-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
-<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.2//EN"
- "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd">
-
-<article id="paper-11194">
- <articleinfo>
- <title>To Fork or Not To Fork</title>
- <subtitle>Lessons From Ubuntu and Debian</subtitle>
- <author>
- <firstname>Benjamin</firstname>
- <othername>Mako</othername>
- <surname>Hill</surname>
- <affiliation>
- <orgname>Canonical Limited</orgname>
- </affiliation>
- <affiliation>
- <orgname>The Debian GNU/Linux Project</orgname>
- </affiliation>
- <affiliation>
- <orgname>Software in the Public Interest, Inc.</orgname>
- </affiliation>
-
- <authorblurb>
- <para>Benjamin Mako Hill is an intellectual property
- researcher and activist and a professional Free/Open Source
- Software (FOSS) advocate and developer. He is active
- participant in the Debian Project in both technical and
- non-technical roles. He is the author of the Free Software
- Project Management HOWTO and many published works on Free
- and Open Source Software. He currently is working full time
- for Canonical Ltd. on Ubuntu, a new Debian-based
- distribution.</para>
- </authorblurb>
-
- </author>
-
- <copyright>
- <year>2005</year>
- <holder>Benjamin Mako Hill</holder>
- </copyright>
-
-
- <legalnotice>
- <para>This material is licensed under the <ulink
- url="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">Creative
- Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 License</ulink>.</para>
-
- <para>The canonical location for the most recent version of this
- document is <ulink url="http://mako.cc/">at the author's
- website</ulink>.</para>
-
- </legalnotice>
-
- <revhistory>
- <revision>
- <revnumber>0.2</revnumber>
- <date>August 7, 2005</date>
- <revremark>Correction and improvements.</revremark>
- </revision>
- <revision>
- <revnumber>0.1</revnumber>
- <date>May 15, 2005</date>
-
- <revdescription>
- <para>The first version of this paper was written to an
+<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>To Fork or Not To Fork</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.78.1"></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div class="article"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="paper-11194"></a>To Fork or Not To Fork</h2></div><div><h3 class="subtitle"><i>Lessons From Ubuntu and Debian</i></h3></div><div><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Benjamin</span> <span class="othername">Mako</span> <span class="surname">Hill</span></h3><div class="affiliation"><span class="orgname">Canonical Limited<br></span></div><div class="affiliation"><span class="orgname">The Debian GNU/Linux Project<br></span></div><div class="affiliation"><span class="orgname">Software in the Public Interest, Inc.<br></span></div></div></div><div><p class="copyright">Copyright © 2005 Benjamin Mako Hill</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice"><a name="idp27154528"></a><p>This material is licensed under the <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" target="_top">Creative
+ Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 License</a>.</p><p>The canonical location for the most recent version of this
+ document is <a class="ulink" href="http://mako.cc/" target="_top">at the author's
+ website</a>.</p></div></div><div><div class="revhistory"><table style="border-style:solid; width:100%;" summary="Revision History"><tr><th align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><b>Revision History</b></th></tr><tr><td align="left">Revision 0.2</td><td align="left">August 7, 2005</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2">Correction and improvements.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Revision 0.1</td><td align="left">May 15, 2005</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2">
+ <p>The first version of this paper was written to an
accepted talk given at Linuxtag 2005 given in Karlsruhe,
- Germany.</para>
- </revdescription>
-
- </revision>
- </revhistory>
-
-
- </articleinfo>
-
- <section>
- <title>Introduction</title>
-
- <para>The explosive growth of free and open source software over
+ Germany.</p>
+ </td></tr></table></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Table of Contents</b></p><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp27161152">Introduction</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp27077936">"Fork" Is A Four Letter Word</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp27089792">Case Study</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp26985776">The Debian Project</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp26996864">Ubuntu</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp32030512">Applicability</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp26879744">Balancing Forking With Collaboration</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp26880432">Derivation and Problem Analysis</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp32061728">Distributed Source Control</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp32075664">Problem Specific Tools</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp32079568">Social Solutions</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="#idp32092080">Conclusions</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="idp27161152"></a>Introduction</h2></div></div></div><p>The explosive growth of free and open source software over
the last decade has been mirrored by an equally explosive growth
