Ian Murdock: Debian "Missing a Big Opportunity"

Natester writes "While Debian struggles to get its next release (Etch) out the door, the project's founder, Ian Murdock, has spoken out about politics, the lack of firm leadership, and Ubuntu's meteoric rise in prominence. Murdock believes that Debian is "process run amok" — nobody feels empowered to make decisions, leading to the sluggish rate of progress."

Firm Leadership

Sometimes you need firm leadership to make decisions rather than stagnate by trying to please everyone all the time and doing nothing.

Re:Firm Leadership

I thought Open Source was about each of us having it our way instead. Compilation without representation is tyranny!

Dazed & Confused

The immaturity posed by this comment being modded insightful is just sad.

While the sheer number of packages in the Debian repository is awesome, you are confusing _choices_ with a lack of focus. Debian's NOT pleasing everyone. They can't.

There will be many out there probably like you who are reassured with a self-contained environment that a Ubuntu provides. They have x number of apps configured a specific way that works okay in many situations but is really poor if more or something different is required.

In my business, I need to have log reports formatted a specific way. Well, there just so happens the log analysis package I use is in ubuntu's "universe." e.g. should work, but it's not an official distro package. Good news, it's quite well supported in debian's main package repo.

This is why ubuntu is kind of like AOL way back in the day or Microsoft server apps for good system administrators. Once you figure it out, you realize the limitations and move on.

When you are ready, Debian's there. Still Free.

Re:Firm Leadership

It still has a place as a meta-distribution. Gentoo has been fairly successful on that model.

Re:Firm Leadership

Open source is about choice, but Debian is about providing a distro that does what most of their users are supposed to want. It's still a tyranny - the tyrany of democracy.

Re:Firm Leadership

If we all wanted it our own way, we wouldn't need Open Source. We'd just write all of our software ourselves. Really, everybody wants to tweak a couple of things slightly, and leave the vast majority of everything entirely unchanged. The point of Open Source is that we can make just a couple of slight modifications, and we don't need to start from scratch. But this, then, relies on there being software that is close to solving our problems.

It's the bikeshed problem: everybody agrees that we want a bikeshed, and that it needs to be painted to keep from rotting, and nobody has a particular color it has to be, but nobody feels empowered to go out and buy paint, in case somebody turns out to be deeply offended by the color choice. Someone needs to take the initiative and pick something, and if anyone turns out to care, they can repaint it later.

Re:Firm Leadership

And then when someone finally does go ahead and pick a colour it's the ugliest brown you've ever seen. Yeesh, what were they thinking?

Re:Firm Leadership

I'm skeptical as to whether a firm leader would be able to keep all those developers together working on Debian. It may work for Ubuntu, but Ubuntu has much fewer developers. And they get paid.

If I were a coder I would be much more likely to volunteer my time to Debian than Ubuntu. I'd rather donate to a fully democratic system than a benevolent dictatorship. And if I'm already coding for a project and they decide that they're going to "empower" someone to ultimately say what goes and what doesn't, I'd be more likely to quit contributing code.

Re:Firm Leadership

Dam I wanted to mod in this thread but I can't mod you fairly: "fair point but I really disagree" (underrated I suppose?)

Anyway, I feel that a benevolent dictatorship is actually the prize winner in the dev cycle. Once you get into the "please everyone, get a majority vote" mode of operation you run into endless debate as one side tries to convince the other side of the merits of their idea(s). Now I want a unanimous decision on a jury, but for a distro I want a clear path and direction. The dictatorship forces that path to exist. While I may want the path a different color, so long as it's going the same general direction I am then I'm OK with it.

The direction I'm interested in is a mainstream linux that I can deploy on joe sixpack's computer. I want a linux that is as friendly as OSX, and as compatible with hardware as Windows. I want a distro for the masses, and thus while you are entitled to fork it and tweak it, I think the main tree should be ruled by an authoritarian, rather than a committee.

I also think that the "open market" will decide this for us. Suppliers (donors of code and money) will "sell" to their ideals and buyers will install to their needs.
-nB

Re:Firm Leadership

The direction I'm interested in is a mainstream linux that I can deploy on joe sixpack's computer.

That niche is well supplied by Ubuntu. If you think the space needs competition to keep things fresh, it has it: Linspire and Mandriva.

Debian *doesn't* need to target that niche at all. The existing policy of slow, steady progress and periodic rock-solid server releases produces a distro that's an excellent basis for projects ranging from Ubuntu to Embedded Debian to build from. There are occasionally cases where Debian is a bit slower than it should be (multiarch for example), but that doesn't mean that what Debian is should be thrown away to make an Ubuntu replica.

Re:Firm Leadership

I think we have to be careful about drawing analogies and using terms national politics when we talk about group dynamics. We shouldn't let our justifiable aversion to political dictatorship poison our attitude towards the idea of strong leadership, which is a completely different thing.

What we call "benevolent dictatorship" in a group like this means decisive leadership with power make its decisions stick within the confines of the project. This is a very different thing than a political dictatorship (benevolent or otherwise), because in national politics there are no practical limits to which the power of a dictator is confined.

Philosophically, strong leadership within a voluntary project is consistent with the status of an individual contributor as a rational being. The contributor has the practical option of "voting with his feet", by jumping to a different project. A wise leader who relies upon voluntary contributors keeps the best of them happier contributing than leaving. A true dictatorship is inconsistent with the status of an individual citizen as a rational being, because a citizen cannot vote with his feet. The dictator can choose to make any trivial dissent a matter of life and death, and choose in a completely arbitrary way.

