Conflicting goals create tension in communities
Saturday, September 9th, 2006Matthew Garrett expressed frustration with Debian recently, in a blog post that’s become rather famous.
I’m of the opinion that Ubuntu could not exist without Debian. So it’s absolutely my intention to see that Ubuntu is a constructive part of the broader Debian landscape. It’s vital that Ubuntu help to sustain and grow Debian, because it’s the breadth and strength of Debian which make up the “shoulders of greatness” on which we in the Ubuntu community stand when we reach for the stars. That doesn’t mean I’m naive enough to think this relationship will ever be an easy one, but I would hope that the discussion doesn’t turn into one of “Ubuntu versus Debian”. Because it isn’t the case that one of them will succeed and the other fail. You could only perceive that as an outcome if you assumed that the two have exactly the same goals.
And that’s where I think a lot of tension is created: it’s hard to know what Debian’s goals are. Those goals are technically articulated in some founding documents but I don’t believe the specific, detailed nature of those goals is actually matched by the personal goals of many members of the community, or users. Debian, in many senses, is at that dangerous stage where it’s a victim of its own success. Its infrastructure and developer recruitment model are for many people what define Debian, and they have been so successful that a community has been created of people who, drawn together by the same things, nonetheless have subtly different personal agendas and goals.
Those differences are a cause of tremendous stress.
When a flamewar erupts, the notional topic of the flameage is often less relevant than the underlying tension between people’s true goals. It’s hard to come to agreement on how to address a specific issue, if there’s no agreement on the very high-level goals that everyone is working towards. Arguments go on forever because one person REALLY wants to see Debian get even more stable on the server, and another person wants to see it get even more cutting edge on the desktop. One person wants more translation of stable versions of applications, another wants newer versions which are by definition not as well translated. One person wants fewer architectures, another wants the full power of Debian on a small embedded architecture.
And all of them have every right to BE RIGHT. All of them, ARE right.
The problem comes if anybody believes that one institution, one product, one single leadership team can synthesise all of that into something which is optimal for EVERYBODY. It’s just not possible to deliver one thing which is optimal for two sets of conflicting requirements, let alone those of a thousand or so of the smartest, most passionate, and lets face it most eclectic of the world’s free software developers. Debian has almost unlimited capacity for some things, by virtue of its openness and democratic governance. That is a wonderful thing. At a time when we all must play to our strengths, many organisations out there would love to have a strength as potent as that. But openness and democracy come at a price if you have narrow goals. No one person or institution can bend that democratic forum to its own specific goals, whether they be desktop, server, embedded, global, local or whatever. Debian, like any institution or product, cannot be all things to all people. It can also not be perfect for one group at the expense of another.
To me, this is the real joy of Debian – it can provide a forum for almost every part of the free software world to come together to hammer out differences and find common ground to the extent that common ground exists. It’s a level playing field – independent of company agendas or technical historical baggage. Debian is the Tibetan Plateau of the free software landscape – elevated through the grinding efforts of conflicting passions to the point of forcing those who visit to get along in a somewhat rarified atmosphere. It can be difficult to breathe up there, sometimes :-). It’s a bit like the Linux kernel itself: show up, with code, and take your place at the table. And the results are spectacular – Debian as a community creates what I believe is one of the great digital artistic works of the era, and frankly comes as close as I can think possible to actually delivering something that does meet all those conflicting agendas and goals.
Consider Sid. Yes, it breaks your toys now and then, but by and large it represents an extraordinary achievement – pretty much the latest releases of the upstream communities, packaged and categorised. Nothing else, from Ubuntu or Red Hat or Novell (or Microsoft) comes anywhere close. Debian Developers are at their happiest running and working on Sid – a recent survey found that something like 76% of Debian users run Sid, while only something like 6% of Ubuntu users run the equivalent beta code. And remember, Ubuntu only has an Edgy or an Edgy+1 because of Sid. When I look at the ebb and flow of discussions on the Debian mailing lists, I see that Sid is in fact where the very best of Debian comes forth. It’s forward looking, it’s focused on the next generation, it requires exceptional skill and up to date technical knowledge to participate, and it’s not subject to the same political tradeoffs that are inevitable when dealing with releases, architectures, dates, deliverables, translation, documentation and so on. There are very few flamewars about Sid.