in the ambitiousness of free software projects in choosing and
tackling problems. The free software movement approaches these
large problems with more code and with more expansive
communities than was thinkable a decade ago. Example of these
- massive projects include desktop environments — like GNOME
- and KDE — and distributions like Debian, RedHat, and
- Gentoo.</para>
-
- <para>These projects are leveraging the work of thousands of
- programmers — both volunteer and paid — and are
+ massive projects include desktop environments — like GNOME
+ and KDE — and distributions like Debian, RedHat, and
+ Gentoo.</p><p>These projects are leveraging the work of thousands of
+ programmers — both volunteer and paid — and are
producing millions of lines of code. Their software is being
used by millions of users with diverse sets of needs. This
- paper focuses on two major effects of this situation:</para>
-
- <itemizedlist>
- <listitem>
-
- <para>The communities that free software projects — and
- in particular large projects — serve are increasingly
+ paper focuses on two major effects of this situation:</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>The communities that free software projects — and
+ in particular large projects — serve are increasingly
diverse. It is becoming increasingly difficult for a single
large project to release any single product that can cater
- to all of its potential users.</para>
-
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
-
- <para>It's becoming increasingly difficult to reproduce these
+ to all of its potential users.</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>It's becoming increasingly difficult to reproduce these
large projects. While reproducing entire project is
impossible for small groups of hackers, it is often not even
possible for small groups to even track and maintain a fork
- of a large project over time.</para>
-
- </listitem>
- </itemizedlist>
-
- <para>Taken together, these facts imply an increasingly realized
+ of a large project over time.</p></li></ul></div><p>Taken together, these facts imply an increasingly realized
free software community in which programmers frequently derive
but where traditional forking is often untenable. "Forks," as
they are traditionally defined, must be improved upon.
Communities around large free software projects must be smarter
about the process of derivation than they have been in the
- past.</para>
-
- <para>We are already seeing this with GNU/Linux distributions. New
+ past.</p><p>We are already seeing this with GNU/Linux distributions. New
distributions are rarely built from scratch today. Instead, they
adapted from and built on top of the work of existing projects.
As projects and user-bases grow, these derived distributions are
increasingly common. Most of what I describe in this essay are
- tools and experiences of derived distributions.</para>
-
- <para>Software makers must pursue the idea of an
- <emphasis>ecosystem</emphasis> of free software projects and
+ tools and experiences of derived distributions.</p><p>Software makers must pursue the idea of an
+ <span class="emphasis"><em>ecosystem</em></span> of free software projects and
products that have forked but that maintain a close relationship
as they develop parallelly and symbiotically. To do this,
- developers should:</para>
-
- <itemizedlist>
- <listitem>
- <para>Break down the process of derivation into a set of
+ developers should:</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>Break down the process of derivation into a set of
different types of customization and derivation and
- prioritize methods of derivation.</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>Create and foster social solutions to the social aspects
- of the derivation problem.</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>Build and use new tools specifically designed to
+ prioritize methods of derivation.</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>Create and foster social solutions to the social aspects
+ of the derivation problem.</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>Build and use new tools specifically designed to
coordinate development of software in the context of an
- ecosystem of projects.</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>Distribute and utilize distributed version control tools
+ ecosystem of projects.</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>Distribute and utilize distributed version control tools
with an emphasis on maintaining differences over
- time.</para>
- </listitem>
- </itemizedlist>
-
- <para>This paper is an early analysis of this set of problems. As
+ time.</p></li></ul></div><p>This paper is an early analysis of this set of problems. As
such, it is highly focused on the experience of the Ubuntu
project and its existence as a derived Debian distribution. It
also pulls from my experience with Debian-NP and the Custom
Debian Distribution (CDD) community. Since I participate in both
the Ubuntu and CDD projects, these are areas that I can discuss
- with some degree of knowledge and experience.</para>
- </section>
-
- <section>
- <title>"Fork" Is A Four Letter Word</title>
-
- <para>The act of taking the code for a free software project and
+ with some degree of knowledge and experience.</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="idp27077936"></a>"Fork" Is A Four Letter Word</h2></div></div></div><p>The act of taking the code for a free software project and
bifurcating it to create a new project is called "forking."