I once heard Prince Bandar claim that absolute monarchy wasn't really different than democracy, only in a monarchy people "vote out" the government by taking to the streets. While this might be wise for abolute monarchs to bear in mind, it conveniently ignores the fact that the subject of a true monarchy must be willing to risk everthing, his life, the life of his friends and family, in order to act in accordance with his reason or conscience. It sidesteps the question of whether it is necessary or beneficial to make the exercise of individual reason a life or death decision.

In the Debian case, anybody unsatisfied with Debian can join a different Linux distro project. Not only that, they can walk away still in posession of their entire body of contribution, as well as the entire contribution of everybody else. The only things the can't take with them is the community (they'd have to build their own or convince others to move with them) and the name.

The irony here is that the apparent anarchy of the free software paradigm makes it possible to exercise extremely decisive leadership with little or no ethical risk. There is nothing a free software leader can do to a contributor, other than refuse to take his contributions.

The utter inability of a project leader to inflict meaningful harm on a contributor makes elaborate safeguards for the dignity of the individual redundant. That respect is built into the software development paradigm, not the organization.

It's very important not to confuse strong leadership with dictatorship. Leadership is securing the voluntary cooperation of individuals, sometimes to a course of action that the individual does not favor. While leadership might be useful in a dictatorship, the key job skill for a dictator is the infliction of fear.

Ian Murdock to join Sun

Hi all,

It's being announced today that I'm joining Sun as chief operating
platforms officer, which basically means I'll be in charge of Sun's
operating system strategy, spanning Solaris and Linux. I just posted the
announcement on my blog (http://ianmurdock.com/2007/03/19/joining-sun/),
and it'll likely be making the rounds soon. Just wanted to
make sure you heard the news directly from me and to introduce myself.

First things first: I'm a long time Linux user, developer, and advocate.
I founded Debian in 1993, co-founded a Linux distribution company called
Progeny in 1999, and most recently served as CTO of the new Linux
Foundation, where I was (and still am) chair of the LSB, the Linux
platform interoperability standard. I'm also a long time Sun fan.

As for what I'll be doing: While I'm coming in with some fairly formed
opinions about what Sun/Solaris/OpenSolaris ought to do (peruse my
blog a bit to learn more), I'm also a big believer in listening
before talking, and I have a lot of listening to do in the weeks
to come. So, please, feel free to drop me a line if you have
anything to tell me. And, please, be gentle while I get settled. :-)

Gotta get on a call in a few minutes. In the meantime, I just wanted
to say hello, and to make sure you heard the news directly from me.

Later,

-ian
--
Ian Murdock
http://ianmurdock.com/ [ianmurdock.com]

Wait a minute..

by Anonymous Coward

+

I'm a long time Linux user, developer, and advocate.

= WTF? Not every linux dev is a slashdot user?

"the wreck that McNeally created"

The "wreck McNeally created" went from startup to $18 billion on his watch -- and yeah, back down to $13 billion. As soon as you get that $13 billion company of your own going, I think you're safe to criticize McNealy for his failings. Heck, check in at two billion and we'll give you a listen.

He also correctly identified Microsoft as Sun's up-and-coming competitor years before anyone else got it, and then correctly identified that the level of anti-MSFT rhetoric was causing major problems and cleaned that up, netting Sun a nice $2B in the process. Maybe slow to get on the x86 bandwagon, but he got there, bringing back one of the industry's best system designers in the process. He groomed two successors, one of whom now seems to be the real deal, but in many cases is getting credit for a lot of things McNealy had already set in motion. (And the other one is off perhaps tanking another company -- maybe this is where the "wreckage" came from?)

Sun *is* "selling like it once did." It's the 3rd largest server vendor in the industry. It's the 5th largest x86 server vendor in the industry -- again, something McNealy set in motion.

There's a lot of things he did wrong, but there's a lot more he did right. Sun went from an engineering workstation company to the third company regularly mentioned in the same breath as HP and IBM, two much older and more well-established companies.

This is coming off like a gush about McNealy and Sun, but really, consider it more a rant against calling something a "wreck" when you have no idea what you're talking about. Get picked for the board at GE, then you get to talk about someone else being a "wreck."

It's sad

Unfortunately, Debian has suffered from a concatenation of problems this year. Dunc-tank (a scheme to pay some developers) sapped a lot of good-will and motivation, and made some developers actually work to hold back the release in protest, and as a result it's another "who knows when it'll happen" Debian release. There has been a lot of bickering on other topics - Debian should never hold face-to-face meetings, something bad always happens - and unfortunately the current DPL hasn't been able to rally the troops or lead effectively in any way I can see. I hope they recover, I think they are still our best hope among Linux distributions.

Bruce

Re:It's sad

Sorry for the naivete, but I don't plain understand the rationale behind the DuncTank failure.

I mean, even if I'm a non-paid developer, what's bad in having me collaborating with payed developers if it helps getting the work done? Isn't it a bit like the GSoC? People in GSoC-funded projects should whine and hold back releases because "hey, why is he paid and I am not?" I just don't understand it, but I don't know the exact story behind the Dunc Tank collapse, so I'd like some enlightenment.

Re:It's sad

I'm afraid I'm 'immature' then.

If I was helping create a distro, and nobody was being paid... Then only a few people got money for doing exactly the same thing as before, exactly the same thing as I'm doing... I'd be upset, then disgusted, then I'd probably quit. (I wouldn't be so immature as to remain and hold back the project, though.) Then I'd either find something else to do with my life, find another distro to help, or make my own.

