Google ditches Ubuntu for Debian

[Lucap]

Google ditches Ubuntu for Debian for internal engineering environment

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/ne ... nvironment

I didn't know that they used Ubuntu , i've wrongly thought for years that they built from scratch.

[BigEasy]

It is time to switch to LMDE until not too late

[Pjotr]

This big loss for Ubuntu also means a big loss for Linux Mint.

Anyway, because Ubuntu is built on Debian, the contributions that Google will make towards Debian, will also indirectly benefit Ubuntu/Mint.

[Hoser Rob]

I don't really blame them. Ubuntu hasn't exactly been a paragon of stability since 14.04.

[Lucap]

Wonder if this change will also effect future decisions on Chrome OS being less bespoke?

[catweazel]

This big loss for Ubuntu also means a big loss for Linux Mint.

Anyway, because Ubuntu is built on Debian, the contributions that Google will make towards Debian, will also indirectly benefit Ubuntu/Mint.

They never contributed to Ubuntu. How do you see it as a big loss, apart from money for a commercial operation?

[Pjotr]

This big loss for Ubuntu also means a big loss for Linux Mint.

Anyway, because Ubuntu is built on Debian, the contributions that Google will make towards Debian, will also indirectly benefit Ubuntu/Mint.

They never contributed to Ubuntu. How do you see it as a big loss, apart from money for a commercial operation?

Yes they did. By paying for their Canonical support, Google contributed to the economical viability of the Ubuntu project. There are paid programmers working for Ubuntu; their wages have to be paid by the revenues of Canonical.

By the way, in order to prevent misunderstandings: the contributions that Google will make towards Debian, will probably be "only" coding.

[catweazel]

Yes they did. By paying for their Canonical support...

When I wrote "apart from money for a commercial operation" I was excluding money paid to a commercial entity. What you say goes without saying.

By the way, in order to prevent misunderstandings: the contributions that Google will make towards Debian, will probably be "only" coding.

Which is what I was referring to.

[stavpup]

Another link. https://itsfoss.com/goobuntu-glinux-google/

Lets hope that google contributes patches. Also with debian supporting flatpak, another advantage of Ubuntu, ppa's, gets nullified.

[mike acker]

interesting

I've felt for some time that LMDE was our better option,--

thoughts ?

[whm1974]

interesting

I've felt for some time that LMDE was our better option,--

thoughts ?

I haven't been keeping track of it, but doesn't that need more work?

[mike acker]

interesting

I've felt for some time that LMDE was our better option,--

thoughts ?

I haven't been keeping track of it, but doesn't that need more work?

that, too -- is a very interesting question. Supposedly LMDE is a bit more techie than the Main Edition. I've been using LMDE now for several years and I don't see it's all that much more trouble than the Main Edition. I just run the installer and follow the prompts and Voilla!! She's Up! and with a beautiful program library

the one thing that I do fuss with a bit is software updates. From the BackPorts, they're straight forward but LibreOffice I have to download the .deb, remove the obsolete software and install the .deb ; I'm at the point now where this kind of a task seems straight forward; the one thing I'd like to see is that I feel all software packages should be signed.

too, I've downloaded and installed a straight Debian 9. This is where I think one would want to be pretty conversant with Linux before going this way as I understand that is expected on the Debian support board. I don't have a problem with that. I should play with it a bit more. It's installed in drive 1 in the research box where Drive 2 is the default boot and is LMDE/2

I've not booted it for a while though: The first time I started playing with the Debian9 straight it seemed to me that it created a problem in the MBR of the LMDE/2 system. After I booted the Debian9 --with the LMDE2 disk connected -- and then went back to boot the LMDE2 -- The LMDE/2 would boot to the point of accepting the logon password and then fail, rebooting (loop). The KDE system (MINT17.3) in drive 3 -- was not affected.

The LMDE/2 is rather valuable now as it supports the VirtualBox where I have a couple important Windows programs: TurboTax, Epson V500 scanner, and Photoshop/Elements.

Elements is just for support purposes: answering questions. Linux has better offerings (IMHO): Shotwell, Darktable...

From the MINT standpoint though I'd be perfectly happy if Clem&Co made LMDE into "The Mint System". May be I just don't understand these "PCAs" -- whatever they are.....

[Pjotr]

For optimal ease of use, I recommend the main edition of Mint. Which is still built on Ubuntu. Also, the upcoming Mint 19 series will be built on Ubuntu.....

[mike acker]

For optimal ease of use, I recommend the main edition of Mint. Which is still built on Ubuntu. Also, the upcoming Mint 19 series will be built on Ubuntu.....

Clearly this is the General Recommendation.

I'd be interested though in learning particularly what is facilitated better by the Ubuntu edition? As I understand it the PCA "packages" are an advantage,..... but installing a .deb really isn't difficult,--

[stavpup]

For optimal ease of use, I recommend the main edition of Mint. Which is still built on Ubuntu. Also, the upcoming Mint 19 series will be built on Ubuntu.....

Clearly this is the General Recommendation.

I'd be interested though in learning particularly what is facilitated better by the Ubuntu edition? As I understand it the PCA "packages" are an advantage,..... but installing a .deb really isn't difficult,--

https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA

[rene]

The flatpak (slashsnapslashappimage) infrastructure has the potential if not downright future to replace PPA's though. Once firmly in place LMDE would seem a step closer to being the more sensible Mint base.

[Lucap]

No distro has come close to removing the volume of *.deb files as an easy install replacement so i can't imagine PPA's will suddenly vanish just because flatpak or Snap is supported as standard.

[rene]

No distro has come close to removing the volume of *.deb files as an easy install replacement so i can't imagine PPA's will suddenly vanish just because flatpak or Snap is supported as standard.

Technically PPA's and Flatpak(-repositories) differ quite a bit but functionally less. Both are by end-users used as a means to provide easy install- and/or upgrade methods; for convenience. Flatpak does the convenience thing a heck of a lot better: PPA's are Ubuntu(-derivative) specific. Ubuntu-version specific even; being on Mint 17 I've encountered quite a few PPA's that weren't applicable to me, the PPA maintainer having stopped supporting "trusty".

Certainly PPA's are not convenient for people on Redhat or Fedora, SuSE, Slackware, Arch and so on. Nothing ever was, and it is as such not remarkable that other infrastructure hasn't sprung up but Flatpak will be convenient for all those extra users. Likely even more to the point, convenient to software vendors who get to support "a Linux version" rather than versions for 16 different distributions and editions thereof. I'm seeing this happening already with for example things like ScummVM.

Flatpak-repositories are also not harder to create than a PPA even for hobbyists. What will not be replaced is distribution-native repositories; perhaps not "suddenly" (especially with Ubuntu going with Snaps and its compared to Flatpak more centralized repository structure) but PPA's will surely die.

[Lucap]

If you look at the way people dislike change it might take Ubuntu into disabling support for PPA's to force people to move on.

Firefox changing it's addons is an example that people still refuse to accept as a better way of doing things.