There have been a number of famous forks in free software
history. One of the most famous was the schism that led to the
parallel development of two versions of the Emacs text editor:
- GNU Emacs and XEmacs. This schism persists to this day.</para>
-
- <para>Some forks, like Emacs and XEmacs, are permanent. Others are
+ GNU Emacs and XEmacs. This schism persists to this day.</p><p>Some forks, like Emacs and XEmacs, are permanent. Others are
relatively short lived. An example of this is the GCC project
- which saw two forks — EGCS and PGCC — that both
+ which saw two forks — EGCS and PGCC — that both
eventually merged back into GCC. Forking can happen for any
number of reasons. Often developers on a project develop
political or personal differences that keep them from continuing
to work together. In some cases, maintainers become unresponsive
- and other developers fork to keep the software alive.</para>
-
- <para>Ultimately though, most forks occur because people do not
+ and other developers fork to keep the software alive.</p><p>Ultimately though, most forks occur because people do not
agree on the features, the mechanisms, or the technology at the
core of a project. People have different goals, different
problems, and want different tools. Often, these goals, problems
and tools are similar up until a certain point before the need
- to part ways becomes essential.</para>
-
- <para>A fork occurs on the level of code but a fork is not merely
- — or even primarily — technical. Many projects create
+ to part ways becomes essential.</p><p>A fork occurs on the level of code but a fork is not merely
+ — or even primarily — technical. Many projects create
"branches." Branches are alternative versions of a piece of
software used to experiment with intrusive or unstable features
and fixes. Forks are distinguished from branches both in
the changes are more invasive or represent a more fundamental
rethinking of the problem) and in that they are bifurcations
defined in social and political terms. Branches involve a
- <emphasis>single</emphasis> developer or community of developers
- — even if it does boil down to distinct subgroups within a
- community — whereas forks are separate projects.</para>
-
- <para>Forking has historically been viewed as a bad thing in free
+ <span class="emphasis"><em>single</em></span> developer or community of developers
+ — even if it does boil down to distinct subgroups within a
+ community — whereas forks are separate projects.</p><p>Forking has historically been viewed as a bad thing in free
software communities: they are seen to stem from people's
inability to work together and have ended in reproduction of
- work. When I published the first version of the <ulink
- url="http://mako.cc/projects/howto/">Free Software Project
- Management HOWTO</ulink> more than four years ago, I included
+ work. When I published the first version of the <a class="ulink" href="http://mako.cc/projects/howto/" target="_top">Free Software Project
+ Management HOWTO</a> more than four years ago, I included
a small subsection on forking which described the concept to
- future free software project leaders with this text:</para>
-
- <blockquote>
- <para>The short version of the fork section is, don't do them.
+ future free software project leaders with this text:</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>The short version of the fork section is, don't do them.
Forks force developers to choose one project to work with,
cause nasty political divisions, and redundancy of
- work.</para>
- </blockquote>
-
- <para>In the <emphasis>best</emphasis> situations, a fork means
+ work.</p></blockquote></div><p>In the <span class="emphasis"><em>best</em></span> situations, a fork means
that two groups of people need to go on developing features and
- doing work they would ordinarily do <emphasis>in addition
- to</emphasis> tracking the forked project and having to
+ doing work they would ordinarily do <span class="emphasis"><em>in addition
+ to</em></span> tracking the forked project and having to
hand-select and apply features and fixes to their own code-base.
