[clue-tech] Re: Hello sidux?

[Nate Duehr]

Collins Richey wrote:

>>  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.

Ah okay I get it.

>>  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

I must have missed that somewhere -- didn't know that "sid" was now the 
"forever unstable" version.

>>  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.


Yeah.  Ubuntu also "stole" a lot of DD's when they started up, because 
they were able to pay real money.  A shame, but Ubuntu is what it is, 
and it's one of the better distros for desktops... especially for newbies...


>> 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.


That's not how it was presented.  No big deal, but not meant to be FUD. 
Badly written intro e-mail is all.


> 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.


So the gnome packages are actually on/in their repositories, or are they 
using Debian's repositories?   Or a mixture.

> 
> 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.

Bwahaha... I like that one.

> Almost nothing that sidux provides is not already in sid.

Nice and vague.

> 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.

And learned enough to be running unstable software.

> 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.

And breakage.

> 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.

Me neither.  I just don't like fragmentation, as a general rule.

Explaining the current "distro mess" to anyone completely NEW to Linux 
nowadays is insane.  I don't bother anymore.

I just ask them what they're going to DO with the machine, and recommend 
a distro, if they stray from that recommendation and they use something 
else I've played with, I'll help 'em... otherwise they're on their own.

But at least now I can be expecting a "support" call from someone now 
running Sidux, and I'll probably tell 'em... "You're on your own buddy. 
  It's based on something a whole team of coders calls "Unstable", so 
those Sidux guys have pretty big egos to say they can make it work well 
all the time!  Hope they have a very active online community you can 
refer to... Debian does, but they'll tell you it's unstable and to pound 
sand or fix it yourself."

> 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.

That's just a sign of human nature... everyone "loves" whatever they're 
running.  :-)

I've seen people running REALLY crappy distros who "loved" it.  Which is 
both a positive and a negative thing for Linux, overall... (?)  I know 
people that "love" OS-2 Warp to this day too... they can have it. 
(GRIN)  Gotta love choice...

But if asked to support it or run it yourself, the answer from me 
personally is always...

"Why would I want to do that?"

> 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.

I guess I get it, but it's definitely weird.  I understand the desire to 
have the "latest and greatest" but trying to make new software less 
painful is always an exercise in futility.  Bugs are a fact of life, and 
testing -- is almost non-existant in this biz.

I dunno.  Sounds interesting, but just like Sid, it DOES break -- 
someone is fixing the breakage for some things, is all.

They won't catch everything.  :-)

But I understand the desire.  The real fixes are much deeper in how 
software is produced in the first place... and expensive to implement in 
commercial code, and virtually impossible to implement in open-source 
projects.

Didn't mean any harm by my comments, just was reacting to only what was 
in the e-mail.  Doesn't hold much interest for me, as presented.  I 
appreciate your updates, though.  If I need a Sid box in a hurry, I 
might try it... but it might be easier just to try to load Sid, and not 
worry about it too.

Sid = Broken.  That thread comes up annually and turns into a huge 
furball on the Debian lists... and the result from frustrated devs 
already working on it is always, "Fix it if you don't like it.  It's 
called Unstable for a reason!"

Having other devs fixing things and sending them upstream from Sidux is 
both a blessing and a curse.  If they're not DD's there will always be 
some of that "not invented here" mentality behind any "controversial" 
fixes they might accomplish.

To summarize, I think "institutionalizing" the running of something 
someone else who knows the code very well calls "Unstable", is likely to 
be a broken idea at its core... but who knows?

Maybe Sidux will become the "next big thing".  Hard to say in the wild 
and wooly world of Linux.

:-) :-) :-)

Nate