Debian Is the Most Important Linux 354
inkscapee writes "Without Debian we are nothing. Debian is the most influential and important Linux, and is unique for being the largest, oldest, 100% non-commercial community-driven distro. '...just under 63% of all distributions now being developed come ultimately from Debian. By comparison, 50 (15%) are based on Fedora or Red Hat, 28 (9%) on Slackware, and 12 (4%) on Gentoo.'"
Do we need this? (Score:5, Funny)
Yet another dick measuring contest? Seriously?
Re:Do we need this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes.
These numbers mean one of two things. Either devs should:
1) Allocate more resources into developing Debian because it's the most important distro, or
2) Allocate more resources into the rest because Linux may be losing its diversity.
It helps to know where you're going...
Maemo (Score:2)
It also suggests that Nokia and Intel were idiots for switching their mobile Linux distributions over to RedHat based systems.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get it. RH is a very accepted standard, whether or not it is more or less "influential" than Debian. RH isn't fly by night, has been around as a commercial product for many, many years, has the backing of the parent corporation, which is actually profitable. The CentOS project was born from it, which makes the RH system completely free for use by people such as myself.
And being used by a number of other distros has nothing to do with market penetration or quality. RH (and CentOS) haven't been fo
Re: (Score:3)
And being used by a number of other distros has nothing to do with market penetration or quality
Exactly. No real innovation has come out of Debian. In fact, their situation was so messed up, they needed a millionaire do-gooder to sort their mess up.
From the technical standpoint, Red Hat is the distro that advanced Linux the most. That's a fact.
Re: (Score:3)
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why Linux never made it to the desktop: as long as developers don't unanymously chose for option 1, chaos will prevail in the Linux world.
Re:Do we need this? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the reason Linux does not have a large desktop market share is because it matured 10 years too late, after Microsoft had already established a stranglehold on the desktop market. The barrier to entry is massive. Fragmentation is a minor issue in comparison to the difficulty of challenging an established monopoly.
The only way Linux will ever succeed on the consumer desktop is if it (a) runs all Windows applications and games perfectly, and (b) never presents users with any uncertainty or minor difficulties. Because the truth is this: when a user has have a problem with Linux, they blame Linux. When they have the same problem with Windows, they blame themselves or their computer. That is the real reason why Linux has only made major inroads in markets such as smartphones, where there was no existing monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. It is very simple:
Linux could be complete crap but if when a person bought a "computer" and turned it on, it ran Linux, Linux would be the #1 operating system.
The reason OSX is becoming popular is because now a significant fraction of "computers" (the ones from Apple that the cool people buy) happen to run OSX by default. This is despite the fact that 90% of the boxed software you can get at best buy will not work on it, and that it is perfectly possible to wipe the machine and install Windows to
Re: (Score:3)
Some distros try a different business model for Linux, one that is not for freeloaders. Linux fanboys love freeloading, hence no Linux apps. Anyways, I digress. Try Mandriva PowerPack (paid version). It ships with proprietary codecs. This makes some fanboys go insane, but then again we don't see those fanboys helping out with any codec, because signal processing is tough shit, and not the kind of stuff bashers and repackagers can wrap their head around. They better stick to repackaging other people's softwa
Re: (Score:3)
Could be, but I think it's that everyone who has the same name agrees with each other!
Re: (Score:2)
Most Gentoo users would argue their package management system is the best. It can certainly manage things none of the others can, although that comes with obvious downsides too...
Re:Do we need this? (Score:4, Interesting)
By far my favorite. I finally went back to it after a few years on Ubuntu (god has it gone from being sensible and complete yet sleek to a bloated mess in the last few releases) though I'm going the Sabayon route this time because I frankly don't care about compiling every single package, but I want access to Portage and Gentoo's config tools if I need them. The way init scripts are handled in Gentoo and Gentoo-derived systems is especially great--if I had to pick one part of Gentoo for every other distro to copy, it'd be that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, option 3, they mean that Debian is the least useful distro because everyone who wants to do something with it ends up making a new distro based on it.
Or, option 4, they mean that Debian is the most useful distro because everyone who wants to make a new distro based on it can easily do so.
I find it amusing that you made a whole comment bitching about how the story says nothing when you in turn say nothing.
Yeah, we need Debian (Score:4, Insightful)
See, with
1. RedHat doing their weird patches thing, and their restrictions when you use RedHat Network (Red Hat Stops Shipping Kernel Changes as Patches [slashdot.org]), and the huge lag times between RHEL updates
plus
2. Ubuntu doing stuff [slashdot.org] that some people don't like, plus the whole Unity/Wayland thing,
the importance of a good, free, working and fresh distro is highlighted.