This level of monitoring and constant comparison can be
extremely difficult and time-consuming. The situation is not
task. The worse (and much more common) situation occurs when two
groups go about their work ignorant or partially ignorant of the
code being cut on the other side of the fork. Important features
- and fixes are implemented twice — differently and
- incompatibly.</para>
-
- <para>The most substantial bright side to these drawbacks is that
+ and fixes are implemented twice — differently and
+ incompatibly.</p><p>The most substantial bright side to these drawbacks is that
the problems associated with forking are so severe and notorious
that, in most cases, the threat of a fork is enough to force
maintainers to work out solutions that keep the fork from
- happening in the first place.</para>
-
- <para>Finally, it is worth pointing out that fork is something of
+ happening in the first place.</p><p>Finally, it is worth pointing out that fork is something of
a contested term. Because definitions of forks involve, to one
degree or another, statements about the political, organization,
and technical distinctions between projects, bifurcations that
version control systems, the definition of what is and is not a
fork has become increasingly unclear. In part due to the same
systems, the benefits and drawbacks of what is increasingly
- problematically called forking is equally debatable.</para>
-
- </section>
-
- <section>
- <title>Case Study</title>
-
- <para>In my introduction, I described how the growing scope of
+ problematically called forking is equally debatable.</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="idp27089792"></a>Case Study</h2></div></div></div><p>In my introduction, I described how the growing scope of
free software projects and the rapidly increasingly size and
diversity of user communities is spearheading the need for new
type of derivation that avoids, as best as possible, the
drawbacks of forking. Nowhere is this more evident than in the
largest projects with the broadest scope: a small group of
- projects that includes operating system distributions.</para>
-
-
- <section>
- <title>The Debian Project</title>
-
- <para>The Debian project is by many counts the largest free
+ projects that includes operating system distributions.</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="idp26985776"></a>The Debian Project</h3></div></div></div><p>The Debian project is by many counts the largest free
software distribution in terms of code. It is the also,
arguably, the largest free software project in terms of the
number of volunteers. Debian includes more than 15,000
and many more contributors without official membership.
Projects without Debian's massive volunteer base cannot
replicate what Debian has accomplished; they can rarely hope
- to even maintain what Debian has produced.</para>
-
- <para>At the time that this paper was written, Distrowatch lists
- 129 distributions based on Debian<footnote>
- <para>Information is listed on the distrowatch homepage
- here: <ulink
- url="http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=independence">http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=independence</ulink></para>
-
- </footnote> — most of them
+ to even maintain what Debian has produced.</p><p>At the time that this paper was written, Distrowatch lists
+ 129 distributions based on Debian<a href="#ftn.idp26988128" class="footnote" name="idp26988128"><sup class="footnote">[1]</sup></a> — most of them
are currently active to varying degrees. Each distribution
- represents at least one person — and in most cases a
- community of people — who disagreed with Debian's vision
+ represents at least one person — and in most cases a
+ community of people — who disagreed with Debian's vision
or direction strongly enough to want to create a new
- distribution <emphasis>and</emphasis> who had the technical
+ distribution <span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> who had the technical
capacity to follow through with this goal. Despite Debian's
- long-standing slogan — "the universal operating system"
- — the fact
+ long-standing slogan — "the universal operating system"
+ — the fact
that the Debian project has become the fastest growing
operating system while spawning so many derivatives is
testament to the fact that, as far as software is concerned,
- one size <emphasis>can not</emphasis> fit all.<footnote>
- <para>Netcraft posts yearly updates on the speed at which
- Linux distributions are growing. The one in question can be
- found at: <ulink
- url="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/28/debian_fastest_growing_linux_distribution.html">http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/28/debian_fastest_growing_linux_distribution.html</ulink></para>
- </footnote>
- </para>
-
-
- <para>Organizationally, Debian derivers are located both inside
+ one size <span class="emphasis"><em>can not</em></span> fit all.<a href="#ftn.idp26990736" class="footnote" name="idp26990736"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>
+ </p><p>Organizationally, Debian derivers are located both inside
and outside of the Debian project. A group of derivers working
within the Debian project has labeled themselves "Custom
Debian Distributions" and has created nearly a dozen projects
customizing and deriving from Debian for specific groups of
users including non-profit organization, the medical
- community, lawyers, children and many others.<footnote>
- <para>I spearheaded and help build a now mostly defunct
- derivation of Debian called Debian-Nonprofit (Debian-NP)
- geared for non-profit organizations by working within the
- Debian project.</para>
- </footnote> These projects build on the core Debian distribution and
- the canonical archive from <emphasis>within</emphasis> the
+ community, lawyers, children and many others.<a href="#ftn.idp26993168" class="footnote" name="idp26993168"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a> These projects build on the core Debian distribution and
+ the canonical archive from <span class="emphasis"><em>within</em></span> the
organizational and political limits of the Debian project and
constantly seek to minimize the delta by focusing on less
invasive changes and by advancing creative ways of building
- the <emphasis>ability</emphasis> to alter the core
+ the <span class="emphasis"><em>ability</em></span> to alter the core
Debian code base through established and policy compliant
- procedures.</para>
-
-<!-- http://linktocddinformation -->
-
- <para>A second group of Debian customizers includes those
+ procedures.</p><p>A second group of Debian customizers includes those
working outside of the Debian project organizationally.