If Debian were a business, now would be the time for a careful review of strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps for a plan to focus the resources of the organisation on the things it does best. There’s nothing wrong with cutting goals. Jane, the COO at Canonical, keeps me on the straight and narrow with a fairly regular pruning of Canonical’s focus points too :-). Every conflicting goal sucks resources from the overall cohesiveness and strength of the group. If there is no consensus in the community, and the leadership don’t think they can get consensus, then it might be better to cut out those conflicting goals altogether. To my mind, the two things that Debian developers absolutely agree on are first, the uncompromising emphasis on free software, and second, the joy of Sid. If I was to try to resolve the bickering and frustration that I see evident in the community, that’s where I would direct the focus of my efforts. Of course, that’s a tough approach, and leaves many other goals for other people and other communities. But it’s where I think Debian, and DD’s, would be most productive and ultimately happiest. There are many things that Debian does brilliantly – celebrate that, focus on it, and trust that others will fill in the gaps.
By contrast with Debian’s Plateau, Ubuntu is a cluster of peaks. By narrowing the focus and allowing the KDE, Gnome and server communities to leverage the base of Debian without treading on one another’s toes, we can create a K2, and a Kangchenjunga and a Lhotse. Ubuntu’s peaks depend on the plateau for their initial start, and their strong base. Ubuntu needs to be humble about its achievements, because much of its elevation comes from Debian. At the same time, Ubuntu can be proud of the way it has lifted beyond the plateau, drawing together people with specific goals to raise the bar and deliver specific releases that meet ambitious, but narrow, goals.
Many people have asked why I decided to build Ubuntu alongside, or on top of, Debian, rather than trying to get Debian to turn into a peak in its own right. The reason is simple – I believe that Debian’s breadth is too precious to compromise just because one person with resources cares a lot about a few specific use cases. We should not narrow the scope of Debian. The breadth of Debian, its diversity of packages and architectures, together with the social equality of all DD’s, is its greatest asset.
So, what’s to be done about the current furore?
A little introspection is healthy, and Debian will benefit from the discussion. Matt is to be credited for his open commentary – a lesser person would simply have disengaged, quietly. I hope that Matt will in fact stay involved in Debian, either directly or through Ubuntu, because his talent and humour are both of enormous benefit to the project. I also hope that Debian developers will make better use of the work we do in Ubuntu, integrating relevant bits of it back into Debian so as to help uplift some of those other peaks – Xandros, Linspire, Maemo, Skolelinux and of course Etch. And most of all, I hope that Debian will start to appreciate its strengths even more, and to play to them, rather than dividing itself along the lines of its weaknesses. Debian/rules, remember?
September 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
It’s been stated again and again here, and I believe this is the most valid point:
Debian is the Sire, and all of its derivatives (Ubuntu, Linspire, Knoppix, Mepis) are the progeny.
There are bound to be fights, as in any family. But the one thing that should never change is respect and unity.
Debian should be proud and promote its progeny. “Debian is for the techno-elite. But if you’re new, try Ubuntu!”
Meanwhile, Debian’s progeny should support their Sire. “Hey, guys, remember that bug you kept having in Gnome with Debian? Well, we’ve fixed it here in Ubuntu. Here’s how, and here’s the source files you’ll need, along with changes and details. Enjoy!”
Cooperation and unity doesn’t mean mergers. Debian and Ubuntu can help each other out, cooperatively, without losing their individual dreams and goals.
I’ve never understood why the world must be so devided on things like this. I’ve been a proud Debian user for about a year now: I use Debian on my server and Ubuntu on my desktop. And I’ve been flirting with Mepis and other derivatives on my laptop.
A little friendly flaming – so long as it stays friendly – is understandable. But just remember, Linux is supposed to be fun!
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Ubuntu is good, and since it’s based on Debian then that must mean Debian is great. Please can both teams sort out their differences and remember that we’re both part of the Linux community.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:50 am
[…] Debian, the spring from which over a hundred Linux distributions flow, is well known for its slow release cycle. Hoping to speed it up, there’s a project called Dunc-tank which hopes to pay developers to work on Debian full time. This has however created friction within Debian, with calls for the removal of its leader. So I ask: why are long release cycles a bad thing? Why try to compete with Ubuntu, etc. rather than outsourcing to those distros the laborious task of creating frequent releases? Wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on a different goal, such as making sure the developers are enjoying working on Debian and not resentful of its offspring? Its not like Mark doesn’t love you 😉 […]
September 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I am sorry if this isn’t the right place to ask or comment, but I just wonder what Ubuntu is going to do about the Mozilla Firefox & Debian issue. I would like to read Mark’s opinion about it, as soon as possible.
