[kwlug disc.] All of you Ubuntu people

[Andrew Kohlsmith]

On Friday 09 February 2007 8:29 am, Rick wrote:
> Summary: So, like to upgrade and fix. Then, Debian.
> Might install a package on occasion. Ubuntu.

Why?  What can you do in Debian that you can't do in (K)Ubuntu, distributions 
that are (IMO) little more than pretty front ends and front-line newbie 
support for a *complete* Debian system?  Is there something that you can't do 
with sudo -i at a Ubuntu shell that you can do at a Debian root shell prompt?

> More seriously, Ubuntu doesn't have this web of relationships
> between downstream package maintainers as well as the upstream
> software creators. And when something doesn't work, Ubuntu users
> want it fixed and they go to Debian. So Debian does 95% of the
> (thankless) work and gets 0% of the credit but 95% of the complaints
> when something goes wrong.

I disagree, again.  Ubuntu doesn't exist without all of the hard work, blood 
sweat and tears that Debian put into making their distribution the way it is.  
Next to nobody running Ubuntu (or OpenEmbedded for that matter) knows that 
the whole packaging system and dependency trees and configuration came from 
an older, more mature and stable Debian.  I'm not really sure why this is a 
problem, though.  Ubuntu has quite a support network.  Those running and 
developing for Debian are doing it for themselves and for the Debian 
community, and as I mention below, some of the very big bits of a Ubuntu 
system are in fact maintained by Debian people!  If a truckload of newbies 
comes on board with the Debian Way<tm> then it can only make Debian better as 
these newbies gain experience, so long as the people responsible for bring 
all these greenhorns onboard is also taking great pains to support them, 
which I think Ubuntu is doing, as it seems to be their entire philosophy.

What you're essentially saying (if I take your thought and run with it) 
is "Debian users want it fixed and they go to GNU or the Kernel hackers.  So 
GNU does 95% of the (thankless) work and gets 0% of the credit but 95% of the 
complaints when something goes wrong." 

This is actually the *opposite* of what Stallman constantly complains about; 
GNU does 95% of the (thankless) work (gcc, tools, etc.) but Linux gets all 
the credit... Linux, however also gets all the blame, not GNU.  Most 
Linux-users are dimly aware that GNU is the body, seat cushions and power 
windows of the penguin-hood-ornamented car that Linux powers.  It's my belief 
that this carries forward with Ubuntu too.  Someone tries it, doesn't like it 
and "Linux sux." or "Ubuntu sux."  Next to nobody says "Wow, this 
Debian-based newbie distro sux."  To flog the already-painful analogy, nobody 
says "Wow, Magna sux.  Delco sux."  They say "GM sux."

I think that a very small percentage (usually the too-smart-for-their-own-good 
crowd) of newbs bypasses Ubuntu's support because it's "beneath" them and 
complains directly, noisily and bitterly to the Debian crowd, and they get 
(righteously) blasted for it.  I would like to think, though, that the vast, 
vast majority of Ubuntu and Kubuntu users have no clue that there is 
something else running their system, and they seek help in the Ubuntu forums, 
lists and IRC channels.  As usual, it's the few that make the larger, 
maturely-behaving crowd look bad as a whole.  Hell, look at the Linux fanboys 
and the Mac fanboys and the PS3 fanboys and the Honda fanboys...  this isn't 
something limited to Linux or Ubuntu.  :-)

> In a sense, Ubuntu is building off of this delicate web of relationships
> without really offering the real behind-the-scenes elbow grease to keep
> a large, complex system working. More seriously, Ubuntu could wreck
> this delicate web except that Debian package maintainers either ignore
> or loathe Ubuntu users when they report their Ubuntu problems.

Am I mistaken in my belief that the Ubuntu support network is large, robust 
and very active?  I think that that's worth its weight in gold, because I 
know I sure as hell can't stand answering the same questions over and over 
and over and trying to figure out how to get a configuration system to edit 
the files the way I want...  That's why I'm pretty much useless when it comes 
to helping out new Linux users.  I'm far more capable in the role of "ZOMG 
TEH SYSTEM IS TEH DEAD!" or "Damn I really wish I could get $foo and $bar to 
come together with $baz" -- I can step in and rewire the engine, turbocharge 
the coffee-maker and interface the entire works with the household plumbing 
so every time the load average goes up it offsets your hot water heating 
bill.  I *know* what I'm doing because I've spent over a decade tinkering, 
tweaking, experimenting and losing data to know what's going on at a very low 
level.  Ask me how the Debian installer works or what the "safe" way to 
install LILO or GRUB is and I haven't a clue.

Ubuntu contributes a LOT back to Linux in general, and contributes directly to 
Debian by way of additional testing, package maintainers and sheer mindshare.  
Ubuntu and Debian are not that different.  In fact they're hardly different 
at all.

> On the other hand, let's say you expect to install all kinds of packages
> and upgrade your system any time that you please and you expect
> things to work (or at least be fixable). In that case, you have to use
> Debian (or go totally do-it-yourself with, say, Slackware).