Notable among this list are (in alphabetical order) Knoppix,
Libranet, Linspire (formerly Lindows), Progeny, MEPIS, Ubuntu,
excellent package management, wide selection of packages to
choose from, and strong commitment to software freedom which
ensures derivability, Debian provides an ideal point from
- which to create a GNU/Linux distribution.</para>
-
- </section>
-
-
- <section>
- <title>Ubuntu</title>
-
- <para>The Ubuntu project was started by Mark Shuttleworth in
+ which to create a GNU/Linux distribution.</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="idp26996864"></a>Ubuntu</h3></div></div></div><p>The Ubuntu project was started by Mark Shuttleworth in
April 2004 and the first version was built almost entirely
by a small group of a Debian developers employed by Shuttleworth's
- company Canonical Limited.<footnote>
- <para>Information Ubuntu can be found on the <ulink
- url="http://www.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu homepage.</ulink>
- Information Canonical Limited can be found at <ulink
- url="http://www.canonical.com">Canonical's
- homepage</ulink>.</para>
- </footnote> It was released to the world in late 2004.
+ company Canonical Limited.<a href="#ftn.idp26998016" class="footnote" name="idp26998016"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a> It was released to the world in late 2004.
The second version was released six months later in April
2005. The goals of Ubuntu are to provide a distribution based
- on a subset of Debian with:</para>
-
- <itemizedlist>
- <listitem>
- <para>Regular and predictable releases — every six months
- with support for eighteen months.</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>An emphasis on free software that will maintain the
- derivability of the distribution.</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>An emphasis on usability and a consistent desktop
+ on a subset of Debian with:</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>Regular and predictable releases — every six months
+ with support for eighteen months.</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>An emphasis on free software that will maintain the
+ derivability of the distribution.</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>An emphasis on usability and a consistent desktop
vision. As an example, this has translated into less
questions in the installer and a default selection and
configuration of packages that is usable for most desktop
- users "out of the box."</para>
- </listitem>
-
- </itemizedlist>
-
- <para>The Ubuntu project provides an interesting example of a
+ users "out of the box."</p></li></ul></div><p>The Ubuntu project provides an interesting example of a
project that aims to derive from Debian to an extensive
degree. Ubuntu made code-level changes to nearly 1300 packages
in Debian at the time that this paper was written and the
speed of changes will not decelerate with time; the total
number of changes and the total size of the delta will
- grow.<footnote>
- <para>Scott James Remnant maintains a list of these patches
- online here: <ulink
- url="http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/">http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/</ulink></para>
- </footnote> The changes that Ubuntu makes are primarily of the
- most intrusive kind — changes to the code itself.</para>
-
- <para>That said, the Ubuntu project is explicit about the fact
+ grow.<a href="#ftn.idp27004416" class="footnote" name="idp27004416"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a> The changes that Ubuntu makes are primarily of the
+ most intrusive kind — changes to the code itself.</p><p>That said, the Ubuntu project is explicit about the fact
that it could not exist without the work done by the Debian
- project.<footnote>
- <para>You can see that explicit statement on Ubuntu's
- website here: <ulink
- url="http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/">http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/</ulink></para>
- </footnote> More importantly, Ubuntu explains that it cannot
