Serious danger of being impressed

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Mark Carter, Jun 10, 2007.

  1. Mark Carter

    Mark Carter Guest

    I'm mostly into Python, and decided to have a go at writing a little
    accounts package (in python on OS X). It worked in its primitive way,
    and I was looking to take it to the next level.

    I decided that sqlite was the way to go. For some reason I couldn't get
    sqlite3 and the python module to work properly - it didn't seem to
    commit the data to the database consistently.

    So I thought, what the hell, I'll try Ruby. I switched over to Ubuntu,
    because it seemed a bit easier than OS X. First impressions: oh man! The
    sqlite package worked fine, and I came across rsqlitegui, which I can
    use to inspect the database when coding isn't required.

    I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.

    I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
    X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
    polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.
    Mark Carter, Jun 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Carter

    Sam Smoot Guest

    On Jun 10, 10:15 am, Mark Carter <> wrote:
    > I'm mostly into Python, and decided to have a go at writing a little
    > accounts package (in python on OS X). It worked in its primitive way,
    > and I was looking to take it to the next level.
    >
    > I decided that sqlite was the way to go. For some reason I couldn't get
    > sqlite3 and the python module to work properly - it didn't seem to
    > commit the data to the database consistently.
    >
    > So I thought, what the hell, I'll try Ruby. I switched over to Ubuntu,
    > because it seemed a bit easier than OS X. First impressions: oh man! The
    > sqlite package worked fine, and I came across rsqlitegui, which I can
    > use to inspect the database when coding isn't required.
    >
    > I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.
    >
    > I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
    > X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
    > polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.


    There's a few sore spots on the Mac, but I find MacPorts does the
    trick most
    of the time.

    port install ruby rb-rubygems rb-sqlite3

    That should do the trick as long as you don't mind the /opt/lib file
    structure.

    I always modify my ~/.profile as well to include:

    export RUBYLIB="/opt/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/"
    export RUBYOPT="rubygems"

    I just don't like having to manually require 'ruby_gems' ;-)

    Sure it's not perfect, but MacPorts means I've never had to think
    twice about the notoriously difficult RMagick install:

    port install rb-rmagick

    It's no apt-get, but I'll leave that to the servers. Trade in OS X for
    Ubuntu? For me that'd be tough. Kubuntu maybe. ;-) Kate is second only
    to TextMate IMO.

    Either way you decide to go, good luck!
    Sam Smoot, Jun 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Mark Carter" <> wrote in message
    news:466c1597$0$27859$...
    >
    > I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.


    As a language, Ruby has always been "a serious contender" for Python.
    Personally, I like it a lot more than Python.
    The main advantage of Python over Ruby is a larger library and (more
    importantly, since there is a rich library for Ruby) a much more mature
    implementation. Sadly, Python is, really, just as powerful a language as
    Ruby, so this gives people every reason to use Python over Ruby, so it would
    help Ruby to work on these things...
    What is the state of Ruby development, does anyone know? The impression
    that I get is that it's slow and diluted across multiple, parallel
    efforts...
    Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality, Jun 10, 2007
    #3
  4. Mark Carter

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 12:20:12AM +0900, Mark Carter wrote:
    > I'm mostly into Python, and decided to have a go at writing a little
    > accounts package (in python on OS X). It worked in its primitive way,
    > and I was looking to take it to the next level.
    >
    > I decided that sqlite was the way to go. For some reason I couldn't get
    > sqlite3 and the python module to work properly - it didn't seem to
    > commit the data to the database consistently.
    >
    > So I thought, what the hell, I'll try Ruby. I switched over to Ubuntu,
    > because it seemed a bit easier than OS X. First impressions: oh man! The
    > sqlite package worked fine, and I came across rsqlitegui, which I can
    > use to inspect the database when coding isn't required.
    >
    > I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.
    >
    > I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
    > X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
    > polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.


    If you like Ubuntu's repositories, you should check out Debian's -- much
    more extensive, and generally conducive to a more stable system, too.

    Similar in extensiveness is FreeBSD's ports collection -- and even *more*
    conducive to stability than Debian's repositories. That's hard to beat.

    Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are willing and
    able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
    something "easy". Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
    transplant, I suppose.

    The above is just one curmudgeonly free unix hacker's opinion, of course.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
    wit."
    Chad Perrin, Jun 10, 2007
    #4
  5. Chad Perrin wrote:
    > If you like Ubuntu's repositories, you should check out Debian's -- much
    > more extensive, and generally conducive to a more stable system, too.
    >
    > Similar in extensiveness is FreeBSD's ports collection -- and even *more*
    > conducive to stability than Debian's repositories. That's hard to beat.
    >
    > Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are willing and
    > able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
    > something "easy". Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
    > transplant, I suppose.
    >
    > The above is just one curmudgeonly free unix hacker's opinion, of course.
    >


    And Gentoo Linux is a good compromise between FreeBSD's ports and
    Debian's repositories. Gentoo's Portage actually descended from ports.

    As far as stability is concerned, Debian stable (currently called Etch)
    is probably as stable as FreeBSD and I think *more* stable than Red Hat
    Enterprise or the RHEL clones.

    But I will stick with Gentoo for Ruby. Except when the Gentoo devs don't
    get prodded from the Ruby community, a Ruby release shows up in Portage
    within a day or so. They have jRuby 1.0 RC1 the last time I synced,
    which was yesterday, for example. And they have more gems than Debian, I
    think.
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Jun 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Mark Carter

    darren kirby Guest

    quoth the M. Edward (Ed) Borasky:

    > And Gentoo Linux is a good compromise between FreeBSD's ports and
    > Debian's repositories. Gentoo's Portage actually descended from ports.


    Really? Like as in, Linux descended from Unix? Or in some direct fashion? I
    always thought portage was an 'homage' to ports, so to speak.

    <snip>

    > But I will stick with Gentoo for Ruby. Except when the Gentoo devs don't
    > get prodded from the Ruby community, a Ruby release shows up in Portage
    > within a day or so. They have jRuby 1.0 RC1 the last time I synced,
    > which was yesterday, for example. And they have more gems than Debian, I
    > think.


    The paludis devs are currently working on direct support for gems
    repositories. Once this is complete we will have direct support for all gems,
    without having to wait for them to become ebuilds (not that writing an ebuild
    for a gem isn't trivial...)

    Very cool...

    -d
    --
    darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
    "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
    - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
    darren kirby, Jun 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Mark Carter

    John Joyce Guest

    On Jun 10, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

    > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 12:20:12AM +0900, Mark Carter wrote:
    >> I'm mostly into Python, and decided to have a go at writing a little
    >> accounts package (in python on OS X). It worked in its primitive way,
    >> and I was looking to take it to the next level.
    >>
    >> I decided that sqlite was the way to go. For some reason I
    >> couldn't get
    >> sqlite3 and the python module to work properly - it didn't seem to
    >> commit the data to the database consistently.
    >>
    >> So I thought, what the hell, I'll try Ruby. I switched over to
    >> Ubuntu,
    >> because it seemed a bit easier than OS X. First impressions: oh
    >> man! The
    >> sqlite package worked fine, and I came across rsqlitegui, which I can
    >> use to inspect the database when coding isn't required.
    >>
    >> I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.
    >>
    >> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over
    >> from OS
    >> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a
    >> nice
    >> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.

    >
    > If you like Ubuntu's repositories, you should check out Debian's --
    > much
    > more extensive, and generally conducive to a more stable system, too.
    >
    > Similar in extensiveness is FreeBSD's ports collection -- and even
    > *more*
    > conducive to stability than Debian's repositories. That's hard to
    > beat.
    >
    > Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are
    > willing and
    > able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
    > something "easy". Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
    > transplant, I suppose.
    >
    > The above is just one curmudgeonly free unix hacker's opinion, of
    > course.
    >
    > --
    > CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    > W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable
    > substitute for
    > wit."
    >

    Ubunut is a Debian Linux.
    John Joyce, Jun 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Mark Carter

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 03:42:03PM +0900, John Joyce wrote:
    > On Jun 10, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
    > >
    > >If you like Ubuntu's repositories, you should check out Debian's --
    > >much
    > >more extensive, and generally conducive to a more stable system, too.
    > >
    > >Similar in extensiveness is FreeBSD's ports collection -- and even
    > >*more*
    > >conducive to stability than Debian's repositories. That's hard to
    > >beat.
    > >
    > >Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are
    > >willing and
    > >able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
    > >something "easy". Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
    > >transplant, I suppose.
    > >
    > >The above is just one curmudgeonly free unix hacker's opinion, of
    > >course.
    > >

    > Ubunut is a Debian Linux.


    Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*. It has less in common with Debian itself than
    PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have less
    in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.

    In fact, measured within the context of Linux distributions, about the
    only thing it meaningfully has in common with Debian is the
    under-the-hood package management software it uses (namely, DPKG and
    APT).

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    awj @reddit: "The terms never and always are never always true."
    Chad Perrin, Jun 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Mark Carter

    Dick Davies Guest

    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 <> wrote:

    > Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.


    --
    Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
    http://number9.hellooperator.net/
    Dick Davies, Jun 11, 2007
    #9
  10. On 10 Jun 2007, at 19:48, Chad Perrin wrote:
    > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 12:20:12AM +0900, Mark Carter wrote:
    >> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over
    >> from OS
    >> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a
    >> nice
    >> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.

    >
    > If you like Ubuntu's repositories, you should check out Debian's --
    > much
    > more extensive, and generally conducive to a more stable system, too.
    >
    > Similar in extensiveness is FreeBSD's ports collection -- and even
    > *more*
    > conducive to stability than Debian's repositories. That's hard to
    > beat.
    >
    > Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are
    > willing and
    > able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
    > something "easy". Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
    > transplant, I suppose.


    I must admit that since swapping to FreeBSD last year I find using
    most Linux distros unnecessarily cumbersome and increasingly user
    friendly in the same way as Windows. But OS X is also a damn pleasant
    platform to use and I probably do more of my Ruby development work on
    it than I do on FreeBSD - TextMate alone makes it hugely productive!
    Ubuntu would be the platform that I'd recommend to a Windows user
    looking to get into Linux as a user, and Gentoo if they really want
    to deep geek how a Linux system hangs together :)


    Ellie

    Eleanor McHugh
    Games With Brains
    ----
    raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
    Eleanor McHugh, Jun 11, 2007
    #10
  11. On 11 Jun 2007, at 08:45, Peter Cooper wrote:
    >> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over
    >> from OS
    >> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a
    >> nice
    >> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.

    >
    > OS X is great as the day to day desktop, though.. so a
    > lot of people use both. You can use Parallels or VMWare Fusion (the
    > latter
    > currently being free and faster)


    Not on my laptop it isn't ;)
    The main advantages VMWare has right now are limited DirectX support
    in Windows guests, and two virtual processors. Parallels 3.0 could
    blow the former away (full DirectX and OpenGL support, although until
    I play with it I'm not counting my chickens) and it happily uses both
    cores of my Core Duo (at least, CPU usage has been known to greatly
    exceed 100% when doing busy stuff). On the whole though I'd say they
    both perform equivalently and are viable choices for anyone who wants
    to run multiple OSs concurrently on their Mac :)


    Ellie

    Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the 'time'-
    dependent asymmetries of phase space.
    Eleanor McHugh, Jun 11, 2007
    #11
  12. Eleanor McHugh wrote:
    > On 11 Jun 2007, at 08:45, Peter Cooper wrote:
    >>> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
    >>> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
    >>> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.

    >>
    >> OS X is great as the day to day desktop, though.. so a
    >> lot of people use both. You can use Parallels or VMWare Fusion (the
    >> latter
    >> currently being free and faster)

    >
    > Not on my laptop it isn't ;)
    > The main advantages VMWare has right now are limited DirectX support in
    > Windows guests, and two virtual processors. Parallels 3.0 could blow the
    > former away (full DirectX and OpenGL support, although until I play with
    > it I'm not counting my chickens) and it happily uses both cores of my
    > Core Duo (at least, CPU usage has been known to greatly exceed 100% when
    > doing busy stuff). On the whole though I'd say they both perform
    > equivalently and are viable choices for anyone who wants to run multiple
    > OSs concurrently on their Mac :)
    >
    >
    > Ellie
    >
    > Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the 'time'-dependent
    > asymmetries of phase space.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Well, as long as we're talking virtualization, has anyone managed to get
    a Xen system on one of the chips with the virtualization assist to run
    OS X as a "guest?" Or does Xen not support the special hardware tweaks
    in a Mac? Dual or triple booting is a pain.

