Debian VS Ubuntu

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

Which do you prefer, Debian or Ubuntu?

Debian
37
61%
Ubuntu
24
39%
 
Total votes: 61

joshumax
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:16 am UTC

Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby joshumax » Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:52 pm UTC

I get they're "relatively" the same but would you rather drink water from upstream or downstream?

Image
Last edited by joshumax on Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

screen317
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby screen317 » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:05 pm UTC

Null vote.

Iranon
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:30 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Iranon » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:28 pm UTC

Upstream: less wee in it.
LEGO won't be ready for the average user until it comes pre-assembled, in a single unified theme, and glued together so it doesn't come apart.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:03 pm UTC

Downstream from the filtering plant and fluoridation? = ]
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby hotaru » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:10 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Downstream from the filtering plant and fluoridation? = ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis ?

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

lorb
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby lorb » Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:33 am UTC

Clearly Debian: They have a social contract.
And obviously:
Iranon wrote:Upstream: less wee in it.
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

Pingouin7
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:50 pm UTC
Location: ~/

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Pingouin7 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:46 pm UTC

Ubuntu because it made the votes 50/50
Dason wrote:
Kewangji wrote:I confess I am actually scared of peanuts, and tend to avoid them, given how lethal they are to some people.

I'm not. I do my part in the fight against peanuts by destroying them with my powerful teeth. Take that peanut! How does being digested feel!?

beojan
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:11 pm UTC
Location: Oxford / London, United Kingdom, Europe

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby beojan » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:01 pm UTC

Debian, as Canonical is trying to turn into Apple, and abandoning the rest of the free software community.

User avatar
udscbt
Cardinal
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Italy

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby udscbt » Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:16 pm UTC

Debian, because it's more free than Ubuntu. And because Canonical. (But I use Ubuntu anyway because I already had the live CD and didn't want to download something else, I'm such a hypocrite)
udscbt (a.k.a アダスチボト), Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Burn y'all heretics!
buffygirl wrote:I, Timewaiter Buffygirl, Cardinal of The One True Comic, do hereby nominate you, udscbt, for the position of Cardinal. -poof!- You're a peanut butter and jelly sandwich! Wait, that's not right - - -

bigcrag92 wrote:I Bigcrag92 being of soundish mind yada yada yada do ratify the cardinalship of udscbt nominated by buffygirl. may I and buffygirl be stuck down if we have erred in this decision.

bigcrag92 (continued...) wrote:by the power vested in me I now name you Cardinal peanut butter and jelly sandwich udscbt. arise my brethren

joshumax
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:16 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby joshumax » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:22 am UTC

Notice: Please nImagete that the Imageriginal PImagester is cImagempletely mutual regarding the twImage Imageperating system distrImages.

donny662
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:55 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby donny662 » Fri May 24, 2013 4:31 am UTC

I admire Debian more, but I haven't run Debian since I first tried Ubuntu: it was the first time a Linux install "just worked" for me. I've been on Linux Mint for the last two LTS releases, but after installing Ubuntu 13.04 on my parents' box and seeing first hand the commercial integration in search and software center, I'm considering Fedora or OpenSUSE (even though I have no experience with them) for my parents and Arch for myself.

User avatar
Marvin
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:03 am UTC
Location: Croatia
Contact:

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Marvin » Sun May 26, 2013 5:50 pm UTC

i just run debian on almost everything (i'm looking at you stupid phone!)
42
--
If God intended us to program we would be born with serial I/O ports.

wumpus
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby wumpus » Wed May 29, 2013 12:22 pm UTC

Anyone know if either case is true:

Debian will actually install the unfree nvidia drivers (not true as of about 6 months ago, about half the packages the documentation called for weren't currently available).

Mint (or Ubuntu) will migrate (or sufficiently backport) the now quite pretty debian installer? This is important as I have yet to see the ubuntu installer install on software RAID (something the debian installer always has. Some ubuntu distributions (the 12.04LTS is the last I've seen) included "alternative" .iso discs that used the ubuntu installer, giving me both software RAID and unfree nvidia drivers.

Right now I'm on ubuntu 12.04 as that appears to be the most up to date system for both cases (unfree nvidia drivers and software RAID). It looks like the "right" solution would be to buy a AMD card, but even with a dying card it appears that nvidia has the best solution right now (a $60 460 on craigslist).