Howso?  Does apt-get dist-upgrade not work in Ubuntu?  (It may not, I'm 
asking.) -- I know for sure that I can use Kubuntu's package manager to 
revert packages, lock them from being updated automatically, download the 
source packages...  just like Debian because hey, it *is* Debian, just with a 
different apt-sources list.

> 98% of Windows users neither want to do much upgrading nor do they
> even report a bug problem if something goes wrong anyway. For them,
> what Debian offers isn't worth the extra hassle to install.

Precisely, although I'd say that's what OSS offers, not specifically Debian or 
even Linux.  That's my single biggest reason for using OSS, in fact.  However 
my (meager) work with Kubuntu has proven that while there are a few extra 
hoops to jump though in the process, Kubuntu offers me everything Debian 
gives, plus all the Ubuntu-with-KDE goodness that Debian doesn't give.  And 
both Debian and Slackware (and Gentoo and Fedora and LFS for that matter) 
give me everything Linux can offer.  It's all a matter of how much "extra" 
you want, and your comfort level as it pertains to the proximity of the metal 
is, so to speak.

And if I really have to be sneaky, I can carefully post in #debian, keeping 
the name of the actual distro on the down-low... There are many times where I 
need to post a question to a very large audience and don't want to trip off 
the "oh it's not my distro, I'm not going to help" types, as their 
personalities are infectious.  When I damn-well KNOW my problem isn't related 
to the distribution, I can draw on the web of relationships and I won't feel 
guilty in the slightest because hey, I'm doing what I can to help out Linux 
as a whole, and not just some segment of the population.

(sometimes after I fix the problem with their help I will rip off my mask and 
shout "Haha!  I have fooled you!  The cinnamon was actually basil! 
muahhahahahaha" but that doesn't happen very often...)

As I'd mentioned earlier: Ask me how Win32's default oplock behavours can bite 
you in the ass on slow or lossy networks and I can give you detailed 
information and answers.  Ask me how to use a specific distro's configuration 
GUI or frontend to alter samba.conf and you'll get a dumb look.

> In my case, I have grown used to upgrading and digging deep
> to fix most problems. So, in my case, Ubuntu _is_ wrong for me
> because I can't post on the Debian bug lists because I'm not running
> a pure, true Debian system. Despite all the good things that Ubuntu
> offers for new users, Ubuntu can't even touch the type of deep
> support that Debian currently provides. Ubuntu is wrong for people
> who want to really work/tweak a system and keep installing
> all kinds of new stuff.

Your comment about deep-level support doesn't seem to resonate with me.  You 
post your problem to the Ununtu forums or in IRC, work through the front-line 
support until they finally say "wow, this looks like a problem with the 
package itself." -- at which point you're talking to the Ubuntu package 
maintainer (who, in my modest searching, is also the Debian maintainer of the 
same package).  He may well say that package foo is just Debian package foo 
but in the ubuntu apt repository, so you can go to #debian and enquire about 
the bug.  If it doesn't exist in the Debian package you get to work with the 
Ubuntu maintainer to fix it, or you get to fix it yourself.

[ ... time passes ... ]

I went on to the Ubuntu package repository and grabbed a couple of package 
release files to see who they were signed by.  Both were signed by 
@debian.org people (acpid and openssh-client) and their signatures verified, 
which to me means that these Debian souls were also providing packages for 
Ubuntu.

[ ... more time passes ... ]

Asterisk, Xorg, Samba, GCC... all of these have @debian.org maintainers and 
the Ubuntu signed release information signatures check out...  I think you 
are making a mountain out of a molehill... None of these packages should get 
you turned away from your deep web of support from Debian, especially if you 
can recreate the problem with the respective Debian package.

I think that the Linspire announcement actually makes it *easier* to 
install/uninstall/upgrade random packages with Linspire/Ubuntu than base 
Debian simply because there are more packages available.  Why wouldn't I use 
Ubuntu to install and uninstall packages as I saw fit?  I actually have 
*more* of a problem installing and uninstalling random software with 
Slackware, since I can't just use the package manager to uninstall it if I 
compiled it myself, and the list of packages to choose from (even with 
linuxpackages.net) is far smaller and much less organized than Debian's, 
which looks like is smaller than Ubuntu's, which is smaller than Linspire's  
(building upon the packages of its supporting distribution).

It would seem to me that the MORE packages available, the easier it would be 
to play around with software.  Ergo Linspire > Freespire > Ubuntu > Debian > 
Slackware > LFS.

The more of an abstraction that a distribution gives you from editing the 
software's configuration, the more hoops you'll have to jump through or worry 
about tangling when you have to do something the abstracting layer can't do 
or doesn't know about.  That's why I prefer to run Slackware over any other 
distro -- it gets me up and running quickly and then stays out of the way.  I 
can use slackpkg to keep it up to date and nothing steps on the manual 
changes I've done, and I don't have to worry about giving the package manager 
fits because it wants things a certain way.  You've found your sweet spot 
with Debian, and thousands and thousands of others have, too.  However, your 
assertion that doing the things you do in Debian is either harder or 
impossible with Ubuntu...  I just don't see the proof at all.

-A.