OK, so you're going to say "Debian, fresh?" But I think this might be a good time for both Ubuntu users to test the Debian waters, and for Debian to get its act together.
Re:Do we need this? (Score:5, Funny)
Yet another dick measuring contest? Seriously?
unique for being the largest, oldest, 100% non-commercial community-driven metric.
Re:Do we need this? (Score:4, Informative)
Slackware has Debian beat on age.
Re: (Score:2)
The statement is that Debian is the oldest community-driven distribution.
Personally, as a Debian user, I always think of Slackware as the oldest distribution still in use.
Re: (Score:2)
If you narrow the focus enough, you could pick anyone as the winner.
The most important due to the number of users?
The most important due to the number of commercial users?
The most important due to the number of contributors?
The most important due to the number of lines of code submitted back up?
The most important due to longevity?
The most important due to the number of commercially released versions?
Th
Re: (Score:2)
The most important due to the number of ISO downloads?
The most important due to the sheer size of the ISO downloads.. stable is 8 dvds or 52 cds? ;)
I have no idea what is on most of those (nor likely care) but I like that someone does care enough to be the package maintainer. I'm sure other distributions also can say the same so I'm not saying Debian is best for that. I'm not even saying it's best, different distro's for different tastes and needs. I personally dislike the sheer number of distributions though. It's almost becoming a fashion statement and what
Re: (Score:2)
When looking at distros named "Ubuntu", it seems that Ubuntu is the oldest in the category!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I tried running Dell Windows and it was crap. I use mostly the kernel from Bill's tree with a few HP and IBM patches applied to support the newer hardware as required, but have stuck with the HP window manager (the Microsoft released one is rubbish).
Re: (Score:2)
Most of my disks are 3.5" :-)
Android? (Score:2)
Re:Android? (Score:4, Insightful)
>Is Android considered linux?
In everyday usage the word Linux refers to the whole OS. And by that we mean the kernel, GNU stuff, (sometimes also X11 and whatnot). In light of that, Android is not Linux, even if it technically is.
Kinda funny.
GNU/Linux (Score:3)
In everyday usage the word Linux refers to the whole OS. And by that we mean the kernel, GNU stuff, (sometimes also X11 and whatnot). In light of that, Android is not Linux, even if it technically is.
Which might even validate the point of the people who insist that Linux distributions similar to desktop Linux be called GNU/Linux. This would at least serve to distinguish [pineight.com] "GNU/Linux" on N900 from "embedded Linux" on Android phones.
Android is a Linux distro by definition (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is officially just a kernel, and a "Linux distro" is any suite of user-side, open source software that provides a complete operating system based on that Linux kernel.
That makes Android a totally kosher Linux distro, even if it is an unusual one with a special Java-based UI by default. It can't be suggested that lack of X11 means that it's not a Linux distro, since there are lots of other Linux distros without X11 too.
Re: (Score:2)
I think officially you should call it: a Java-like language ?
Re: (Score:2)
To be a distribution would so of imply that it is being distributed. Android is trying to be an operating system, not a distribution of an operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes Android a totally kosher Linux distro, even if it is an unusual one with a special Java-based UI by default. It can't be suggested that lack of X11 means that it's not a Linux distro, since there are lots of other Linux distros without X11 too.
Sorry, Android is a "kosher Linux distro" as much as Phelps & WBC are "good christians".
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It's Linux, but it's not GNU/Linux, which is what the term Linux distribution generally refers to, it has nothing to with X but with the GNU toolchain. More like Dalvik/Linux...
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the "GNU/Linux" sense, which most people mean when they say linux, no.
In that sense, BSD is more linux than android is, and it isn't. If that makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go with yes. But it is not a general purpose desktop nor server distribution, and doesn't come with the full user-space stack that you'd expect from those. Rather, it's a mobile Linux distribution with a Java-based user interface and application environment.
Re:Android? (Score:4, Insightful)
Debian (Score:2, Funny)
...is the natural "next step" from ubuntu for those looking for something less experimental.
But one distro being more important than another? Ludicrous. All distros are essentially the same, except for minor variations in desktop environment, package installer, and selection of usermode programs loaded onto the install CD. If one distro were chosen at random and all others ceased to exist, the linux world would continue as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe nowadays, but debian did do apt before yum or anything else like it, and now that sort of capability is absolutely ubiquitous. In terms of things a "distribution" does inherently, that aspect of package management is very large.