User avatar
Marvin
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:03 am UTC
Location: Croatia
Contact:

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Marvin » Wed May 29, 2013 12:44 pm UTC

wumpus wrote:Debian will actually install the unfree nvidia drivers (not true as of about 6 months ago, about half the packages the documentation called for weren't currently available).

I'm using nvidia non-free drivers for years, including last year, and there is mostly no problem. Don't know what documentation you were looking at.
Debian wiki usually has up to date version: http://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers
Additionally, if you are running stable, drivers should work without any problems, if you are running testing, from time to time drivers might be broken in testing, but working in unstable.
42
--
If God intended us to program we would be born with serial I/O ports.

Cousj001
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:55 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Cousj001 » Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:23 pm UTC

I don't use either, having moved to Ubuntu derivatives nearly two years ago now. I'm on Linux Mint at the moment, but as I'm typing this I'm downloading Snowlinux 4, which I'm thinking of changing to, as well as Linux Mint 15. I find Linux Mint to be excellent distro, Ubuntu without the commercialisation.
Magic is real, unless declared integer.

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby styrofoam » Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:39 am UTC

Debian. Ubuntu is working on their own display server; an enormous waste of time that would be better spent on Wayland.
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

MrPotatoJunior
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby MrPotatoJunior » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:13 pm UTC

Debian, obviously.

Ubuntu has by default software that recollects information on what you have searched, sends it to their HQ and makes Amazon ads out of it. Having it by default is not only a dick move, it also makes it spyware. Spyware is a form of malware. Thus, Ubuntu is malware. Let's not even get started on the freedom-denying firmware and all.

Canonical is an evil empire that must be destroyed. It promotes non-free software and they turned a cool distribution of GNU/Linux into one of the worst ones. Ubuntu's trademark policy prohibits commercial redistribution of exact copies of Ubuntu, denying an important freedom. The CEO (or someone in a similar position) of Canonical called Richard Stallman `childish'. That's unacceptable. Disgusting ungrateful assholes. I hope the very worst for them.

I profoundly DETEST when people use GNU/Linux and don't care about freedoms! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF GNU/Linux. I get the impression that 95% of Ubuntu users only use GNU/Linux to feel `nerdy' and special (which is absolutely non-sensical).

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:00 am UTC

Maybe we just like the software? = /
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1421
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Xenomortis » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:46 am UTC

Or want an operating system they don't have to pay for?
Image

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby markfiend » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:11 pm UTC

But perhaps you only get free (as in unpaid-for) software because of the freedoms that rms et al care about.

Then again, I use Arch, which includes non-free stuff, so feel free to ignore me.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby zenten » Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:51 pm UTC

Debian. It works better for a server for a corporate (or other "this actually is important") environment. For workstations in such an environment I'm actually starting to like Red Hat (I'm as surprised as anyone) because they have a lot of tools that make managing a whole bunch of workstations simple for the IT department.

For home use I use Arch. Ubuntu used to be my goto for recommending to other people who aren't used to Linux, but I honestly don't know what I'd suggest at this point, as Ubuntu has gone in a direction that makes it almost as painful to deal with like that as Windows or Mac OS.

korona
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:40 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby korona » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:25 pm UTC

Ubuntu has a short release cycle which means that compilers and libraries are more up-to-date. It also means that some stuff does not always work as intended. I never had any problem with Debian so I'm using Debian but sometimes had to build new versions of gcc and some libraries from source. Plus Unity sucks (I know that it is easy to install a proper window manager).

Pingouin7
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:50 pm UTC
Location: ~/

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Pingouin7 » Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:49 pm UTC

MrPotatoJunior wrote:Canonical is an evil empire that must be destroyed.

Canonical is so evil that they're worse than the mafia.
Dason wrote:
Kewangji wrote:I confess I am actually scared of peanuts, and tend to avoid them, given how lethal they are to some people.

I'm not. I do my part in the fight against peanuts by destroying them with my powerful teeth. Take that peanut! How does being digested feel!?

FLHerne
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:44 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby FLHerne » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:07 pm UTC

MrPotatoJunior wrote:The CEO (or someone in a similar position) of Canonical called Richard Stallman `childish'. That's unacceptable. Disgusting ungrateful assholes. I hope the very worst for them.