Thanks!.
Regards.
October 6th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
“I just wonder what Ubuntu is going to do about the Mozilla Firefox & Debian issue”
Perhaps we should first put a stop to Mozilla or any FOSS project from visiting with Microsoft and/or allowing former employees of Microsoft to work in FOSS projects.
Remember, when a FOSS person goes to M$ people say “oh well maybe he will change it for the better” don’t rule out a former corporate person coming into a FOSS project with an agenda, paid or not. Conspiracy theory? The world is full of conspiracies because that’s what people do, they conspire.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:05 am
I don’t perceive the Debian vs. Ubuntu issue as some form of competition. To me, it’s actually more of a progressive evolution. I won’t be surprised if a mass migration towards Ubuntu will happen in the near future.
Rock on, Ubuntu!
October 19th, 2006 at 11:24 am
[…] Ubuntu necesita a Debian Published October 14th, 2006 Mark Shuttleworth, creador de Ubuntu, ha expresado en su blog (Ubuntu could not exist without Debian) que no veia vivir a Ubuntu sin Debian, y que es necesario que esta ultima devenga una parte del paisaje Debian. […]
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
[…] Mark Shuttleworth has expressed his concern towards this issue. First and foremost, he recognizes that Ubuntu could not exist without Debian. Then talks about what Ubuntu needs to do to give back the Debian community, and make it great. Mark then discusses the tension and stress between the two communities, and tries to find reason as to why they exist. It’s a great read. […]
December 15th, 2006 at 2:24 am
[…] Personally, I find Ubuntu to be very exciting. First, it arose from Debian– one version of linux known for it’s dexerity and strong community. Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu (and the world’s second ever space-tourist) incidentally has called debian the “Tibetan plateau” of linux distributors, rising above all others because it was forged through many years of grinding and smoothing out of tensions. (Debian itself was started by a couple –Debra and Ian, hence the name Debian). Bhutan’s efforts to create a Dzongkha platform are based on debian and there’s a project to translate Ubuntu itself into Dzongkha– (most of the work is already done). […]
December 15th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
[…] Duas pessoas em dois dias consecutivos vieram me falar sobre Ubuntu, sabendo que eu gosto muito do Debian, e me pedindo opiniões sobre o assunto. Isso gerou uma vontade de procurar mais sobre o assunto, e achei um texto muito bom, para mim definitivo, do fundador do Ubuntu. […]
February 5th, 2007 at 11:28 am
[…] Mark Shuttleworth describes this relationship as Debian as “the Tibetan Plateau of the free software landscape” upon which Ubuntu is built: By contrast with Debian’s Plateau, Ubuntu is a cluster of peaks. By narrowing the focus and allowing the KDE, Gnome and server communities to leverage the base of Debian without treading on one another’s toes, we can create a K2, and a Kangchenjunga and a Lhotse. Ubuntu’s peaks depend on the plateau for their initial start, and their strong base. Ubuntu needs to be humble about its achievements, because much of its elevation comes from Debian. […] Many people have asked why I decided to build Ubuntu alongside, or on top of, Debian, rather than trying to get Debian to turn into a peak in its own right. The reason is simple – I believe that Debian’s breadth is too precious to compromise just because one person with resources cares a lot about a few specific use cases. We should not narrow the scope of Debian. […]
February 6th, 2007 at 4:19 am
[…] Mark Shuttleworth describes this relationship as Debian as “the Tibetan Plateau of the free software landscape” upon which Ubuntu is built: By contrast with Debian’s Plateau, Ubuntu is a cluster of peaks. By narrowing the focus and allowing the KDE, Gnome and server communities to leverage the base of Debian without treading on one another’s toes, we can create a K2, and a Kangchenjunga and a Lhotse. Ubuntu’s peaks depend on the plateau for their initial start, and their strong base. Ubuntu needs to be humble about its achievements, because much of its elevation comes from Debian. […] Many people have asked why I decided to build Ubuntu alongside, or on top of, Debian, rather than trying to get Debian to turn into a peak in its own right. The reason is simple – I believe that Debian’s breadth is too precious to compromise just because one person with resources cares a lot about a few specific use cases. We should not narrow the scope of Debian. […]
March 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Mark, i think so too. Ubuntu could not exist without Debian. Great informations. Thanks! Jürgen from Germany
September 24th, 2007 at 10:18 am
A great post by Mark Shuttleworth, on how he thinks of Debian and it’s relationship with Ubuntu….