    Is there virtualization in openSolaris? Will it run a Windows or MacOS
    guest?
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Jun 11, 2007
    #12
  13. On 6/11/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:

    > Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.


    More true in theory than in practice. There was a lot more noise
    about the fear that Ubuntu would be a fork back in 2005 when Debian
    users were getting tired of waiting for Sarge and Ubuntu started to
    appear on the horizon.

    But the truth is, at least, more nuanced. And even guys like Ian
    Murdoch pointed that out at the time:

    http://ianmurdock.com/?p=167

    And for a view from the Ubuntu "camp" at that time:
    http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html

    Ubuntu takes packages from sid, stabilizes them before debian, but
    feeds whatever changes they make back to the sid stream.

    So it provides a stream of debian derived releases but instead of
    using the traditional Debian model of "we'll ship the next stable
    version when it's ready," Ubuntu has a time-box ship model. Ubuntu
    makes the final decision on what's going to actually make the next
    release based on which packages have achieved stability in time to
    make it, instead of waiting until all of the packages which were
    picked at the time the release was started get there. One way of
    looking at this is that Debian has a more waterfall release cycle
    while Ubuntu is managed using more of the agile project management
    approach. Back when Ubuntu "Badger" was in the throes of being
    released, Debian Woody was several years old, and Sarge looked to be
    slipping almost faster than the release date was approaching,
    something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.

    The tension is/was? between the needs of server administrators who
    favor a stable platform with security maintainence, and developers who
    want more recent versions of the upstream code. Back then Ubuntu was
    better for the latter. Then they introduced 'long term support'
    releases which are specific Ubuntu releases which will have committed
    support for five years (or there abouts). This helps the server
    users, since the downside of Debian's support policy is that they only
    provided maintenance for an older stable release for a limited time
    after a new stable release becomes available. The net is that Ubuntu
    provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
    and more predictable support of older releases for those who need
    stability.

    > It has less in common with Debian itself than
    > PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have less
    > in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.


    I don't know enough about those distributions to make the comparison,
    but from my experience, Ubuntu doesn't feel like a fork. Even if
    Debian doesn't take ALL of ubuntu's packages as time goes on, I
    predict that the bulk of the code will remain compatible.

    That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
    versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
    because of Ubuntu but because of Debian. In the case of Ruby one
    major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
    recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
    Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
    Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.

    --
    Rick DeNatale

    My blog on Ruby
    http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
    Rick DeNatale, Jun 11, 2007
    #13
  14. Mark Carter

    fREW Guest

    On 6/11/07, Rick DeNatale <> wrote:
    > On 6/11/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    >
    > > Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.

    >
    > More true in theory than in practice. There was a lot more noise
    > about the fear that Ubuntu would be a fork back in 2005 when Debian
    > users were getting tired of waiting for Sarge and Ubuntu started to
    > appear on the horizon.
    >
    > But the truth is, at least, more nuanced. And even guys like Ian
    > Murdoch pointed that out at the time:
    >
    > http://ianmurdock.com/?p=167
    >
    > And for a view from the Ubuntu "camp" at that time:
    > http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html
    >
    > Ubuntu takes packages from sid, stabilizes them before debian, but
    > feeds whatever changes they make back to the sid stream.
    >
    > So it provides a stream of debian derived releases but instead of
    > using the traditional Debian model of "we'll ship the next stable
    > version when it's ready," Ubuntu has a time-box ship model. Ubuntu
    > makes the final decision on what's going to actually make the next
    > release based on which packages have achieved stability in time to
    > make it, instead of waiting until all of the packages which were
    > picked at the time the release was started get there. One way of
    > looking at this is that Debian has a more waterfall release cycle
    > while Ubuntu is managed using more of the agile project management
    > approach. Back when Ubuntu "Badger" was in the throes of being
    > released, Debian Woody was several years old, and Sarge looked to be
    > slipping almost faster than the release date was approaching,
    > something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.
    >
    > The tension is/was? between the needs of server administrators who
    > favor a stable platform with security maintainence, and developers who
    > want more recent versions of the upstream code. Back then Ubuntu was
    > better for the latter. Then they introduced 'long term support'
    > releases which are specific Ubuntu releases which will have committed
    > support for five years (or there abouts). This helps the server
    > users, since the downside of Debian's support policy is that they only
    > provided maintenance for an older stable release for a limited time
    > after a new stable release becomes available. The net is that Ubuntu
    > provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
    > and more predictable support of older releases for those who need
    > stability.
    >
    > > It has less in common with Debian itself than
    > > PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have less
    > > in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.