There's a lot of irony in that post, unless it's actually sarcasm... :roll:

Also, are you trying to argue that Mr Stallman is not a childish, paranoid crazy person?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:45 am UTC

Yeah, if it were a character attack for convenience, that'd be bad, but that does not follow for just making the entirely accurate assessment. = P

Sometimes icky people accomplish really important things, and are in fact the best people to do so. I don't think the character of Stallman and his contribution should be confused. (And the same goes for a lot of other people who contributed to getting computing where it is today.)
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1421
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Xenomortis » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Stallman is childish, Torvalds is arrogant and E. S. Raymond is fucking batshit crazy.
Image

Iranon
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:30 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Iranon » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:54 am UTC

Generally, free software is different in flavour from proprietary software:concerned about correctness and the ability to be twerked and repurposed, rather than about a polished user experience as-is.
Canonical is embracing virtues, follies and dickeries of proprietary software, which gets free software purists up in arms. They also don't care much about being good citizens (their work mostly goes into improving Ubuntu, with rather limited contribution to upstream projects).

There WERE major problems with Canonical's incorporation of Amazon's services beyond tacky commercialism. The unwholesomeness was worse than that of many unambiguous malware programs, or oft-decried standard practise in proprietary OSes... Stallman had a point that matters to non-hardliners in this case.
LEGO won't be ready for the average user until it comes pre-assembled, in a single unified theme, and glued together so it doesn't come apart.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:00 am UTC

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Stallman childish. Sure, he's an eccentric, paranoid, unrealistic, extremist ideologue, but that's not the same thing as childish.

I should note that I really do agree with his end goals; I just don't think we are at the point socially and economically where it would work out. Our primary goal right now shouldn't be to end commercial software, but to try to make all commercial software, including games, platform-independent.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby dii » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:10 pm UTC

Firstly, a competition between Debian Vs Ubuntu doesn't really make sense, at least from Ubuntu's point of view - if Ubuntu wins, that'd be like going back in time and killing your own grandfather... or sawing the branch you're sitting on, or... you get the picture.

Ubuntu relies heavily on Debian for code, Debian is one of the largest collaborative software projects, that encompasses many desktop environments, and even many kernels - in addition to Linux, Debian also has versions with the FreeBSD (ie. the kernel that FreeBSD uses) and Hurd kernels.

On the other hand, this requirement to work accross many kernels also means that Debian cannot always take advantage of Linux-exclusive features, because it has to ensure compatibility on the BSD/Hurd versions, as well. In the short term this probably doesn't matter too much, but in the long term, if the kernels and their diverge more... it may become a problem. There's already a trend among Linux developers to go beyond the constraints of the POSIX standards, and not care about compatibility between other Unix-like OS's. Systemd already depends on Linux-specific features, GNOME is getting more and more dependant on Systemd, which means that GNOME will no longer run on BSD or Hurd in the future.

There's really no contest between Debian and Ubuntu, anyway. Debian is perfect for someone who needs stability above all else (and can't afford RHEL). This stability is a double-edged sword however, and it also means you won't get to take advantage of the latest features.

Ubuntu is based on the more unstable sid-branch of Debian, which means it's less stable, but gets more up-to-date updates.

Canonical has, however, recently made the grievous error of abandoning Wayland and developing their own display server, Mir. This is a really bad misstep for Canonical, and they handled it the worst way possible. Since the way they develop their homebrew graphics solution makes it practically impossible for any other desktop environment to support it, and everyone else had already pretty much decided on and invested tons of work on Wayland, this means that pretty soon, Ubuntu will be the only distro with an incompatible display server (Mir), while every other Linux OS will be running Wayland.

Even furthermore, this decision may cost Canonical dearly: Intel is heavily invested in Wayland because they intend to use it in Tizen. If/when Intel releases their Tizen-based ultrabooks (which have already been demoed) and they will run Wayland, this is going to mean, that developers will have to choose: will they support Ubuntu, or will they support Tizen + pretty much every other Linux distribution (barring those who will stay with X for whatever reasons). That's a game Canonical is more than likely to lose, they're nowhere near big enough to go against Intel.