Yes, there's ego involved... Everyone on a 'team' wants to feel like their at least equal to everyone else. With some people being paid and others not, it draws a very clear 'you're not as valuable' line. This is exactly the reason that many businesses make it a fire-able offense to discuss wages with other employees. And I whole-heartedly agree with that policy.

Re:It's sad

While what you say is true, the problems stemming from paying some developers should have been anticipated.

I think it was anticipated. I don't think the full fury of their immature response was, however. I don't think they believed that people would put their effort into making a project succeed, then turn around and put it into making it fail by deliberately holding it back.

I think that while their contributions may be highly valuable and are in any case appreciated, the people who would do such things should be removed from the project. Their actions prove that they are interested more in their own reputation than in actually making the project succeed. If their efforts in some other place can assist the project, then so be it, but I think that keeping them around where they can enjoy further self-aggrandizement is only rewarding bad behavior, which encourages more bad behavior. When my little parrot squawks at me over and over again, fit to burst my eardrums (what bird experts typically refer to as "inappropriate vocalization") I don't yell at her; that just gives her attention. I cover her cage with a sheet, and wait for her to calm down. Perhaps the same response is appropriate in this situation.

I'd say that our continuous tendency to reward bad behavior is the biggest problem in the world today.

If you and I are both working on a project for free, and the organization running that project decide to pay you but not me, what they are essentially saying is "tyke, you're contribution is not as important as drinkypoo's". That is a slap in the face, especially if I think my contribution is as important as yours. True, I haven't lost anything, but you can't overlook the de-motivational impact of rewarding some people but not others.

It IS saying that. In so many words! And as a contributor to the Debian project, these people have to decide what is more important; their own ego, or the Debian project. If they feel the former is true, then rather than deliberately holding Debian back, they need to go somewhere where they will receive the appreciation they feel they so richly deserve. Because there should never be room for someone whose ego is larger than the project.

Because let's face it, I might HAVE a greater contribution to make than you do, and there is only so much money to be shared. So I might get that money, and you might not. My contribution might BE more valuable than yours is. Does that mean yours is not valuable? Of course not. Does it mean that YOU are not valuable? By the same logic, it cannot mean that. It can only mean that I am more critical to the project than you are, and thus it is worth it to pay me to be sure of retaining me. In this world we all have to accept that we are not at the pinnacle of every scale, not least because many are contradictory. Even if I were the most badass programmer to ever have lived (which I clearly am not, but bear with me) I would probably not be the best person on the planet. There's only so much of each of us to go around, if you are spread thin then you never reach much of a height in any category.

It sounds to me like some of these people are good programmers, but not very good people.

Re:It's sad

Debian should never hold face-to-face meetings, something bad always happens

The lack of social skills is a really sad aspect in our community. I suspect it is at the root of your comment. Some geeks take a long time to mature (and some never do ;-). You had your shot as DPL, and the recent voting for SPI director suggests there is still room for improvement. Claiming that we should never meet seems defeatist to me. Meeting together and working on our social skills looks like a better choice to me. If we start out by recognizing we need to practice our social skills, we can improve.

Times have changed. The old joke about no one on the internet knowing you are a dog still applies. But our respect is still based upon skills and knowledge. We just need to augment our view of what a person accomplishes to contain a social aspect too. The process may not be pain free. If we must deal with expulsion requests [debian.org] or a myriad of flamefests, then so be it. The Debian core values remain intact. We need to learn how to scale to larger numbers without diluting them.

Ian Murdock...

Ian Murdock was the reason I first tried Debian, after disastrous experience with early RedHat builds. Read an interview, he seemed like a good guy and knew how to run a project.

Debian's meteoric rise in suckitude correlates very well with Murdock's departure and the further stepping away from the way he ran things.

Ubuntu is the new Debian--even despite its often-busted packages and all.

The problem with Debian

is Deb and Ian. That's what an IBM guy told me at FOSE a few years back.

IDNRTA

I did not read the article, but here's my two cents:

Ubuntu is trying to be a Windows killer. And it could be. Wine is "good enough" with the right settings for 90% of what most people want to do coming from a Windows world. Drivers exist. No, they're not FOSS, and I understand why people want FOSS ones, but....

Why doesn't Ubuntu seal the deal?

With beryl, good drivers, and built in FOSS apps that beat MS at every turn (Firefox > IE, Beryl > Aero, Thunderbird > Outlook, and VLC > WMP), it seems like the win would be fast and clear. Nobody wants Vista, especially when you have to pay. Ubuntu comes preconfigured in a way that is over all superior to every Windows that has ever existed. It's more solid and reliable, it has four desktops (though they moronically all have the same wallpaper by default, and it happens to be shit brown), it has a very nice user interface (though *i* and many others feel it could take some design cues from Windows 98 with regards to menu structure and some other minor details), and it's free. Oh yeah, and it's open source, so anybody who doesn't like part of it can fix it themselves.

But nobody has. It's like people take pride in allowing the world of uneducated masses sucking on the corporate tit of MS. I just don't understand it.

Feisty could win the OS wars decisively, but given the over all FOSS community attitude towards ordinary people....

Damn, gotta catch my plane.....

Sad?

rhY

Re:IDNRTA

But nobody has. It's like people take pride in allowing the world of uneducated masses sucking on the corporate tit of MS. I just don't understand it.

Feisty could win the OS wars decisively, but given the over all FOSS community attitude towards ordinary people....

Um, if this attitude was such an obstacle, then Ubuntu wouldn't exist in the first place. If anything, Ubuntu is proof that there is a significant portion of the FOSS community that wants to bring FOSS to "ordinary people". Sure there are people who don't, and they're running Slackware.