+ project.<a href="#ftn.idp27006336" class="footnote" name="idp27006336"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a> More importantly, Ubuntu explains that it cannot
continue to provide the complete set of packages that its
users depend on without the ongoing work by the Debian
project. Even though Ubuntu has made changes to the nearly
1300 packages, this is less than ten percent of the total
- packages shipped in Ubuntu and pulled from Debian.</para>
-
- <para>Scott James Remnant, a prominent Debian developer and a
+ packages shipped in Ubuntu and pulled from Debian.</p><p>Scott James Remnant, a prominent Debian developer and a
hacker on Ubuntu who works for Canonical Ltd., described the
situation this way on his web log to introduce the Ubuntu
development methodology in the week after the first public
- announcement of Canonical and Ubuntu:<footnote> <para>The
- entire post can be read here: <ulink
- url="http://www.netsplit.com/blog/work/canonical/ubuntu_and_debian.html">http://www.netsplit.com/blog/work/canonical/ubuntu_and_debian.html</ulink></para>
- </footnote>
- </para>
-
- <blockquote>
-
- <para>I don't think Ubuntu is a "fork" of Debian, at least not
+ announcement of Canonical and Ubuntu:<a href="#ftn.idp27008624" class="footnote" name="idp27008624"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
+ </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>I don't think Ubuntu is a "fork" of Debian, at least not
in the traditional sense. A fork suggests that at some
point we go our separate way from Debian and then
occasionally merge in changes as we carry on down our own
- path.</para>
-
- <para>Our model is quite different; every six months we take a
+ path.</p><p>Our model is quite different; every six months we take a
snapshot of Debian's unstable distribution, apply any
outstanding patches from our last release to it and spend a
- couple of months testing and bug-fixing it.</para>
-
-
- <para>
- <inlinemediaobject>
- <imageobject>
- <imagedata fileref="tfontf-picture-01.png" format="PNG"/>
- </imageobject>
- </inlinemediaobject>
- </para>
-
- <para>One thing that should be obvious from this is that our
+ couple of months testing and bug-fixing it.</p><p>
+ <span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="tfontf-picture-01.png"></span>
+ </p><p>One thing that should be obvious from this is that our
job is a lot easier if Debian takes all of our changes. The
model actually encourages us to give back to
- Debian.</para>
-
- <para>That's why from the very first day we started fixing
- bugs we began sending <ulink
- url="http://www.no-name-yet.com/patches/">the
- patches</ulink> back to Debian through the BTS. Not only
+ Debian.</p><p>That's why from the very first day we started fixing
+ bugs we began sending <a class="ulink" href="http://www.no-name-yet.com/patches/" target="_top">the
+ patches</a> back to Debian through the BTS. Not only
will it make our job so much easier when we come to freeze
for "hoary", our next release, but it's exactly what every
- derivative should do in the first place.</para>
-
- </blockquote>
-
- <para>There is some debate on the degree to which Ubuntu
+ derivative should do in the first place.</p></blockquote></div><p>There is some debate on the degree to which Ubuntu
developers have succeeded in accomplishing the goals laid out
by Remnant. Ubuntu has filed hundreds of patches in the bug
tracking system but it has also run into problems in deciding
- <emphasis>what</emphasis> constitutes something that should be
+ <span class="emphasis"><em>what</em></span> constitutes something that should be
fed back to Debian. Many changes are simply not relevant to
Debian developers. For example, they may include changes to a
package in response to another change made in another package
in Ubuntu that will not or has not been taken by Debian. In
many other cases, the best action in regards to a particular
change, a particular package, and a particular upstream Debian
- developer is simply unclear.</para>
-
- <para>The Ubuntu project's track record in working
+ developer is simply unclear.</p><p>The Ubuntu project's track record in working
constructively with Debian is, at the moment, a mixed one.