    >
    > I don't know enough about those distributions to make the comparison,
    > but from my experience, Ubuntu doesn't feel like a fork. Even if
    > Debian doesn't take ALL of ubuntu's packages as time goes on, I
    > predict that the bulk of the code will remain compatible.
    >
    > That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
    > versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
    > because of Ubuntu but because of Debian. In the case of Ruby one
    > major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
    > recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
    > Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
    > Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.
    >
    > --
    > Rick DeNatale
    >
    > My blog on Ruby
    > http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
    >
    >


    Last time I looked at it there was some weird philosophy for not
    having gems support in apt. If I remember correctly it was because
    gem uses a folder per package type deal and that goes against the
    grain of apt. I can't find where I read this, so you'd need to do
    lots of googling to find it.

    --
    -fREW
    fREW, Jun 11, 2007
    #14
  15. On 6/11/07, fREW <> wrote:
    > Last time I looked at it there was some weird philosophy for not
    > having gems support in apt. If I remember correctly it was because
    > gem uses a folder per package type deal and that goes against the
    > grain of apt. I can't find where I read this, so you'd need to do
    > lots of googling to find it.
    >
    > --
    > -fREW


    There are several points they are complaining about rubygems on
    http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html

    --
    Luis Parravicini
    http://ktulu.com.ar/blog/
    Luis Parravicini, Jun 11, 2007
    #15
  16. Mark Carter

    Chad Perrin Guest

    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 <> 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.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    Thomas McCauley: "The measure of a man's real character is what he would do
    if he knew he would never be found out."
    Chad Perrin, Jun 12, 2007
    #16
  17. Mark Carter

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:18:45AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
    > On 6/11/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    >
    > >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.

    >
    > More true in theory than in practice. There was a lot more noise
    > about the fear that Ubuntu would be a fork back in 2005 when Debian
    > users were getting tired of waiting for Sarge and Ubuntu started to
    > appear on the horizon.


    If you cannot install a Debian package in Ubuntu, or vice versa, without
    running substantial risk of breaking the system, it sounds like a fork to
    me.


    >
    > But the truth is, at least, more nuanced. And even guys like Ian
    > Murdoch pointed that out at the time:
    >
    > http://ianmurdock.com/?p=167
    >
    > And for a view from the Ubuntu "camp" at that time:
    > http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html
    >
    > Ubuntu takes packages from sid, stabilizes them before debian, but
    > feeds whatever changes they make back to the sid stream.


    In Ubuntu releases, there's a lot more changed. A simple look at some of
    the software dependencies enforced by APT in Ubuntu, as contrasted with
    those in vanilla Debian, will make that clear.


    >
    > So it provides a stream of debian derived releases but instead of
    > using the traditional Debian model of "we'll ship the next stable
    > version when it's ready," Ubuntu has a time-box ship model. Ubuntu
    > makes the final decision on what's going to actually make the next
    > release based on which packages have achieved stability in time to
    > make it, instead of waiting until all of the packages which were
    > picked at the time the release was started get there. One way of
    > looking at this is that Debian has a more waterfall release cycle
    > while Ubuntu is managed using more of the agile project management
    > approach. Back when Ubuntu "Badger" was in the throes of being
    > released, Debian Woody was several years old, and Sarge looked to be
    > slipping almost faster than the release date was approaching,
    > something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.