So given that, I must have completely missed the part where you specified what it is that is preventing Ubuntu from winning the OS wars decisively. You say it's comes preconfigured in a way superior to Windows. Personally I think Ubuntu, and Linux in general, has a ways to go before it's really an "ordinary people" as in "Windows replacement for everyone" kind of OS. I think they're a long way from winning the OS wars decisively or otherwise. But it is getting there, by leaps and bounds. You seem to think it's even farther along this path than I do, poised and ready to claim victory, so I'm again left wondering what it is you think is holding Ubuntu back.

Re:IDNRTA

I'll explain it to you.

Thunderbird Outlook and in some cases, *nothing* = Outlook for calendaring, contact management, etc. When Linux has a drop-in replacement for Outlook that connects to Exchange Servers and can handle PSTs, they'll have the killer app needed to crush Office. Until then, it'll be no sale. Believe me, programmers would probably love to switch but they still need to get email at work from the Exchange Server.

And no, solutions that require interdiction with Exchange administration do not count. Drop-in replacement is exactly that, just your Windows domain username and password.

-BA

Re:IDNRTA

Why doesn't Ubuntu seal the deal?

With beryl, good drivers, and built in FOSS apps that beat MS at every turn (Firefox > IE, Beryl > Aero, Thunderbird > Outlook, and VLC > WMP), it seems like the win would be fast and clear. Nobody wants Vista, especially when you have to pay. Ubuntu comes preconfigured in a way that is over all superior to every Windows that has ever existed. It's more solid and reliable, it has four desktops (though they moronically all have the same wallpaper by default, and it happens to be shit brown), it has a very nice user interface (though *i* and many others feel it could take some design cues from Windows 98 with regards to menu structure and some other minor details), and it's free. Oh yeah, and it's open source, so anybody who doesn't like part of it can fix it themselves.

rant:
Thunderbird > Outlook? Seriously? Outlook is one of the very, very few apps that Microsoft got somewhat right. As opposed to Thunderbird, it can be used to share calendards, contacts and stuff easily. Thunderbird is just an E-Mail app. Outlook isn't.
VLC > WMP? For some values of VLC, that is correct. But the userinterface is better on WMP. How on earth do you get a slider in fullscreen mode on VLC?

And your statemend about open source is just plain wrong. I can't see my mom "fixing" the freaking lameness that is "cut and paste" in gnome. It's simply broken, it doesn't work. When it does work, you have to try pasting in three different ways! Open Source doesn't mean anybody can fix. It means that the knowledgeable *may* fix stuff that they find annoying. Even then, it might not go upstream so other users can benefit from it.

I'm an ubuntu-only user, so I think I am semi-qualified to know what I'm talking about. I dig linux. I've been digging linux since '93. I've had windows too periodically, but linux usage far outweighs windows usage.
Linux sucks, unless you're somewhat skilled. Take the Gnome copy-paste dysfunction for example. When copying in the terminal, *sometimes* it picks up what I've marked with my cursor, so that I can just press shift-insert. Sometimes it doesn't. WTF? WHY NOT?. Oh well, then I have to right-click to make it put the text on the clipboard. So... now I've got the text on the clipboard, everything should be fine and dandy, right? NO! I still can't use shift-insert in a sane way. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and I have to rightclick *again* to paste! WTFISTHAT? I've switched to Kubuntu not long ago, and thank god... The copy and paste functionality appears to actually WORK AT ALL. It works pretty good. The even better part is that you can predict if it works or not. With gnome you just can't.

How do you suppose I fix that? It's open source isn't it? Then I should be able to fix that easily!

To all the proponents of Linux On The Desktop:

1. Please stop flounting linux as totally superior. Be realistic. It sucks in many ways, but it sucks in other ways than Windows
2. Make sure that you point out that learning linux isn't as easy as windows. Really. Do it. Please.
3. Make sure you've pointed out 2.
4. Accept that Linux is a Tool, just like Windows. Every tool has its good and bad sides. Windows has a (mostly) coherent user experience, linux has not. Windows has (inflexible) wizards, Linux has extreme flexibility (at the cost of complexity). You can't have it all. EVER. /rant

You can mod me down now. Just had to get that out. Should be incoherent enough to make it hard to read :-P

The no RC bug ideal...

...is sorta like the "no deaths in traffic" ideal, nice ideal but if you live it to the letter everything wlll stop. What gets Debian every time is the long tail of RC bugs, some long-lived bugs in e.g. the kernel linger on while less critical software go through many cycles. They go into a sort of meta-support stage where they're busy backporting fixes to etch, before it's even released. Sure every distro has those but for Debian it seems to go on for months and months.

Yeah, 'When It's Ready'

If you're looking for the latest drivers/kernel tweaks, it seems like Debian is perpetually behind. Every so often I try installing it (and Ubuntu/Kubuntu also), but with any new hardware it breaks and I end up re-installing SuSE again. Not that SuSE is perfect but at least it works with my hardware better than Debian/Ubuntu/Kubuntu.

Slowness

The slowness of Debian updates is a feature, not a bug. When you have a server 4,000 miles away from home (where a major OS upgrade can quite easily leave the machine an unbootable lump of metal), having a long time between major releases, and the updates to the current release being rock solid - it's a BIG feature. It's why I run Debian on those servers - because it's a lot less stressful than running a faster moving distribution.

On a point of pedantry, also you cannot have a meteoric rise. Meteors fall!

Different markets

The slowness of Debian updates is a feature, not a bug. ... It's why I run Debian on those servers - because it's a lot less stressful than running a faster moving distribution.