Then there's the issue of the Steambox. If Valve succeeds with their Steambox, it will likely also have a big effect - game developers will likely target whichever graphics system Steambox runs on. Initially, it's been reported (by Valve) that the Steambox would use X, which does make sense in the short term - X still has the best driver support for now, the proprietary GPU drivers (Nvidia/AMD) only support X still. But in the long term, they too will have to switch to a modern graphics solution (for performance and other reasons), and that means either choosing Unity + Mir (remember, no other DE supports Mir) or Wayland + almost any other DE (Xfce and Razor-Qt/LXDE (they merged together recently) are still unsure, but all the others have announced plans to move to Wayland). Again, if Intel releases their Tizen ultrabooks, this will make it an easy decision for Valve.

As for Debian, it will probably support Wayland eventually, at least optionally - they will likely stay with X for a good while, being very conservative in their development pace, but as soon as the majority of non-Unity DE's run on Wayland, it's likely for Debian to move to it as well.

So for practical use, right now, if you have to choose between Debian and Ubuntu - it entirely depends on your use case. The only usable Ubuntu right now is the LTS version 12.04 - which still uses X. All the later versions are non-LTS, will only have 9 months of support, and the coming 13.10 version has an idiotic hack of running X on top of Mir, which means there's an extra layer of overhead for no gain whatsoever (the apps will still only talk to X, so any features that Mir might have given are not even accessible to the user). Not to mention that Mir still doesn't have proprietary GPU driver support, so if you have an Nvidia/AMD GPU, any Ubuntu beyond 12.04 is going to be a poor choice.

If you want to play games, right now, Xubuntu or Linux Mint are probably the best choices. In the future, it might be something entirely different - maybe even some entirely new distro we don't even know yet. Or whatever Steambox runs.

If you want a stable and secure OS to run on your server, Debian, absolutely. If you want an OS for a brand new laptop, then Debian probably won't be the best choice.

Frankly, I personally wouldn't choose Ubuntu right now for any use, because their future looks very uncertain right now. Once the situation stabilizes, and calms down, it'll be much easier to make choices for the long term.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:04 am UTC

Ubuntu 12.10 has a ridiculously long support cycle, but of course, using 12.10 means missing out on any bleeding-edge software benefit over Debian. Use cases still apply, though. If you're not using a proprietary GPU (see ultrabooks,) there's no threat using Ubuntu.

Ubuntu also has Valve as a partner of some sort right now, since Steam was released there first. It'd be passing strange for Valve to do an about-face and support every major platform but Ubuntu. Now, I doubt they'd rewrite from the ground up for Mir - I'd expect nested X servers to become the norm. (Lovely to think that your calendar app will run native graphics and games will not. Whee.)

On that point, though, I think XMir isn't idiotic. Something like that nested approach is the only possible way to gradually roll out a display server. Presumably, it'll also be the only way to make use of proprietary drivers that don't support Mir directly. And yes, that'll mean a performance hit, because it's only adding processes to the stack, regardless of what Canonical is saying about how snappy XMir seems to be. But it means that Canonical gets to write only against Mir, and yet have the improvements from ditching X in ideal situations. (Again, no proprietary GPU, thus using straight Mir, and running the calendar app, thus no X running inside Mir. (Again, oy.)) The alternative would be writing everything against both platforms, and we don't know how that works yet, since no one is doing it yet for Wayland.

Mir and Wayland are fundamentally different approaches, too. Mir replaces X directly, with a pared down set of functions designed with Unity in mind; Wayland is a protocol to supercede X, rolling the X server functions into window managers, right? So it's still every desktop for itself, but Canonical's approach maintains some modularity and abstraction. I'm not sure if there's a real practical difference, but it reduces the extent to which either is a monolithic "X alternative," and we haven't yet seen any of the Wayland-powered desktop environments that will need to be rewritten to make Wayland a thing.

Canonical still sees itself drifting into the device business (not as a manufacturer, but as an OEM partner,) which is presumably its answer to the graphics driver problem, and also a bit of its motivation, if Mir can be implemented on mobile-type devices, too. If we do get Intel launching Wayland-based-Tizen-running ultrabooks, then sure, it becomes a fight between Canonical and Intel that Canonical can't possibly win.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby dii » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:26 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Ubuntu also has Valve as a partner of some sort right now, since Steam was released there first. It'd be passing strange for Valve to do an about-face and support every major platform but Ubuntu.