Though, I'm inclined to agree... (Score:4, Insightful)
This smells suspiciously like flame-bait. And if you look carefully, you'll see an army of trolls off in the horizon.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to call the dwarves and the elves? We need help over here !
Re: (Score:3)
I think the smell might change once the trolls get closer, though.
Descendent distributions != Importance (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't 'Number of descendent distributions' a crappy metric for 'Importance'? Wouldn't something like 'Installed base' be humongously better?
Re:Descendent distributions != Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's perfectly adequate for starting a flamewar among ignorant zealots and obsessive fanboys in order to generate page hits and advertising revenue.
P.S. Ubuntu sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Ubuntu sucks.
Not really biting, but on the subject of Ubuntu:
What I really love about Ubuntu is having a Debian stack underneath, with a nice desktop setup on top. I can do normal desktopy things without extra fuzz, but when I happen to need backend-component-x for our webdev stack I can just apt-get install it with a 95% probability.
I really like the blend of user friendlyness and a solid foundation that Ubuntu provides, and a lot of it is really thanks to Debian. For me, it's a win-win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But 'easy to measure' is not the same as 'useful to measure'. We could measure the size of each distribution, but it doesn't really tell us anything.
I threw in 'installed base' just because it was the first thing that came to mind - my real point is that descendent distributions just doesn't imply much, no matter how easy it is to determine.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't 'Number of descendent distributions' a crappy metric for 'Importance'? Wouldn't something like 'Installed base' be humongously better?
Yes. But TFA started out by saying 3/4 of the most downloaded distros were Debian-based. The "number of descendent distributions" was just something that looked nifty and quotable.
The killer features of Debian though are that it's driven by *people*, not shareholder profits, and that these guys work in the Unix tradition. Kind of like a *BSD, I imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Mint Debian [linuxmint.com].
Oldest? (Score:5, Informative)
I think Slackware is just slightly older than Debian and this graph [wikipedia.org] seems to indicate that as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Try CentOS (Score:3)
If you go by the importance of infrastructure run, I would guess that CentOS (binary compatible with Red Hat, without Red Hat fees) is is the most important Linux distro out there. The last three companies I worked at that use Linux in the data center used CentOS.
Re: (Score:2)
CentOS is not binary compatible with RHEL, CentOS is RHEL, sans RH branding stuff.
I agree with you - since Debian inception, lot has changed in where and how Linux is used. So Fedora, being the base upon which RHEL is built seems to be the the most important one these days. Some will argue that it's not community driven though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except by the logic of the article, that would make RHEL the most important, since without it there wouldn't be CentOS. But if you're first going down that line you might as well go one more step, without the individual apps there wouldn't be anything to make a distro of.
I think the article is confusing convenience with importance. As long as Debian does the job well, it's very convenient for the other distros to not do the same job and just work off that. I think many employees have discovered that as well
show us the stats (Score:4, Insightful)
When laying claim to a statment that "X is the most important of Y", one would expect that to be backed up my statisitics proving that point.
The only half-serious attempt that the author has made at this is in the 3rd paragraph. And even then, he is merely quoting select figures from distrowatch, without further derivation or detail, let alone an attempt to paint a balanced picture. The rest of the article is basically a listing of the various distros based off debian.
That is precisely what the title of this article should have been: "List of distros based on debian"
Instead, the author has chosen to go for the dramatic, attention grabbing headline - and has in some respects succeeded, in that as he has gotten his article slashdotted.
Nothing interesting here, don't waste your time RTFA, move on.
Almost 2/3 of the distros are based on Debian (Score:2)
"323 currently active distributions listed on Distrowatch, 128 are based on Debian, and another 74 on Ubuntu. In other words, just under 63% of all distributions now being developed come ultimately from Debian. By comparison, 50 (15%) are based on Fedora or Red Hat, 28 (9%) on Slackware, and 12 (4%) on Gentoo."
Almost 2/3 of the distros are based on Debian, as it includes Mint and Ubuntu. Given the assumed popularity of Ubuntu, that is a lot.
However, should you turn your head to commercial server space, I gu
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but isn't the whole draw of RHEL the fact that it isn't one of 500 splintered forks? There is only one RHEL, and that is why companies all over the place use it.
This is an interesting metric, but it points more to what random groups of devs use when they decide to create their own novelty distro rather than the "importance" of the distro itself.