Definitely. I've been using Debian for over a decade, but what I'm seeing now is that Debian and Ubuntu are cooperatively focusing on two different markets. They aren't really duplicating effort, because they seem to be sharing packages and patches back and forth, and even users can setup hybrid systems if desired. But what they are doing is aiming for two different things.

For the moment, Debian seems to be producing a more stable distribution with server packages kept up-to-date and good attention to security fixes. Ubuntu seems to be producing a more user friendly distribution with simpler installation, ease of use, and more up-to-date desktop packages.

I see this as being beneficial so far. Any software developed for one of them can be ported to the other, and so having two separate organizations developing two different lines for two different purposes can make progress and quality better on the whole.

Debian has it's place

I used debian for years on my servers and desktop and really enjoyed it. Then one day I went to install a hauppauge video capture card and a couple other devices that aren't very standard. After weeks of recompiling the kernel, out-of-branch kernel sources, and various other things it became very tedious. A friend gave me an Ubuntu CD to try it out and everything just worked out of the box. Every piece of hardware was configured and working nicely out of the install, and the universe/multiverse feature was nice for getting things Debian normally doesn't carry. So for now I prefer Ubuntu for the desktop, and Debian or Ubuntu for servers. Just my oppinion, but I've had a couple friends switch over too because they wanted more bleeding edge software or wanting things to just work.

When Did NetCraft Confirm This?

Let's get a few things straight.

1. Another post mentions a concatenation of problems. I agree with this post.

2. Ubuntu is not a good server distro!
Stable and well-tested older packages are a strength of Debian. Yes there is a large class of sysadmins that like keeping odd hours running buggier systems. They generally burnout or learn how valuable stable is. To address the rather immature "needs newer packages" complaints, may I refer you to http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php [backports.org]

3. Depth of Knowledge
There are still, many excellent Debian sysadmins out there that share and certainly have brought my skills up to a higher level. I don't see the same depth in Ubuntu forums.

4. Ubuntu Money
Mark's bringing money to the table, he gets to call the shots. That's well and good because the honeymoon is on right now. What happens when the honeymoon is over? Debian doesn't look organized compared to a guy calling the shots with his bankroll. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison.

5. Etch
I'm running etch right now on my desktop and in testing. It was ubuntu-release quality months ago.

Am I the only one...

..who looked at the title and for just half a second though, "Who gives a rat's ass what the owner of NewsCorp(TM) thinks about Debian??"

Debian will never die.

Just take a brief look at this list.

http://www.debian.org/users/ [debian.org]

Ditch Stable

They should ditch stable, testing should be given more direct-oversight. Stable is always released way out of date, and all the news is just how out-of-date Debian is. Let organisations that can make decisions take testing and "stabalize" it.

They have the most ears

The Debian society has my best wishes. I just wish they learned to listen to non-developers better.

Stable is the problem

In the last years Debian has become more and more the base for other distros, while Debians very own distro, namely the "Debian stable" branch has faded away into total obscurity. Sure it might still run on a few server here and there and I have it running on my router myself. But its basically a total failure. Why? Simple, sure you might want a distro that doesn't ship the newest stuff of everything and instead focuses on stable software, but that is *not* what Debian stable is doing. Debian stable is simply old software without RC bugs assigned that doesn't get updated any longer. That often means that you won't see the bug fixes that happen in upstream. More then once it has happened to me that upstream already long fixed critical bugs that never made it into stable, would I have run 'unstable' I would have never run into the bugs in the first place. And of course it also happens a lot that I run into software that either isn't available in stable or so outdated that its just of no use any more, so I have to compile it myself, use untrustworthy third party repositories and do all that security update thing completly manually, since Debian stable of course doesn't provide any updates for unofficial packages.

Debian should just give up on the whole stable thing is it is now and instead turn it into a branch that is really worth its name, i.e. only package software there that is really stable and proven to work and not some FooBar 0.0.6 stuff that just happens to be floating around in unstable without RC bugs assigned, since that will be obsolete in a matter of weeks anyway and provides basically zero value at a point where stable is released, let alone years after that.

Debian testing/unstable as become an important core of other distros and they should really focus much more on that instead of trying to pretend that unstable one day will become stable, since that simply isn't what is happening.

Debian Weekly News says it all

http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/ [debian.org] says it all really...

It is *called* 'weekly' news yet, in most cases, it comes out monthly.

Seems pretty inevitable...

Hardly surprises me that every few years, a group so rigorously dedicated to a set of strongly defined principles would suffer a period of amok time. It's simply logical.

Old news

How is this news? I knew Debian was dead the first time I saw Ubuntu Warty Warthog. Feisty is due in less than a month. The only reason Debian still exists is for those crazy free-only people who refuse to install a proprietary driver that's free as in beer, increases the functionality if their computer, and they would never look at the code even if it were open source. I say let it die, who cares?

On the Desktop, who cares? But on the Server...

I don't understand why so many desktop users are flocking to Ubuntu, which seems slow to me and has had quite a few show-stoppers, especially since they are essentially repackaging Deb at this point. On a desktop, Debian "Sid" (the unstable development branch) is quite bleeding edge, yet with less breakage than a "stable" build of Gentoo after a few make-worlds, or even Ubuntu right out of the box. This makes it very attractive to me as a powerful and current desktop for general use and development. Plus, the community itself is very knowledgeable, if not a bit grizzled. What's wrong with Sid on the desktop? For most people, absolutely nothing. For others, the biggest hangup is that there's just not a lot of exposure for it, and a net-inst can be tricky for n00bs. So while that can be improved, it still seems like a walk in the park compared to installing Win95 from floppy.