    I really don't think the waterfall vs. agile analogy holds even slightly
    true. Both Ubuntu and Debian strive to produce "complete" distribution
    releases with each release cycle. Debian maintains a constant state of
    operational functionality during development of the finished release
    (thus the "testing" branch), and Ubuntu (from what I've seen) provides a
    more "there's nothing to see until it's done" state of development until
    it approaches release-worthiness. Neither of these sounds anything like
    either Waterfall or Agile development to me. In Waterfall development,
    nothing's functional until you're done, and you're not done until you've
    achieved some overarching plan. In Agile development, you have
    functional milestones, but you're not really done until you've achieved
    some overarching plan (though, of course, the plan changes while being
    executed).


    >
    > The tension is/was? between the needs of server administrators who
    > favor a stable platform with security maintainence, and developers who
    > want more recent versions of the upstream code. Back then Ubuntu was
    > better for the latter. Then they introduced 'long term support'
    > releases which are specific Ubuntu releases which will have committed
    > support for five years (or there abouts). This helps the server
    > users, since the downside of Debian's support policy is that they only
    > provided maintenance for an older stable release for a limited time
    > after a new stable release becomes available. The net is that Ubuntu
    > provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
    > and more predictable support of older releases for those who need
    > stability.


    It's pretty clear that the unfortunate comparison of Debian to Waterfall
    development was no accident. You have a definite Ubuntu bias.


    >
    > >It has less in common with Debian itself than
    > >PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have less
    > >in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.

    >
    > I don't know enough about those distributions to make the comparison,
    > but from my experience, Ubuntu doesn't feel like a fork. Even if
    > Debian doesn't take ALL of ubuntu's packages as time goes on, I
    > predict that the bulk of the code will remain compatible.


    Code: yes. Packaging: no. Since Linux distributions are defined by
    their software management systems and installers more than by the source
    code inside the various pieces of software, that pretty much makes Ubuntu
    a fork (though a still-recent one that attempts to derive some benefit
    from similarities between the two distributions).


    >
    > That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
    > versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
    > because of Ubuntu but because of Debian. In the case of Ruby one
    > major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
    > recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
    > Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
    > Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.


    Whether or not Ubuntu supports gems is not dependent upon whether or not
    Debian does so. It's dependent upon Ubuntu management decisions. The
    Ruby packages have already diverged nontrivially from those in Debian
    (though obviously not as much so as certain other packages).

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
    wit."
    Chad Perrin, Jun 12, 2007
    #17
  18. 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 <> 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*". ?

    -Benjamin Kudria
    Benjamin Kudria, Jun 12, 2007
    #18
  19. Mark Carter

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0900, Benjamin Kudria wrote:
    >
    > 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.


    Parts of the system are. Others continue on the same old path of the
    original fork. The fact it "reborrows" good stuff is to Ubuntu's credit,
    but does not make it less of a fork.


    >
    > 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)


    There are some things that are compatible between, say, MS Windows XP Pro
    and Debian, too -- but they're even less compatible than a proper fork.


    >
    > Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
    > re-synced every 6 months. How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?


    Maybe, kind-sorta, except that it's not "a" patch. If it can be compared
    to patches at all, it's a *bloody lot* of patches.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
    it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."
    Chad Perrin, Jun 12, 2007
    #19
  20. Mark Carter

    Bill Guindon Guest

    On 6/11/07, Benjamin Kudria <> 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 <> 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".
    Bill Guindon, Jun 12, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ioannis Vranos
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    777
    Claudio Jolowicz
    Apr 21, 2004
  2. Guyon Morée

    I am so impressed

    Guyon Morée, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    383
    wzhang
    Jul 30, 2003
  3. Lloyd Sheen

    Danger Danger Will Robinson Vista SP1

    Lloyd Sheen, Mar 19, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    421
    Lloyd Sheen
    Mar 19, 2008
  4. Mirco Wahab
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    532
    James Kanze
    Jul 17, 2008
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    127
    Henry
    Sep 9, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page