[clue-tech] Re: Hello sidux?

[Collins Richey]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com> wrote:
> Collins Richey wrote:
>
>
> > 6. Because of the more stringent dependency requirements of sid
> > packages, updating via gui package managers and aptitude are not
> > permitted. The only permitted methods are apt-get update followed by
> > apt-get dist-upgrade. Users are warned not to try gui updates and/or
> > apt-get update (!!!),

A typo - should be upgrade. The basic reason is that the dependency
checking with upgrade is less stringent than is the case with
dist-upgrade.

> >  since experience has shown that these methods  may lead to a broken system
> > in sid.

>  Sounds an awful lot like just running Sid itself.  Not sure what the
> benefits here are.

See below.

>
>  I hope their developers are sending whatever bug reports they find
> upstream.  Why not just apply to be Debian Developers and work on Sid
> directly?  Or get someone to sponsor their fixed packages?
>
>  I don't get it...
>
>  If you want to run unstable Debian, just run unstable Debian... (which just
> happens to be Sid right now...)

A little bit of confusion here. Except for the LiveCD and installer
methods, the 'smxi' and 'Ceni' scripts, and some artwork, there is
nothing about sidux that is not pure sid.  Any (very occasional) fixes
that are discovered locally are fed back upstream. The intent of sidux
is to provide a filter to help users avoid the occasional grief caused
by packages in sid that really weren't adequately tested.The principal
effort is in detecting and holding back (temporarily) such packages
until upstream has provided a fix. This is done on the fly by the
'smxi' script - dubious packages are held just before doing
dist-upgrade and then unheld before completing the script.

>
>  Once Sid is moved to stable, will this project be changing their name to
> the next Debian "code-word-ux"?  (I forget what's slated to be used after
> Sid.)
>
>  Weird.  A spin-off/fork of Unstable.  Never thought I'd see that.

More confusion here. Lenny is the testing name that will next become
stable, and then a new testing name will be promulgated. sid is the
permanent unstable branch - does not get renamed at any point. There
is no fork (please read and absorb). sidux is and will always be sid
with only the enhancements discussed above. The intent is to make
available the latest "stable" packages from unstable sid, such that
users will have leading but not bleeding edge packages.. The other
difference from most but not all Debian offerings is that only KDE is
supported. sidux users may choose to install Gnome, but they will be
ignored by the developers and most of the user base. Ubuntu, OTOH, is
indeed a fork (major difference in the repositories) that prefers
Gnome while begrudgingly offering KDE, but most of the user and
deveoper base ignores KDE.

>
>  Ubuntu is basically stable with some unstable packages mixed in.

Actually, I believe that Ubuntu resyncs with unstable, and then does a
lot of tinkering to make it work. I also believe that a generous dose
of packages from experimental are included. Unlike sidux repositories
(very sparse, mostly LiveCD and scripts and artwork), Ubuntu is
maintaining a lot of stuff that strays from the debian base, and there
are continual complaints from the debian side about the
fork/diversion.

> Sidux is
> what... unstable with a bunch of hacks so it'll run, but no better than Sid
> runs, same types of upgrade/update bugs, but no one reporting them back to
> the DD's, and you have to lose Gnome and other things that work in Sid from
> time to time?
>

All of this is hogwash. Please don't practice fud. There are no hacks,
all bugs and fixes are reported back upstream, and the developers
prefer KDE, so they have chosen to ignore Gnome. You don't lose Gnome.
You can run it if you choose - just like xfce or enlightenment or any
of a dozen other window managers. Nothing that sidux does will prevent
Gnome and other things from working as well as they always work in
sid. The difference is that no one in sidux land is filtering the
Gnome packages. If it's broken in sid, it will be broken for you.

For a better introduction to sidux direct from the horses mouth, go here.

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080324#feature

A summary

1. sidux is a user-friendly Debian sid offering, not a fork of any sort.
2. sidux/sid offers a lot of new functionality that isn't in more
stable offerings.
3. sidux provides a stable method of implementing unstable software.
Almost nothing that sidux provides is not already in sid.
4. Even the sidux maintenance script 'smxi' is just an amalgamation of
maintenance techniques that you could do (and must do) manually for
yourself if running pure sid.
5. As stated earlier, sidux is designed for those folks who want a
more stable version of DEVELOPMENT level software and who can tolerate
a LOT of updates.
6. I have no major gripes (other than personal taste) about Ubuntu or
Fedora or SuSE or PCLinuxOS or Slackware or any other distro. I do
prefer the install once upgrade forever philosophy employed by
sidux/sid, debian testing, gentoo, and a few others. I do like the
fact that newer hardware is usually supported out of the box.
7. Most sidux users are veteran Linux users, but a surprising number
of newbies have drifted into the fold. They are welcomed, handheld
where necessary, and almost uniformly they love it.
8. For these reasons and others the comment
>  If you want to run unstable Debian, just run unstable Debian
is out of place. With sidux, you ARE running unstable Debian with a
group of dedicated developers and testers filtering out the crud that
appears from time to time in unstable Debian. If I had been running
pure sid for the past six months, I would have suffered major
breakages that I have avoided thanks to the diligence of the sidux
team and that I would have had to unravel by myself, thus reinventing
the wheel.

Enjoy,





-- 
Collins Richey
 If you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries
 of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for.