Why were the repos of Trisquel changed from Debian to Ubuntu?

I believe the answer is more practical than philosophical: Ubuntu packages
are more up to date than Debian stable (which is, in facts, released every
two years, whereas the Ubuntu and Trisquel projects ship new versions every
six months).

Of course Debian testing is even more up to date but it is less stable.
Ubuntu packages actually come from Debian testing. They can only be more
stable since some more packaging work is achieved on Ubuntu's side.

I can think of two reasons: quality control and package support.

Debian on testing and sid repositories is really the wild west. Packages are
put out there and many times it will break. When Linux Mint offered a Debian
version, they had to move to Update Packs where the team locked down a
repository, tested the heck out of it, and released through their update
manager. Even then there are issues and maintaining that release has been a
lot of work and the Update Packs are few and far in-between. The Ubuntu based
versions of Mint are still more recommended.

Ubuntu essentially does the same thing with locking down packages before a
release and will often use older versions to make sure everything works.
There is a post by Jeremy Bicha about the Ubuntu team swapping out Gnome
versions for performance and to ease performance issues. There is also recent
news that Gnome 3.4 will make it into 12.04 and they are hard at work fixing
bugs. It is good that they do that because with Debian, they are just put out
there and maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't.

As for package support, not only is Ubuntu generally more supported with
popular packages and mirrors serving them, but the PPAs at launchpad.net are
the icing on the cake. I've tried pure Debian and LMDE and the quality of
packages (support and latest versions) by 3rd parties is night and day.

Now don't get me wrong.. Debian Stable is considered rock solid even though
the packages are old and it is supported for 2 years. Its just that Ubuntu
LTS releases on the desktop and server have 5 years of support so you will be
updating your OS less on Ubuntu than Debian.

The best part of using Ubuntu? You don't have to use the official versions.
You can try any desktop available and derivatives like Trisquel with the rock
solid Ubuntu foundation to build upon.

[http://www.gnewsense.org/ gNewSense] was based on Ubuntu but are moving onto
Debian, i.e. the mirror move compared to Trisquel.
[http://www.gnewsense.org/FAQ#Will_gNewSense_3.0_be_based_on_Debian_instead_of_Ubuntu.2C_and_why.3F
Here] are their reasons for doing so. I think they thus have a more solid
foundation than we do. However, we currently have more up-to-date releases.
I'm happy we have both alternatives.

I think if each Trisquel user donates 80k USD a year the project could easily
move to Debian and retain the stability and remain up to date as Ubuntu is.

Who is with me?

80 thousand US dollars? Or was the k a typo. I nearly did a cereal spitting
meme impression.

Thank you guys for answering my question.

I guess gNewSense will be based on Debian stable and release a new version with the same pace. Am I right? If so, this entirely makes sense and, as you write, gNewSense would fulfill different needs than Trisquel.

I guess gNewSense will be based on Debian stable and release a new version
with the same pace. Am I right? If so, this entirely makes sense and, as you
say, gNewSense would fulfill different needs than Trisquel.

If it were me, I would use the extra money to market the OS and improve things that need to be improved by throwing some compensation to the core programmers and artists. In return, that would mean less stress on everyone as more people are available to tighten things up and get quicker releases. Of course once you start paying people, you have to maintain it or else people may leave. How does the FSF do it?

If that money was spent to maintain Debian testing or unstable (which Linux Mint and Ubuntu already do), it would be a waste of time and resources. You guys have already did a great job in filtering out the Ubuntu main and universe repositories and bringing in the libre kernel.

If you guys want to make this OS more than a niche OS in an already niche Linux desktop market, then I am all for it. Wouldn't it be nice to get more people off of Windows in the places where it matters? I'm talking schools, government offices, and maybe even small businesses. I know we want to get Linux into the households as well but many people have moved to tablets and smartphones and the future of the desktop may be in the schools and offices as I said above.

I live in the US and understand that in Europe (where this project is based) things run differently regarding business, but Microsoft pretty much rules everything here and it is starting to get really really old.

On 03/15/2012 07:22 AM, name at domain wrote:
> I think if each Trisquel user donates 80k USD a year the project could
> easily move to Debian and retain the stability and remain up to date
> as Ubuntu is.
>
> Who is with me?

$80,000 per person per year??

On 15/03/12 11:22, name at domain wrote:
> I think if each Trisquel user donates 80k USD a year the project could
> easily move to Debian and retain the stability and remain up to date as
> Ubuntu is.
>
> Who is with me?

Sadly not I. In reviewing my sub-poverty line income I have already
decided to forgo the coffee I had when out on my weekly shop so I could
pay for a FSF membership. And also decided to pass on the benefit of
not being harrassed by drunks and youths in the Bus Station in my one
late evening trip that I used to travel by minicab home from so I could
afford the 10 € Trisquel monthly membership fee.

Non-members think this is a piece of cheap emotional blackmail trying
to get them to join they'd be damned right. But, that doesn't stop it
being true that you should put your money where your mouth is when it
comes to your principles and that the memberships are affordable even on
very limited incomes if you just make a little effort.

Go on non-members 5 € is two coffees a month in the UK.

Leny

If it were me, I would use the extra money to market the OS and improve
things that need to be improved by throwing some compensation to the core
programmers and artists. In return, that would mean less stress on everyone
as more people are available to tighten things up and get quicker releases.
Of course once you start paying people, you have to maintain it or else
people may leave. How does the FSF do it?

If that money was spent to maintain Debian testing or unstable (which Linux
Mint and Ubuntu already do), it would be a waste of time and resources. You
guys have already did a great job in filtering out the Ubuntu main and
universe repositories and bringing in the libre kernel.

If you guys want to make this OS more than a niche OS in an already niche
Linux desktop market, then I am all for it. Wouldn't it be nice to get more
people off of Windows in the places where it matters? I'm talking schools,
government offices, and maybe even small businesses. I live in the US and
understand that in Europe things run differently regarding business, but
Microsoft pretty much rules everything here.