Debian-Ubuntu debate: an upstream view

Sam Varghese
Thursday, 13 August 2009 05:58

Opinion and Analysis

Andree proposed that if Ubuntu could not deal with a bug, then it should be communicated to someone who could. He also suggested that ownership of packages be made explicit, and that there be better communication between downstream packagers and the upstream maintainer.

He then touched on the new aspects that Ubuntu introduces, things like Upstart (which is an event-based replacement for the init daemon), and suggested that such things should be properly documented. "...these are incomplete, underdocumented, and in consequence half-baked. If you care about the end user experience, you've got to bite the bullet and not only lick it. Discussing about superimposing schedules and conferences doesn't help at all."

Andree said that if innovations were introduced, then they should be gone through with, regressions should be fixed quickly, and distributions should not hesitate to back out if they found an  innovation was not doing what it was intended to.

He pointed out that since Ubuntu used Debian's packaging resources and as there were claims that it had also drawn manpower from Debian, Ubuntu should be approaching Debian to collaborate and not the other way round.

"...take the free lunch, but don't complain if you don't like it - you'll have to join the cook if you want it in a different way," was his succinct way of putting it.

Andree also touched on Shuttleworth's reference to cadence, saying that distributions should not get in the way between end users and the original software authors.

He pointed out that the use of economic terms to describe community and open-source efforts was offensive.

He ended by writing: "Don't advertise for collaboration, just do it. Saves you much writing and pleading and begging, and people will collaborate automatically."