It's not strange. It's business. Valve does what they consider best for Valve, they're not going to think "oh, Canonical's feelings get hurt, let's not do this". Valve is working with Ubuntu because it suits them now, they obviously target it as the single largest distribution, but they're not in it because they just really want to cater to that 1% of their customers. No, they ultimately want to release their own Steambox, which will run their own Linux distro. It will not use Mir by the way. Linux gamers right now are just basically good free beta testers for Valve.

Ubuntu has a large market share (relative to other distributions) but it doesn't have a larger share than all other distros counted together. And again, if Intel releases their Tizen-powered ultrabooks, that's going to change the game even further. Those will be running the Steam client as well, they'll have no problems with drivers (Intel GPU's, Intel drivers = entirely open source, Intel has great Wayland support, Tizen uses Wayland).

Copper Bezel wrote:Now, I doubt they'd rewrite from the ground up for Mir - I'd expect nested X servers to become the norm. (Lovely to think that your calendar app will run native graphics and games will not. Whee.)


Valve doesn't really dictate how other people's games are programmed. Games that don't speak directly to X but use SDL instead will very likely be able to run natively, as SDL is being ported for both Mir and Wayland. However that's not all games by any means.

Copper Bezel wrote:On that point, though, I think XMir isn't idiotic. Something like that nested approach is the only possible way to gradually roll out a display server.


No, Xmir isn't idiotic, as such. It's a copy of Xwayland, adapted to work for Mir instead of Wayland. The way it's being used now (to run an entire X desktop, ie. Unity, on top of it) is idiotic. The current version of Unity is still X-based, so what they have is Unity, talking to Xmir, talking to Mir, talking to the hardware - instead of Unity talking to Xorg talking to the hardware. It's an extra layer that brings no benefit, because Unity will still only see X, all the apps will still only see X, but there's an extra layer of overhead involved. Extra layer of bugs, as well.

Xwayland (and thus Xmir) was originally meant to be used on top of a native Wayland compositor, to run individual X applications, so that each X application would get their own rootless X server which would then talk to the Wayland compositor. If used in this way, the way it's supposed to, Xmir is also just fine, but right now it's being used in a bastardized way that doesn't really make any sense for anyone. I suspect the only reason is PR, it's for Canonical to be able to say "look, we're already using Mir" (even though they aren't, really). And to make users into bug catchers, obv.

Copper Bezel wrote:Presumably, it'll also be the only way to make use of proprietary drivers that don't support Mir directly.


No, it has nothing to do with drivers. Xmir doesn't talk to drivers at all, it's on the other side, between Mir and the X-application. It's basically the same as Xwayland, except Canonical has hacked it so that it can run with root privileges, so that they can run an entire desktop on it (Unity).

Copper Bezel wrote:Mir and Wayland are fundamentally different approaches, too. Mir replaces X directly, with a pared down set of functions designed with Unity in mind; Wayland is a protocol to supercede X, rolling the X server functions into window managers, right? So it's still every desktop for itself, but Canonical's approach maintains some modularity and abstraction. I'm not sure if there's a real practical difference, but it reduces the extent to which either is a monolithic "X alternative," and we haven't yet seen any of the Wayland-powered desktop environments that will need to be rewritten to make Wayland a thing.


No, you have some things wrong here.

Wayland is a protocol, but it has nothing to do with X as such, it's an entirely new concept. The protocol defines both client- and server-side APIs, which are implemented in libwayland. Libwayland alone will not get graphics on the screen, because it just implements the API for the protocol, right? The protocol also defines how to write clients and compositors. A Wayland compositor can be something like GNOME shell (which incidentally already works as a Wayland compositor), or Kwin (from KDE), or even the reference compositor, Weston (which is developed by Wayland devs, but isn't strictly a part of Wayland). Wayland doesn't dictate anything beyond the protocol, it doesn't dictate implementations (beyond the APIs coded in libwayland).

Now, since Wayland promises a stable protocol and API, this means that every desktop can rely on libwayland, and write against it when they implement their own compositors. Yes, writing the compositors is a bit of initial work, but Wayland is so simple and straightforward that it makes writing compositors almost trivial. It also makes sense to do the composition in the one place that actually knows where all the windows should be - the window manager.

Wayland itself isn't compatible with X, and doesn't really maintain any "X server functions" as such - it gets backwards compatibility via Xwayland. Wayland is also backend-agnostic, so it can run on diverse environments. It can run even with software rendering, with no GPU drivers required - it's been used in this way on Raspberry PI.

