. Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu all rely on community volunteers to provide updates and security releases. If people don't volunteer their time, nothing gets done. Fedora Extras is no different.

Just because Red Hat doesn't control Extras the same way it does Core doesn't make it second class. This incorrect thinking is exactly what the Extras developers are trying to overcome. It has good quality packages and great leadership. Now if you've got suggestions on what could be done better, feel free to let the Extras mailing list know. We always welcome suggestions. But don't demote it just because it's new.

(And for the record, yes I am an Extras developer)

Fedora Extras

Posted Jun 9, 2005 3:05 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I'm sorry, but Debian and Gentoo do an outstanding job with security support; they are usually the first to get an alert out. Can you honestly say that extras has the same sort of response? There are no alerts for extras, of course, but does the project get patched packages out as quickly as Debian and Gentoo do?

I run a Fedora (rawhide) system, and I depend heavily on extras. I'm very glad it's there. But I do believe that packages in extras are less equal than the rest.

Fedora Extras

Posted Jun 9, 2005 11:09 UTC (Thu) by jwboyer (guest, #23296) [Link]

Debian and Gentoo do a great job. I wasn't trying to say otherwise. I was just saying that both of them depend on volunteers from the community exactly as Extras does.

Extras is still growing and there hasn't been many security issues in the packages that are already there so it's hard to compare response time. But for the packages that we do have, most of them are updated pretty quickly when a new version comes out. Usually with about a day of turn around time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "packages in extras are less equal than the rest". Quite a few of the packages in Extras came directly from Core when they were dropped for Fedora Core 4 and several of those are still maintained by Red Hat because they are used in RHEL (exim comes to mind).

I respect your opinion, but I doubt you'll change my mind. If anything you've made me even more determined. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Who knows... maybe when the test releases for FC5 roll out, you'll be singing a different tune ;).

Fedora Extras

Posted Jun 18, 2005 11:52 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Stating that Debian security updates "rely on community volunteers" is meaningless, since of course the entirety of Debian is constructed by "community volunteers". I suspect that what was suggested by second class status is that the practical results of the handling of the Extras for Fedora Core make them somewhat less well managed than the mainline packages. I am just guessing of course, since I know little of Fedora Core myself.

A tale of three distributions

Posted Jun 9, 2005 12:58 UTC (Thu) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]

Here's what I see on my Ubuntu Hoary system (the current Ubuntu release).

Package         Debian 3.1              Fedora Core 4   Ubuntu 5.04
Kernel          2.4.27 / 2.6.8          2.6.11          2.6.10 / 2.6.11
GNOME           2.8                     2.10            2.10.1
KDE             3.3                     3.4             3.4
X               XFree86 4.3.0           Xorg 6.8.2      Xorg 6.8.2
gcc             3.3.5                   4.0             3.3.5 / 4.0
postgresql      7.4.7                   8.0.2           7.4.7
MySQL           4.0.24 / 4.1.11a        4.1.11          4.0.23 / 4.1.10a

Package         Debian 3.1              Fedora Core 4   Ubuntu 5.04
xine-ui         0.99.3                  --              -- / 0.99.3
monotone        0.18                    --              -- / 0.18
gforge          3.1                     --              -- / 3.1
shorewall       2.2.3                   --              2.0.13
GNUStep         3                       --              3
xfce            4.0.5                   --              -- / 3.8.18 / 4.2.1.1

When I wrote "-- / x.y.z", I meant that there was no package in the official, supported Ubuntu repository, but that version x.y.z was available in the official but unsupported repository. When I wrote "a.b.c / x.y.z", I meant that version a.b.c was the default version, but that version x.y.z was available (either supported or unsupported). One exception is monotone -- it is not available in either the supported or unsupported official repositories, but it is available from an independent repository.

This release of Ubuntu is numbered 5.04 because it was released in the fourth month of 2005.

Regards,

Zooko

P.S. This would have looked a lot nicer and taken me a lot less time to prepare if lwn.net allowed <table>s in comments.

A tale of two distributions

Posted Jun 9, 2005 19:23 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

> Of course, as always, unstable for Debian is actually pretty stable.

Except for right now. :-)

Gnome seems to be in state of flux the past couple days in the move from 2.8 to 2.10. Upgrading libgnome2-0 wants to unistall gnome-panel and a few other things.

But you're right, it's usually pretty good. I've been smoking on his dynamite train for three years now, and I haven't blown up yet...

Rawhide, for the adventurous...

Posted Jun 16, 2005 18:13 UTC (Thu) by pgb (guest, #30022) [Link]

Well, if you want really bleeding edge with Fedora and can deal with breakage (that's why it's called the bleeding edge, right?) then Rawhide, the development branch, fills a role similar to sid for Debian. It's fairer to compare the Fedora releases to Debian Testing in that case.

The Fedora releases are pretty stable, of course there are bugs, and occasionally bugs that wouldn't be in RHEL or Debian Stable because of the conservativeness of those distros, but stuff that goes there is generally already fairly well tested.