On the server however, it's a totally different beast. Be it webhost or data center, most admins are understandably wary of "unstable" distros -- as they should be. Now don't misunderstand me, Debian "unstable" is a damn site more stable -- in a reliability sense -- than the so-called "enterprise-grade" product which currently holds monopoly status in the industry. But as an admin, I don't want a system who's core packages change often, even if they are changes for the best. So the release candidate, "Etch", may be reliable and basically finished, but is effectively excluded for server usage en masse because it's not officially finalized. Again, this is because if the server changes and breaks part of the app stack, there's nothing but blood and tears for you as an admin. With that in mind, I hope to see Etch released and accepted abroad, so that Debian can get out of this rut of negative public perception, and consider being one of the best Linux distros anywhere.

I know how you feel, Murdock

Murdock believes that Debian is "process run amok" -- nobody feels empowered to make decisions, leading to the sluggish rate of progress."

That's how apt-get makes me feel, like I am not empowered to make any decisions. So even if I know that a library dependency is met, I am not empowered to override apt-get and tell it to install the package anyway. Apt-get is emblematic of the Debian project's biggest strength and, as Murdock has pointed out, its greatest weakness. "Process run amok" is a good way to describe it. People need to be able to make exceptions, because no one - not even the Debian maintainers - is a God.

No such thing as a "meteoric rise"...!

It's nonsensical, really, to talk about a "meteoric rise"--since meteors don't rise; they fall.

Re:Debian is dead

Why would anyone even bother installing "true" Debian at this point?

the debian that can be installed in 40 minutes is not the true debian.

i used to have a debian Tshirt that said "it's what your mom would use if it was 20 times eaiser."

i think that the debian group will always be needed to do the heavy lifting and the ubuntus of the world will add specifictiy and compatibility.

Re:Debian is dead

Uh. What debian can't be installed in forty minutes? My last debian install was as a backup to my production server and I certainly spent less than an hour doing it. Most of that time was spent downloading (I was using a net-install). The actual time I physically spent at the machine installation was under a half hour.

Ubuntu is pretty sweet for the desktop, but there's too much desktop-y stuff involved in it. Without doing some research, I wouldn't even know how to do an Ubuntu install completely free from any window manager whatsoever. With Debian, however, there's nothing I don't want installed by default. I only have to deal with a GUI if I want to. And since I don't want to, installing my window manager is as simple as "apt-get install screen". Done. Hurrah!

Anyway, the whole idea that Debian is somehow this painfully difficult distro is just absurd and I don't know why people buy into that. It might be more difficult than normal to get a fully operational desktop and window manager with all the trimming going than something like Ubuntu where it's all pretty much built into the installer by default, but in every other aspect, you can't get much easier and straightforward than debian. I've been using it since about 1999 and I keep playing with other distros every couple of years to see if I can be swayed away (and other than Ubuntu for pure-desktop systems), I don't see any compelling reason to stray from Debian. And even then... only to a Debian-extension like Ubuntu...

Re:Choose the server option.

Boot the install CD and choose "Install a LAMP server" at the menu.

And that's exactly why Debian is better than Ubuntu in most scenarios (although Ubuntu may still be better for most users). Someone is asking how to install Ubuntu without GUI and the answer is to install it with a full webserver stack. Some people have more specific needs than 'Desktop' or 'LAMP server' and in all of these cases Ubuntu has no added value, worse yet, it looses out on lower stability and having to deinstall stuff as a first step right after the installation.

Apart from that, it's way more fun to actually decide for yourself which packages to use. If i wanted the software to take as much as possible decicions for me I'd be using Microsoft stuff, they are way better at deciding what's good for their customers.

Re:Debian is dead

the debian that can be installed in 40 minutes is not the true debian.

Debian was NEVER supposed to be "difficult to use". This is something that has happened with the time - other distros became desktop-oriented and debian kept being power user-oriented.

It just happened, but that doesn't means that you shouldn't be able to install debian in 20 minutes. From the Debian social contract [debian.org]

4. Our priorities are our users and free software: We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments.

Debian users are asking for an easy to install/use, desktop oriented distro. The Debian project is just not providing such thing, so they go and choose other distros that actually listen to them, like ubuntu.

Re:Debian is dead

Debian had better not be dead because it is the soul of Ubuntu. We have Ubuntu because of the people who spent so many years making Debian, and they did a lot of things right, and they did those things because they believed in the Debian philosophy. Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Maybe we have to have a crazy Debian world full of people who really care about releasing versions when they are ready. Besides, it's not as if it's the only operating system with irregular releases that tend to miss deadlines.

Additionally, I wonder how much cash is being burnt to keep Ubuntu cracking along. Perhaps it is not sustainable? Debian is, I would say. It has proven itself.

Re:Debian is dead

I put Ubuntu on a server and got a bunch of crap I didn't need. Next time I'll probably just use Debian. My LAMP VM that I use for testing runs Debian. I can run it under Windows to test new PHP/MySQL crap. Debian has a zillion uses. It's my OS of choice for servers for sure.

Debian Stable not dead in my server room

I don't have time to worry about internal Debian politics. Perhaps it is a clusterfuck. Beats me. But Debian Stable (Woody) may run old software, may lack some desirable features, and may not have the latest Gnome interface... but so what. It is stable. I have a cluster of machines running Stable that serve AFS to hundreds of clients. With those machines, my problems are almost all hardware related.

That's all I care about. Is it stable? Yes. Is it secure? Yes. Does it perform a function I need? Yes. Then deploy.