Now, don't get me wrong - if there were some objective way of determining which was the "most" important linux distro out there Debian would be right up there
As long as you spell my name correctly (Score:2)
Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Android, Gentoo, Mandriva, Knoppix, SUSE, Slackware, Puppy, Slax, Freespire...
Who cares?
As long as you don't spell it Microsoft
p.s. The Kernel is Linux - the rest of the stuff is Open Source. Even Apple's OS/X gets it 95% right - they just use MACH instead of Linux and then apply a different GUI.
No matter what - Redmond loses.
Re:As long as you spell my name correctly (Score:5, Funny)
I don't care what you say about Linux - just spell it correctly.
Apple's OS/X
Uh...
But Linus says that Debian is pointless.. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/01/our-exclusive-interview-with-linus-torvalds-lca2011/
“I’ve tried it a couple of times over the years, mainly because the thing Ubuntu did so well was make Debian usable. I always felt that Debian was a pointless exercise because to me, the point of a distribution is to make everything easy. Easy to install, to be pretty and to be friendly and Ubuntu did that to Debian.”
That must hurt.
Re: (Score:3)
He also says:
“I’ve always had a few problems [with Ubuntu.] It’s not very friendly to kernel developers, and I just end up giving up. That’s kind of okay, because clearly I am not the target audience.”
I guess the same goes for Debian. For example Debian does really well on servers.
But Linus obviously is not a 'user' anyway, as he had no clue which distros are the first ones that popularised live-cd usage.
Re: (Score:3)
> That must hurt.
Not really. Linus can be pretty stupid. He likes things to be easy and often makes dumb choices in regards to that(hello BitKeeper). In this case saying Debian is "pointless" because Ubuntu make it easier is stupid. Ubuntu wouldn't exist without Debian and the "point" of Debian is to be a stable 100% free open source distribution that will always be there for you.
And it's funny considering the shit that Ubuntu is pulling these days and how people now are looking to move away from that di
CentOS anyone? (Score:2)
Every company I've worked at and virtually every ISP I've utilized have used CentOS as their main Linux distro. Maybe Debian is tops for hobbyist use, but CentOS / Redhat Enterprise is king of the corporate world.
In other words, there is no one distro to rule them all - depends on the context.
LS
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on where you look. Many, many places run Debian servers.
And if it wasn't for CentOS I don't think people would be using as many RPM-based distributions on servers. I don't think many people run Fedora or OpenSUSE on production servers. Because all the other big RPM-based distros are for-pay. And with for-pay distros you don't get such as much community support.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, CentOS isn't 'driven' by a communtity (other than the mostly simplistic mission of 'rebadge RHEL'. Indirectly, RedHat does the 'driving' for CentOS. That is explicitly why it is so popular, the users piggy back on the hardware vendor and ISV support RedHat has.
Debian is largest among distributions that are not ultimately beholden to a commercial entity and not following the lead of another distribution.
Most important (Score:2)
Desktop distro pissing matches are irrelevant. I have bills to pay. Any desktop/OS combo that provides SSH and a modern graphical browser is adequate for my business needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Coincidentally many, many run Debian servers.
I personally think Debian is a server operating system first and a good base for desktop distros second.
Root Prompt (Score:2)
I could care less what it is, debian, centos, solaris, aix etc etc etc, just give me a root prompt and I am at home. Oh and just for the record no, I don't give a damn about you sudo troopers.
Re: (Score:2)
Protip:
You can change it so you can login as root. It's not a good idea from a security standpoint, but you can. It takes about 5 seconds if you're a slow typist.
Also sudo -i will get you a root shell so you don't have to keep refreshing root privs with a password after they expire.
--
BMO
So then, should i just set my desktop with debian (Score:2)
Totally off base (Score:2)
Debian isn't even in the ballpark. The most important linux is FreeBSD, but nobody wants to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, they create new drivers which are used in the other BSD and the Linux kernel, they are used as a base for Junos for the Juniper routers. I guess FreeBSD like the Linux kernel is used for TCP/IP-research.
But OpenBSD maintains OpenSSH which is used in pretty much all Unix-like environment and embedded system like routers and managed switches.
I still think it makes Debian interresting because they adopted FreeBSD as their second kernel, having the same environment on all systems is very useful.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see Netcraft confirms...
Re:Totally off base (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that debian is going to make FreeBSD a lot better for FreeBSD users.
Debian does a lot of work making sure that all of software works on all the architectures that it supports
Mozilla claims that Firefox runs on Linux, but debian had to jump through hoops to get Firefox to compile, much less run on the MIPS platform.
By making Kfreebsd a first class platform, a lot of fixes for FreeBSD should make it upstream, which should improve the quality of the software in the ports tree.
The big contribution debian makes is debian policy and the QA on all the architectures that it supports.
Some of the billion respins are probably interesting, but the copyright fights, and the code improvements to support cross compiling are things that leak into other distributions. Debian was one of the reasons that AMD64 support is as good as it is under Linux. The Redhat, gentoo, and slackware users that use the 64bit versions are benefiting from Debian getting their distribution to run on 64 bit platforms for years.
Personally, I think the title of the article is true, but that the article provided no evidence about all the contributions that Debian brings to Linux users and just argued "it's the parent" Which if that is the case, BSD386 is the most important OS, as it is in many ways the ancestor of Solaris, OSX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, The GNU project and all the GNU systems. In other words, everything other than Windows. And Windows has some FTP and telnet code from BSD386 in it, and at one time the windows TCP/IP stack was based on the BSD386 network stack.
Gentoo, Redhat, SuSE, Slackware, Canonical and others contribute in ways that help build the Linux ecosystem, but it is hard to overstate Debian's importance to the ecosystem by being an large, neutral, cross platform distribution, that is very transparent. Unfortunately it is possible to completely miss this and ramble on and on about the number of respins that exist.
primary term (Score:3)
Everyone knows deep down that "most important of" originates from the part of the brain responsible for mating behaviours and penis size comparisons. People are attracted to the dialog in the aspiration to become one of the lucky lekkers. And even if the lek has nubility factor zero, it's good practice just in case if your prospects are poor and you have nothing better to do.
At a certain age, you tire of the loud clatter of penis rulers and you just want to hand the participants a scalpel and a bassinet labelled "least important" to find out whether they really believe that every infinite series can be approximated (for the purpose of getting laid) by the first term alone.
I sometimes wonder if the donning the coat of arms of truncated approximation functions as a sexual status symbol. If the well runs deep, no need to bother with second order effects; leave those worries to the mincing greybeards whose primary term has shrivelled up.
For me the miracle of conception is how quickly the brain reprises all those forgotten terms, if there were any in there to begin with.
Congratulations to the person posting this story for telling the world that your swimmers have yet to enter the pool.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Google no longer maintains the code they previously contributed to the Linux kernel as part of their Android effort, creating a separate version or fork of Linux. Android's mobile operating system is based upon a modified version of the Linux kernel. It is not linux.
Specifics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Linux_compatibility [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Does it use the Linux kernel? You're answer is also the answer to the question of "is it Linux."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is Linux. Just because you say it's not doesn't make it so. Just because it's become a fork, for now at least, doesn't make anything you've said valid. It runs a Linux kernel, modified yes but still Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
So where does that place Android? Maybe third because there are some embedded Linux distros that are in everything from TVs to coffee pots.
This was about Linux distributions. There aren't any Android Linux distributions. Therefore Android doesn't qualify to take part in this comparison.
Or if there is, please give me link to an ISO so I can try it out! A Live CD would be even better!
Re:Android second? (Score:5, Informative)
Android 2.2 for i386 [googlecode.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I stand corrected, and thanks, have to try that out!
Re:Android second? (Score:4, Interesting)
Comparing Debian to Android is actually very interesting. Debian has something like 32,000 packages that can be installed, but it's taken something like 15 years to get there. Android blasted to over 100,000 in something like 2 to 3 years. Debian is all about community contribution, while Android is all about selling closed-source apps, with no sharing of code between. In theory, it should be easier to publish an app in Debian than Android, but this is not the case at all. In Debian, you have to find a sponsor, do a complicated job of packaging, pray your package gets uploaded to Unstable, and then wait a few years while it migrates to Stable before other programmers will generally have access to your work. I call this the Debian Red Tape. It's suffocating innovation in the open-source community, and it's the reason Android is kicking Debian butt.
I believe there is a solution, but it requires a completely new packaging system. Let's compare Android and Debian packaging:
- Android ships every dependent binary in the .apk app file. This eliminates the nightmare of having your app crash because some library you use gets updated. .so files across applications. This made sense in the '90s when disk space was scarce, but now days, it's just dumb. The reason it takes years to get a packaged library into Debian Stable is that it takes years before we believe you library wont cause other apps to crash.
- Debian is all about resusing
A new packaging system could share identical binaries between apps to save both disk and memory space, but it should not ever change a binary used by an app. Also, publishing new packages should be as easy as creating a repo on github.net. You simply declare that it's available, and everyone can use it. Whether a developer decides to depend on your code should be a matter of trust, which could be scored based on developer reputation, code stability and what other packages use it.
Without a major upgrade to our packaging system, Debian will continue to fall further and further behind. Why do so many people feel they have to build a custom Debian based distro? Because Debian incapable of addressing the needs of modern users. Frankly, even with the total lack of libraries available for Android, and with Google having their heads up there arse with respect to accepting contributions from the community, I am able to contribute more to Android than I can to Debian. Check out my library that I've made available to both at dev.vinux-project.org/sonic [vinux-project.org]. I'm basically done for Android, while I'm still waiting for a Debian sponsor over in Debian land.
Re: (Score:3)
You're forgetting that out of those thousands of Android apps, most of them are built for Dalvik, not "Linux." There is a project porting Dalvik to FreeBSD, will it still be Linux after that? There are far more Debian packages _for Linux_ than there are for Android, and there are no Debian packages for Dalvik that I know of.
The reason so many people are making custom Debian distros is because Debian is an extremely stable base with a pretty nice package manager, and they want to customize it. That's it. I w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the number of visitors to Wikipedia, over 50% of all Linux desktop users use Ubuntu:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-01/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm [wikimedia.org]
But more visitors use Android than Ubuntu.
And more people use Ubuntu than MacOS on PowerPC.
Many people run the Ubuntu LTS-version, but more run the latest stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ubuntu is essentially Debian Unstable (Sid) (Score:2)
I would say that Debian has a certain importance to the Ubuntu community, given that if Debian disappeared, the Ubuntu community would have to whip up all these cool new packages from scratch rather than fixing what's broken from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, are you trolling?
The latest version of Debian Stable was released about a month ago. It's not great for the desktop, mainly because other distributions (most notably Ubuntu) have overtaken Debian - mainly because they've opted for a pragmatic "hey, it works, who cares about the license as long as it's legal to distribute?" approach.
But put Debian on a server and it absolutely shines.
Stable, reliable, timely security updates which don't tend to break anything, upgrading in place usually works pre
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you use your servers for, but for our purposes Debian is more than adequate. Very few applications really require yesterdays cutting edge release of whatever software. The slower release cycle of Debian provides us with a much appreciated stability. Security fixes are much more manageable than entire release updates. Meanwhile, the long "testing" period Debian goes through allows us to test properly test and prepare a platform-wide (read thousands of servers) upgrade and ensure it doesn't caus
Re: (Score:2)
It is not so much dpkg that is important, it is the quality of well it is packaged. This is partly because of the long release cycle, all possible conflicts and problems will be found because many people use testing and update frequently. Even though Debian has (I think ?) the largest number of packages (maybe I should source packages).
Re: (Score:2)
Not being linux, they don't.
Re:how about the BSDs (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it matter ? Because Debian is now a BSD-distro now. ;-)
http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ [debian.org]
Seriously.
I think OpenBSD might have the most influence, because they created/maintain OpenSSH.
Which is used in many, many if not all Linux, BSD and other Unix based systems, routers and managed switches.
I think FreeBSD is where a lot of drivers are being created for all the BSDs and I think for the Linux kernel as well.
FreeBSD is also used by Juniper as the basis for Junos for their routers, which runs a large percentage of the internet.
OpenSolaris is dead, but OpenIndiana/Illumos will keep it going for that community. Which means there is free code which can do ZFS and Dtrace (which itself is also incorporated in FreeBSD).
First? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because a base Debian install can still be small, so it is a great starting point for so many speciality distros. You try installing Red Hat or Fedora and even with lots of trimming it is hard to make it fit on anything smaller than a 9 gig drive.
Re: (Score:2)
If "most popular" == "best", than Debian is "best" in the same way that NT4 is the "best" Windows, I guess: NT4 and its derivatives are the most widely used.
Popularity does not necessarily equate to quality, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think most of the Debian derived distros are forks. Just look at Ubuntu, they take Debian as their new base every few years and incorporate most of the 'community supported' packages directly from Debian.
Simple example clamav or something on Ubuntu 10.10 and look at the changelog.Debian.gz file which tells you who did what changes in Ubuntu or Debian:
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:46:37 +0100 -> change by Debian maintainer
Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:04:10 -0500 -> change by Ubuntu maintainer: merge from Debian
Fr
Re: (Score:3)
Does Arch have secure package management yet?