The main difference is, that Mir is a monolithic server, it's "protocol-agnostic", it's only written for Unity, which means it won't get utilized by anyone else. Wayland is made in a way that everyone can use it. Mir is, in a way, actually less modular than Wayland.

The entire problem with Mir, it's a really bad move for all involved - bad for Canonical, as well as bad for everyone else. In the short term, it will alienate everyone from Canonical, especially with the horrendously bad way they handled it: first, they tell everyone they're committed to adopting Wayland. Then, they start creating their own solution in secret, not even telling their own developers, some of whom really should have known (eg. the LightDM developer spent 6 months porting LightDM to Wayland for no reason), and after 6 months of silence (while Wayland developers were waiting for Canonical to step up and start helping with the development) they release Mir with big fanfare, release a bunch of FUD badmouthing Wayland, which is not only incredibly unprofessional, but also proven to be false almost immediately, which brings Canonical's expertise on the graphics stack to question...

In the long-term... Mir is being developed in a "selfish" way: Canonical devs have outright stated that Mir is being developed with the needs of Unity in mind only, and that there will be no stable server-side API or protocol, which makes it practically impossible for any other DE to adopt Mir. Especially when a better option already exists, which is Wayland (Wayland promises a stable protocol and API, is open for collaboration, is being developed for various, very diverse needs and use cases). This means Mir will stay as a one-distro solution, it will never see adoption outside of Ubuntu/Unity, and this also means Canonical will have to maintain a custom graphics stack (Mesa, Xorg etc.) and custom patches for all toolkits (Qt, GTK+ etc.)

Mir simply doesn't make sense: it's tons of extra work for Canonical devs, which could be putting those scarce resources towards other things. Differentiating at a crucial level like this doesn't make sense, it's not something that brings any user-visible benefits (ones that they couldn't have had with Wayland), and even the reason given by some that "they want to own/control the codebase" doesn't really make sense, as Wayland is a protocol and allows everyone to implement their own compositors. Mir is timed extremely badly - right now when we're getting support for gaming, and interest from new developers, is the worst possible time to start fragmenting the graphics stack to pieces. There's no good reason for the existence of Mir, which is why it's extremely off that they chose to invest so much resources to it.

I sincerely hope that Canonical will have the sense to back down eventually, and implement at least client-side compatibility with Wayland, because otherwise I don't see a very bright future for them, in the long term.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:25 am UTC

No, Xmir isn't idiotic, as such. It's a copy of Xwayland, adapted to work for Mir instead of Wayland. The way it's being used now (to run an entire X desktop, ie. Unity, on top of it) is idiotic. The current version of Unity is still X-based, so what they have is Unity, talking to Xmir, talking to Mir, talking to the hardware - instead of Unity talking to Xorg talking to the hardware. It's an extra layer that brings no benefit, because Unity will still only see X, all the apps will still only see X, but there's an extra layer of overhead involved. Extra layer of bugs, as well.


Oh. Yeah, that's bad then.

Between Ubuntu's relative ubiquity, its overall realist approach to free software, and my preference for the Unity desktop, which is really just Gnome 3 with some kinks worked out and some neat extras, I definitely don't want to see Ubuntu shoot themselves in the foot over this. But I definitely understand their reasoning behind pushing Mir out at this point, when they're not even prepared to start writing against it themselves, a good bit less, now.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Iranon
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:30 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Iranon » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:38 pm UTC

I'm a little concerned about Canonical pushing their own tech. Sometimes it feels like this:

"Unless you want to double your work, you have to decide whether you want to support Ubuntu or generic Linux. We're the one with a defined leadership you can talk to and the corporate partnerships consumers care about, so you'd better choose us".
LEGO won't be ready for the average user until it comes pre-assembled, in a single unified theme, and glued together so it doesn't come apart.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby markfiend » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:25 pm UTC

Iranon wrote:"Unless you want to double your work, you have to decide whether you want to support Ubuntu or generic Linux. We're the one with a defined leadership you can talk to and the corporate partnerships consumers care about, so you'd better choose us".