Re:Debian's problem

That's seen as an advantage to some. Fedora likes to ride the bleeding edge, but there's a lot more bugs because of this. Debian stable is called that for a reason. A lot less patches, and a lot less bugs. As a desktop user I can see the desire to run a more up-to-date OS, but if you're running servers I would probably opt for a more stable distro over having all the latest toys.

Re:Debian is dead

Well, sometimes the Ubuntu installer does not work. That is how I ended up reverting to plain debian on my wife's core2 duo machine after a few days of struggling with the Ubuntu installer. No doubt someone else has had the opposite experience.

Truth to tell, I don't really notice that much difference between running Debian testing and Ubuntu. At least no-one at my house is longing for the days when we ran Ubuntu.

So I am curious, what fabulous things am I missing? Or maybe the fact I am a fairly experienced Debian user negates most of it.

Re:Debian is dead

Not really. Ubuntu piggy-backs off of Debian's SID packaging and would be nowhere without Debian. Of course, Ubuntu regularly gives back to Debian, so it's a two way street that benefits both.

What would be good, however, is if Ubuntu and Debian could co-ordinate their releases better. I see absolutely no reason why Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) shouldn't be based off or synced to Debian stable, other than the fact that Debian and Ubuntu don't co-ordinate their releases. If Debian could make regular releases and actually have slushy freezes, soft freezes, and hard freezes months before the expected release date, there's really no reason why Debian stable couldn't be both stable and released regularly. It just requires good project management. With this in place, syncing Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS would just be a matter of mutual agreement.

Re:Debian is dead

sooner or later, probably some time from now it might make sense for Debian to focus at releasing their testing branch as a continuous distro like Gentoo or Arch, and focusing at giving it community support and timely security patches insead of using it at something developing toards a stable release. It seems like Debian stable has far too many users many users for server stuff for this to sound realistic now, but maybe after the next Ubuntu LTS release, Debian's lack of scheduled releases (released when ready, patch support for oldstable for [how long was it again?]) could make it hard to compete with release cycles like the one of Ubuntu LTS, and its regular, 18 month supported releases has. But decreased interest in Debian stable is probably depending on improved quality of other distros. Does this theory make sense at all or will people keep using debian stable?

Re:Debian is dead

"Why would anyone even bother installing "true" Debian at this point?"

Because Ubuntu's installer hung up my machine every time I tried to run it and Debian didn't (neither did FC4 but who wants that?). I really wanted a decent apt-get implementation and went straight to Ubuntu. After about 4 tries at install, I tossed the Ubuntu install CD in my stack of useless CDs (yes I did verify the CD was good) and downloaded the Debian net install CD. It installed quickly and cleanly and it has even passed the wife acceptance factor. As long as people are making their secondary boxes into Linux machines, Debian is far from dead.

Re:Debian is dead

Why would I want Debian over Ubuntu? Stability and quality control.

Ubuntu is to Debian what Fedora is to Red Hat. It moves fast with the best new versions. It has all the bugs in the best new versions and deprecates old interfaces and configurations with that same speed.

Here's what I want from a server: It should be rock solid with an absolute minimum of bugs. It should run with essentially no attention for several years. Routine security updates should should be prompt and complete but require little or no operator attention. In particular, no routine update should result in an old configuration file becoming incompatible. Barring exceptional circumstances, it should run itself without my attention.

And when it does finally come time to upgrade to the next major release there should be a minimum negative impact on the server's existing configuration. If a piece of software drops a feature I'm using then it shouldn't automatically upgrade to the next version. Instead, the old version should remain available with security updates for a good long while.

Debian delivers on this. Ubuntu, as fine a system as it is, does not.

Re:Netcraft

Netcraft confirms it, Debian is dying, the grave is dug, and it's bastard offspring, Ubuntu is lowering the casket.

The King is dead, long live FreeBSD

Funny , this guys joke gets -1 point but the FA is actually speaking about same pointless Ubuntu desktop % racing giving up stable image Debian gained/earned for all these years.

Re:Fuck Debian

"Due to licensing issues, we are no longer able to receive security updates to Firefox in an expedient manner. In the interests of maintaining security, we have begun using the fork "Iceweasel". Functionality remains the same, the only user-visible differences being in the name."

Re:Fuck Debian

Honestly, I'm more productive with Debian than I am with other Linuxes (at least with Deb as a server). I don't want to have to go through the testing cycle every couple months to upgrade. I've got stuff to do, and babysitting a constant upgrade cycle is not one of them. Debian's policy of not changing software versions inside stable means I know that APIs will remain stable and fixed until I do a full upgrade, which is a good thing for me.

I like that Debian is slow to update things. My job is not to babysit servers...it's to make s*&t work. If I don't have to mess with a server, and can count on it working reliably for long periods of time...yay.

Re:Debian's problem

Yeah, that's one of the biggest draw to Debian for me. The release scheme is great. I can run stable on my server and it's exactly that....stable. It's older software but I'm not using it for a desktop, I'm running webservers, ftp, and the likes on it. All controlled via ssh. For this situation, stable is a great choice. On my desktop at home, unstable or testing is usually running the bleeding edge stuff and it does this with some good stability. I don't understand comments about the 'age' of Debian releases and comparing them to Fedora or some other bleeding edge distro. Some Distros are made for the desktop, others are better for a server....with Debian you have both and all it takes is to change the word "stable" to "unstable" in the sources.list file. I like that convenience.

The politics of the Debian development is sad to hear. It's always bad news. It's a shame because Debian is still a great distro. Even with all the internal conflicts, it's still my favorite distro.

