| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Selective comparison?Selective comparison?Posted Nov 11, 2008 6:03 UTC (Tue) by sladen (subscriber, #27402)In reply to: Debian Pure Blends by MattPerry Parent article: Debian Pure Blends
The white-paper is around 20,000 words long and fairly encompassing of the topic in hand. A number of distributions are mentioned; Red Hat (7), Suse/Novell (6), Mandrake (5), derivatives Knoppix, Xandros, Linspire and others—including Guadalinex and 64 Studio (Ubuntu second-level derivatives). Those all-encompassing topics include "Commercial forks", "Non-commerical forks" and "Differences from other distributions". Twenty-thousand words later and I realised that it felt as though there were some unnatural tiny gaps. Did you find the references to felt hats, African philosophies, spins or remixes ...that I missed?
(Log in to post comments)
Bad data ? Posted Nov 11, 2008 10:14 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
Both Guadalinex and 64 Studio are based on Debian, not Ubuntu second-level derivatives.
see http://www.64studio.com/faq_user,
Bad data ? Posted Nov 11, 2008 17:10 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Hell ya.
64Studio kicks-ass and one of the MAJOR plus points for me is that they remain 100% compatible with Debian. This means that while 64Studio is a very small professional team they are able to constantly release a supportable product with a relatively high amount of good Q/A.
In other words they don't half-ass it like Ubuntu does and is able to avoid 'NIH' pitfalls and 'Reinventing the Wheel' traps that happens with things like Xandros, Ubuntu, and even Ubuntu studio. (Not that I think that Ubuntu folks are morons. They are very smart and do a good job, but IMO they have shot themselves in the foot with this one)
All the Debian A/V stuff benefits heavily from the old Demudi project, because that project remained compatible with Debian. It's packages that it created was easily absorbed back into Debian and thus Debian users and 64Studio were able to benefit from that heavily.
Oh, and Fedora/Redhat folks did not benefit in the same way from the Redmudi project...
------------------------
The ultimate lesson in all of this is that when people learn to get over themselves and base everything on the same core OS then you end up with a much better product in the long run.
Who are thee and they? Posted Nov 11, 2008 18:56 UTC (Tue) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] By "They", are you referring the group of ~20 Debian Developers employed by Mr. Shuttleworth; or some other group of "They"?
Who are thee and they? Posted Nov 11, 2008 19:40 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Ya. When I said:
> They are very smart and do a good job, but IMO they have shot themselves in the foot with this one
I meant the folks that work for Canonical.
Parentage Posted Nov 11, 2008 19:27 UTC (Tue) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] I apologise for having placed 64 Studio in the wrong category. IIRC, Guadalinex switched to deriving via Ubuntu at the end of 2004[1] (having formerly used Progeny's "Componentized Linux").
Parentage Posted Nov 11, 2008 19:57 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Well here with
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww....
(Since my spanish is very very very bad)
They talk about the need to be very close to Debian and avoiding trying to work around Debian's maintenance/packaging policies.
I don't know, it could just be a very old webpage.
But if they did switch back to Debian from Ubuntu they would not be the first ones. Xandros/Freespire did that.. they migrated from Debian to Ubuntu due to Debian's dismal ability to actually getting a release, er, released. But they've switched back, presumably by the difficulty poised in trying to make Ubuntu stable and work for their purposes.
Now if Debian actually could release software on time there would of never been need for Ubuntu and all of this would be a non-issue. I understand why Ubuntu decided to break free from backward compatibility.
Parentage Posted Nov 11, 2008 20:08 UTC (Tue) by ris (editor, #5) [Link]
That is an old page, from around 2003. My spanish is not great either, but I can't find anything on their site to indicate that Guadalinex has changed from Ubuntu, which formed the base of the 2005 release and subsequent releases.
Guadalinex v5 was released today, BTW.
Selective comparison? Posted Nov 11, 2008 10:40 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
The name "Mandrake" should give you a hint that this is mostly an update of a document that was written when Mandriva was still called Mandrake.
Ubuntu, by the terminology of that white-paper chose to become a completely separate fork, and hence has to replicate much of Debian's infrastructure. Ubuntu's creators had their reasons for doing so, and this is perfectly legitimate.
However, this white-paper is about Debian-based distributions that do not want to pay this high price. It is about providing them tools to maintain their own subsets of Debian in a productive as possible way.
|
|
||||||||||||