I don't think Canonical can honestly claim that though. AFAIK Red Hat is the most popular distro for enterprise Linux servers, probably with Debian as runner-up.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby dii » Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:35 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:
No, Xmir isn't idiotic, as such. It's a copy of Xwayland, adapted to work for Mir instead of Wayland. The way it's being used now (to run an entire X desktop, ie. Unity, on top of it) is idiotic. The current version of Unity is still X-based, so what they have is Unity, talking to Xmir, talking to Mir, talking to the hardware - instead of Unity talking to Xorg talking to the hardware. It's an extra layer that brings no benefit, because Unity will still only see X, all the apps will still only see X, but there's an extra layer of overhead involved. Extra layer of bugs, as well.


Oh. Yeah, that's bad then.

Between Ubuntu's relative ubiquity, its overall realist approach to free software, and my preference for the Unity desktop, which is really just Gnome 3 with some kinks worked out and some neat extras,


Well, you know, that's also not true for long, as the next version of Unity will not be GNOME-based at all, but will instead be rewritten to use Qt/QML and an entirely original codebase. This is of course inevitable, since GNOME is moving towards Wayland (GNOME 3.10 should already be able to run just fine in Wayland mode) and Unity needs to run on Mir natively, so it makes no sense for Canonical to stay based on GNOME.

I definitely don't want to see Ubuntu shoot themselves in the foot over this. But I definitely understand their reasoning behind pushing Mir out at this point, when they're not even prepared to start writing against it themselves, a good bit less, now.


I wouldn't like seeing Canonical shoot themselves in the foot either. I actually want them to succeed, if only because they provide a good base distro for others to easily create their derivative distros. But lately they've been making some seriously bad moves, things that are just stupid and don't make any sense. Maybe it's because of Mark Shuttleworth's somewhat megalomaniac personality, causing him to overestimate Canonical's assets and abilities.

I mean, what did they expect? Did they seriously not foresee the backlash that would result from them starting their own display server, right at the moment when Wayland was beginning to mature? If I were a more paranoid person, I might speculate - as some have - that perhaps Mark has struck a secret deal with Microsoft, or been coerced by them to work for them in secret. I don't really believe that this is the case, not really. But thinking about it, it would make sense in a way - last year, Canonical was happily advertising Ubuntu's latest version as an alternative to Windows 8. Then suddenly, their tone changed completely, they were suddenly kissing up to MS and saying how they're not really "that bad" - they changed the ad campaign, then Mark closed the old "bug #1", then - Mir.

Mir almost seems like it's designed to fragment, confuse and make the desktop Linux a less appealing platform to developers. If you think about it - it was also at that time when Valve announced their plans to support Linux more, and to invest in Linux more. With Wayland, the entire Linux platform would have had an unified, modern graphics stack, there'd have been a strong platform, and we could be rid of X much faster. But now, with Mir, developers will have to face the choice of which system to develop for, and then X will remain as a "lowest common denominator" which both systems support via compatibility layers. Mir may thus immensely hurt Linux's viability as a serious gaming platform.

So, I really don't see the point in Mir. It's a horribly stupid idea that only brings problems to everyone involved.

User avatar
Aperfectring
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:47 am UTC
Location: Oregon (happily)

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Aperfectring » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:24 pm UTC

I have used Debian for about 10 years now. My desktop is kept on a relatively recent version of sid. I don't update every day, mostly every couple weeks. My file server is kept on testing, though I should probably move it to stable because I don't keep it up to date, and I want it to "just work".

I prefer Debian because I am not a typical user. I typically have at least a dozen xterm windows open for various things. I want all of those as separate windows so that I can easily access them from the application bar. I use fluxbox because when I am starting up my computer, I want to be able to do something almost instantly. I want my xterm windows open immediately so I can bring up other things.

I recognize that I am old fashioned and stuck in my ways, but I hate having to wait for the computer to do what I want, when what I want is simple.

With regards to the Wayland/Mir debate. I have no problems with having/developing alternatives. I remember a time when you had a choice of X servers (XFree86 or X.org). It took quite a while for X.org to become stable and become the preferred. We are proposing a wholesale change from X to something else. I'd rather have two groups approaching it from different angles, and providing options so that if one of them reaches a huge roadblock, we haven't wasted/lost time. Eventually one of the two will die, but until that happens, having alternatives is perfectly fine, in my opinion. That means we get to actually choose which is the better technology as a whole, just like we did between XFree86 and X.org.