Re:Fuck Debian

I am so sick of their elitism, their idealism, their purity-over-functionalism. I cut my teeth on Debian and I thought it was a great platform to learn on, but it has no place in the workplace.

Um Debian does not hide their idealism, they are quite up front. http://www.us.debian.org/intro/free [debian.org]

If you are saying there is no place in the enterprise for these ideals, You haven't look around enough.

There are many of us who not only believe in these ideas but support them exclusively.

You are free to use what you like but saying I think Debian needs a wakeup call. It should either be abandoned or made correct; is the most idiotic statement I've heard since joining the movement. (And that is saying something.)

Debian Servers are rock solid and have been since way back. Many a workplace run debian servers without users/admins even noticing the purity/idealism you speak of.

(I spoke too soon, New idiotic statement)difficult enough without having the personalities of brilliant yet insignificant(to me) developers holding back shipping dates

Wow. Just Wow.

Ok guys, we cannot have these discussions any longer, Jaxon6 (You know the guy who pays nothing, contributes nothing and bad mouths us on the intarweb) needs us to deliver for him now. I know freedom, trademarks, stability, blah, blah, blah, Jaxon needs to use firefox but doesn't know how to install it. Fix it. Jaxon6 has spoken.

I remember those ideals I had a decade ago when installing Debian from floppy.
Good to see you Got over those Childish notions of freedom and equality bub. You are a Man now.

As a developer let me be the first to say Fuck You and have a good day.

Re:Debian is dead

I think even the idea of comparing the two this way lacks some kind of deeper understanding of both the FOSS philosophy and linux users as a heterogeneous, world wide group, including both amateurs and professionals. They are not in the same game, not for the same people. There are many of us, who need a stable, pure, low-level-configurable server distro and some of us even need the same kind of puritanism on our desktops. Many (probably more) need the out-of-the-box compatibility and GUI oriented eye-candy stuff. I think the best is to have them both: have a low level distro, upon which an other one can be built, that satisfies the needs of the latter group. And this let's us (former guys) go with the pure stuff. IMHO the appearance of Ubuntu, and the bipolar (usergroupwise) symbiosis of the two distributions is the greatest thing that happened in the Linux world in the last few years. And I really hope, that it helps the spreading of linux, while it's lets us live with our "old fashioned" ways. But please, don't blend the two!

Re:Fuck Debian

http://www.hp.com/go/debian [hp.com]

HP seems to get it. Why don't you?

Re:Debian is dead

As much as I like Debian, I must admit you're right: Ubuntu seems to be what Debian should have become.

It is best to keep Debian the way it is and then have Ubuntu the way it is. They will both evolve but I don't want to see Debian become Ubuntu. I only run Ubuntu now but having that stable Debian release for the servers that just need to be stable above all else is the rock in the foundation everything else great about both systems is built upon.

Re:What a big baby!

I bet you 5 to 1 he's working for a big corporation within the week and the debian community will continue on without him.

I suspect you cheated reading his blog... (=

Re:Politics suck

Politics suck

Yeah, it would be so much simpler if everybody just followed the MCP [wikipedia.org].

Re:Debian's problem

Personally I found that Debian's problem is that by the time they've gotten a new release out the door, it is already hideously out of date.

I never understood this argument. I don't consider myself an expert in the various Linux distributions, especially not Debian. However, I settled on Debian for the exact opposite reason. I wanted, for my home computer, a bleeding-edge system that I wouldn't have to re-install ever because a "newer version" was released.

So I switched to Debian unstable, got packages almost as fast as in Gentoo and other bleeding-edge distros, and since then, never bothered re-installing anything from scratch. I just let my system evolve. Sometime this leads to broken bits, but I don't mind much, fixes are generally released fast enough for my tastes.

So... if you want a rock-solid server OS, get Debian stable. If you want a bleeding-edge, configurable OS, get Debian unstable, and you have testing inbetween for a more mainstream-type distro. I'm not saying that everybody should use Debian only (I myself use other distros quite often) -- just that the "out of date" argument is really getting old.

Re:Fuck Debian

It should either be abandoned or made correct; no in-between.

There is no "correct". Well maybe you have some idea of what correct is, but so does everybody else. So you'll find some other distro to use, get fed up, and leave in another "Fuck XYZ" rant. Better yet, start your own "correct" distro.

Re:Ubuntu no better than Debian

I run Testing, and it is neither up-to-date nor stable. Newer packages are often stuck in Unstable for whatever reason. There have also been several times where my machine had critical bugs after updating. I'm not sure you can summarize the different distributions completely accurately with one word. It's best for users to read a little blurb about which one means, and let them choose what they feel is right for them.

By the way, even Unstable is often not up-to-date. It depends on when the package maintainer gets around to well, maintaining the package!

Re:Debian is dead

Debian->Ubuntu
Chicken-$gt;Chicken
You can eat them both, but when you eat mountain oysters you don't say "damn this tastes like chicken". Point being....they're both good but you can't beat the original. Oh and we can argue about which came first the chicken or the egg.....it'll be about as productive as comparing Debian and Ubuntu.

Re:Ubuntu no better than Debian

I think one opportunity that Debian continuously fails to see is to make very clear that Testing is always uptodate and always usable.

It isn't, though.

PAM in Testing was broken for months, and X in testing was broken for a while after the changeover to X.org. That's what led me to give up on Debian [ath0.com]: 'stable' was too out-of-date, 'testing' was too unstable. By cherry-picking from 'testing', Ubuntu seems to be able to find a happy medium.