January 28th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hi, i know i’m a bit li}ate but reading what you said made me get angry with you (not with ubuntu wich i respect), because you are like some users that are saying that Debian will die in Ubuntu hands because it poors focus to desktop user, well, let me say something to you, i’m a desktop user, i have debian since 2004 and (for your total surprise) i have fourteen years, yeah, fourteen, i started (like ones) with ubuntu (of course) because he’s easy configuration but then i moved to openSUSE and then to mandriva then Gentoo , Guadalinex, and others. Then, i installed Debian and it become my favorite. And don’t think that be my age i can’t understand you or i can’t understand the informatic field, because you are wrong if you think that, i’m starting to program and i expect to be part of the debian community in one or two years. But let’s go back to the theme, users like you angry me because i use debian and i know what it is, and i think that you lie when you say “debian can’t do all” why not?? MacOSX do ALL and you can’t say that this is false, MACOSX do Everything and it’s true so, why debian can’t do all?? debian is developed by a very big community that loves free software and believe in it, you know what i mean with big community?? I mean that debian and it packages are developed by hundreds of hundreds of hundreds of people, Mac don’t have a comunnity so big, really?? Then, why debian can’t be the supreme master of all?? Because the ubuntu fans like you thinks that with 4 clicks you can do all but it isn’t true, you can do it the first time but when a GDM falls in ubuntu or another thing falls, you have to suffer more because 1. you don’t have a OS now 2. You have to reconfigure it again 3. If you had configured it in first place, you’ll know how to fix it. that’s the simply true, i don’t hate ubuntu , i don’t, i only get angry with users like yu, that try to kill in a way too dirty debiabn, like i say, i respect ubuntu, it is very good and all but i prefer debian and how i say, i only get ANGRY WITH USERS THAT SAY BS oof debian. If you want to talk about debian/ubuntu you can mail me at carlos.gottberg@gmail.com but please, don’t put dirty words on your mail because i’ll not do that.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Sorry for write twice but i didn’t find a edit button, i only want to add that i’m using Debian Etch and i’m writing you with the elinks -lite text browser which i recommend to you all. I want to add that if you send me a mail, can you tell me more text based applications? i like the very ,much!
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
[…] I saw a post stating that “I’m of the opinion that Ubuntu could not exist without Debian.” The […]
March 11th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
[…] ví un post afirmando “Soy de la opinión que Ubuntu no podría existir sin Debian”. El autor del comentario […]
April 4th, 2008 at 6:38 am
[…] ví un post afirmando “Soy de la opinión que Ubuntu no podría existir sin Debian”. El autor del […]
April 4th, 2008 at 6:43 am
[…] ví un post afirmando “Soy de la opinión que Ubuntu no podría existir sin Debian”. El autor del […]
August 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
[…] distros like Ubuntu or SuSE. Debian has been accused of lacking focus, with resulting conflict and controversy between different developer […]
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 am
[…] ví un post afirmando “Soy de la opinión que Ubuntu no podría existir sin Debian”. El autor del […]
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:31 am
[…] to see that Ubuntu is a constructive part of the broader Debian landscape,” Shuttleworth wrote several years ago. “It’s vital that Ubuntu help to sustain and grow Debian, because […]
February 26th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
[…] napisał kilka lat temu: “Jestem jednak zdania, że Ubuntu nie mogłoby istnieć bez Debiana. Więc […]
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
[…] Ubuntu a Debian, Gentoo vs Debian […]
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
[…] Ubuntu a Debian, Gentoo vs Debian […]
July 28th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
[…] napisał kilka lat temu: “Jestem jednak zdania, że Ubuntu nie mogłoby istnieć bez Debiana. Więc […]