Canonical may, in fact, be shooting themselves in the foot. Or they may be actually providing us a superior solution than Wayland. I, for one, have no problems with them going that route. Maybe its because I don't use Ubuntu, and have no intentions of ever using Ubuntu for my own stuff.
Odds are I did well on my probability exam.

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby dii » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

Aperfectring wrote:With regards to the Wayland/Mir debate. I have no problems with having/developing alternatives. I remember a time when you had a choice of X servers (XFree86 or X.org). It took quite a while for X.org to become stable and become the preferred. We are proposing a wholesale change from X to something else. I'd rather have two groups approaching it from different angles, and providing options so that if one of them reaches a huge roadblock, we haven't wasted/lost time. Eventually one of the two will die, but until that happens, having alternatives is perfectly fine, in my opinion. That means we get to actually choose which is the better technology as a whole, just like we did between XFree86 and X.org.


The only problem with that is, that with Mir, there is no choice. It's Unity or nothing. No other DE supports it, and because of Canonical's development model, it's not feasible for anyone else to support it. (I've elaborated on this previously.) So it sounds all fine on paper to be all for choice, but the thing is, the only one offering real choice is Wayland.

So it's a choice between one company's monolithic solution that doesn't care about the needs of others, or a solution that is (like the Linux kernel) designed to run anywhere, to satisfy wildly varying use cases and scenarios.

But can't we just have both? Can't Mir and Wayland co-exist peacefully? In theory, sure. But consider this. Linux already has a small market share, making it hard to convince ISV's and OEM's who traditionally target Windows to target it as a platform. It's not an issue for all applications - most open source applications simply use a toolkit and don't need to access the display server directly, so they don't have a problem, as long as Canonical can maintain toolkit patches downstream without breaking compatibility. But consider things like XBMC, games, closed source software like Photoshop, video editors... sure, some people might be glad or at least not care if proprietary software stays away from Linux, but personally I think otherwise: to gain mainstream support, you need mainstream software - even if it is proprietary - and mainstream support would be good for open source as well, as it would mean better hardware support down the line.

So if we end up in a situation where developers are going to have to choose if they support Mir or Wayland, they will face a choice between one distro that has a plurality of users, but not the majority, or all the rest. That's a poor choice either way, and ultimately the situation will hurt the attractiveness of Linux as a general development platform. It's also likely that some software will only be made available for one system but not the other, and that's not a good thing for anyone.

Mutex
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Mutex » Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:01 pm UTC

It's interesting that Valve's Steam OS ended up being based directly on Debian, rather than Ubuntu as it was going to be (according to omgubuntu.co.uk). Up until that point there had been suggestions that Valve might have been behind Canonical's decision to develop their own display server (people have been scratching around pretty hard to try to work out the motivation). But if Steam OS is based on Debian and carries on using Gnome Shell as the DE, like the current beta does, it makes it less likely they're switch to Mir instead of Wayland. Right now they're still using X.org, but presumably that won't be forever.

If Steam OS does end up using Wayland, then that is what most of the games developers targeting Linux will support. Perhaps they'll support both, but if they only bother targeting one it's not going to be Mir.

User avatar
poochyena
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:02 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby poochyena » Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:07 pm UTC

MrPotatoJunior wrote:I get the impression that 95% of Ubuntu users only use GNU/Linux to feel `nerdy' and special


but, but, i thought that was the whole point of linux!


anyways, i honestly don't know anything between the difference of Debian and Ubuntu. From the replies, it seems the major reason people chose Debian is simply because of the people running it?
is either one better is ways like easier to learn how to use, better UI, more/better software, ect.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Flumble » Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:50 am UTC

poochyena wrote:is either one better is ways like easier to learn how to use, better UI, more/better software, ect.

Numerous people believe ubuntu is easier to learn how to use. I, too, think the default package manager (canonical software manager thing) of ubuntu is newb-friendlier than debian's default manager* and unity shows the most commonly used programs right from the first boot.

In essence the differences are neglible, for they are both linux and you can swap applications/desktop managers/window managers/terminals any way you like. I still don't get why people moan about different distros if it's merely about the choice of preinstalled software. (or I'm missing something, which seems to be quite common for me)


*it's either apt in the terminal or synaptic, I forget all the time because I install synaptic anyway. I like GUIs.


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests