From: Bill Guindon <agorilla@...>
Date: 2007-06-12T11:35:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Serious danger of being impressed

On 6/11/07, Benjamin Kudria <bkudria@eml.cc> wrote:
> On Monday, June 11 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:27:01PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
> > > Ok, thanks for the advert. Debian has its own problems, but this isn't
> > > the place to discuss them.
> > >
> > > On 11/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> > > >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.
> >
> > Uhh . . . what?  I said it was a fork.  I didn't say it was crap.  I'm
> > not sure where you're coming from with the hostile tone.
> >
> > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development):
> >
> >   In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a
> >   copy of source code from one software package and start independent
> >   development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.
> >
> > From http://wiki.ursine.ca/Fork:
> >
> >   In the open-source community, a fork is what occurs when two (or more)
> >   versions of a software package's source code are being developed in
> >   parallel which once shared a common code base, and these multiple
> >   versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences between
> >   them.
> >
> > (Note: The commentary about Linux distribution forking in the Jargon Wiki
> > is somewhat naive, in terms of its assumptions about the differences
> > between Linux distributions.  The key component of forking is
> > incompatibility, not whether or not something is composed primarily of
> > widely available elements.)
> >
> > So . . . why does your statement read as though you thought I said
> > "Ubuntu is a *crappy Debian fork*!"?  I said nothing of the kind in my
> > statement as quoted by you.  I pointed out that Ubuntu and Debian are not
> > compatible -- are not, in fact, simply different implementations of the
> > same standard, as the previous message seemed to imply.
>
> Well, I have issues with your statement too.
>
> Ubuntu may be a fork, but that's not telling the whole story.
>
> For one, Ubuntu is "re-forked" every 6 months, after every release.  Less of a
> fork, more of a companion code-path.  If that makes any sense.
>
> Secondly, you say "The key component of forking is incompatibility..."
> I can personally attest that Ubuntu and Debian are compatible in a number of
> ways (but not all!).  I've used Debian packages in Ubuntu before (and
> vice-versa)
>
> Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
> re-synced every 6 months.  How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?

Is this the place, or the thread, to discuss this?

Forgive my ignorance, I"m a 'born again noob', and I always will be.

> -Benjamin Kudria
>
>
>
>


-- 
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
The best answer to most questions is "it depends".