While an increasingly large number of Debian developers are
maintaining their packages actively within both projects, many
in both Debian and Ubuntu feel that Ubuntu has work left to do
in living up to its own goal of a completely smooth productive
- relationship with Debian.</para>
-
- <para>That said, the importance of the goals described by
+ relationship with Debian.</p><p>That said, the importance of the goals described by
Remnant in the context of of the Ubuntu development model
cannot be overstated. Every line of delta between Debian and
Ubuntu has a cost for Ubuntu developers. Technology, social
practices, and wise choices may reduce that cost but it cannot
eliminate it. The resources that Ubuntu can bring to bear upon
- the problem of building a distribution are limited — far
+ the problem of building a distribution are limited — far
more limited than Debian's. As a result, there is a limit to
how far Ubuntu can diverge; it is always in Ubuntu's advantage
- to minimize the delta where possible.</para>
-
- </section>
-
- <section>
- <title>Applicability</title>
-
- <para>Ubuntu and Debian are distributions and — as such
- — operate on a different scale than the vast majority of
+ to minimize the delta where possible.</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="idp32030512"></a>Applicability</h3></div></div></div><p>Ubuntu and Debian are distributions and — as such
+ — operate on a different scale than the vast majority of
free software projects. They include more code and more
people. As a result, there are questions as to whether the
experiences and lessons learned from these projects are
particularly applicable to the experience of smaller free
- software projects.</para>
-
- <para>Clearly, because of the difficulties associated with
+ software projects.</p><p>Clearly, because of the difficulties associated with
forking massive amount of code and the problems associated
with duplicating the work of large volunteer bases,
distributions are forced into finding a way to balance the
benefits and drawbacks of forking. However, while the need is
stronger and more immediate in larger projects, the benefits
- of their solutions will often be fully transferable.</para>
-
- <para>Clearly, modifiability of free software to better fit the
+ of their solutions will often be fully transferable.</p><p>Clearly, modifiability of free software to better fit the
needs of its users lies at the heart of the free software
movement's success. However, while modification usually comes
in the form of collaboration on a single code-base, this is
a function of limitations in software development methodologies
and tools rather than the best response to the needs or
- desires of users or developers.</para>
-
- <para>I believe that the fundamental advantage of free software
+ desires of users or developers.</p><p>I believe that the fundamental advantage of free software
in the next decade will be in the growing ability of any
single free software project to be multiple things to multiple
users simultaneously. This will translate into the fact that,
ability to better serve the increasingly diverse needs of
increasingly large and increasingly diverse user-bases.
Although it sounds paradoxical today, more projects will
- derive and less redundant code will be written.</para>
-
- <para>Projects more limited in code and scope may use the tools
+ derive and less redundant code will be written.</p><p>Projects more limited in code and scope may use the tools
and methods described in the remainder of this paper in
different combinations, in different ways, and to different
degrees than the examples around distributions introduced
emerging. With time, these strategies and tools will find
themselves employed productively in a wide variety of projects
with a broad spectrum of sizes, needs, scopes and
- descriptions.</para>
-
- </section>
-
- </section>
-
- <section>
- <title>Balancing Forking With Collaboration</title>
-
- <section>
- <title>Derivation and Problem Analysis</title>
-
- <para>The easiest step in creating a productive derivative
+ descriptions.</p></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="idp26879744"></a>Balancing Forking With Collaboration</h2></div></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="idp26880432"></a>Derivation and Problem Analysis</h3></div></div></div><p>The easiest step in creating a productive derivative
software project is to break down the problems of derivations
into a series of different classes of modification. Certain
types of modification are more easily done and are
- intrinsically more maintainable.</para>
-
- <para>In the context of distributions, the problem of derivation
+ intrinsically more maintainable.</p><p>In the context of distributions, the problem of derivation
can be broken down into the following types of changes (sorted
roughly according to the intrusiveness inherent in solving the
problem and the severity of the long-term maintainability
- problems that they introduce):</para>
-
- <orderedlist>
- <listitem>
- <para>Selection of individual pieces of software;</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>Changes to the way that packages are installed or run
+ problems that they introduce):</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>Selection of individual pieces of software;</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>Changes to the way that packages are installed or run
(e.g., in a Live CD type environment or using a different
- installer);</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>Configuration of different pieces of software;</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>Changes made to the actual software package (made on
- the level of changes to the packages code);</para>
- </listitem>
- </orderedlist>
-
- <para>By breaking down the problem in this way, Debian derivers
+ installer);</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>Configuration of different pieces of software;</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>Changes made to the actual software package (made on
+ the level of changes to the packages code);</p></li></ol></div><p>By breaking down the problem in this way, Debian derivers
have been able to approach derivation in ways that focus
- energy on the less intrusive problems first.</para>
-
- <para>The first area that Ubuntu focused on was selecting a
+ energy on the less intrusive problems first.</p><p>The first area that Ubuntu focused on was selecting a
subset of packages that Ubuntu would support. Ubuntu selected
and supports approximate 2,000 packages. These became the
- <command>main</command> component in Ubuntu. Other packages in
+ <span class="command"><strong>main</strong></span> component in Ubuntu. Other packages in
Debian were included in a separate section of the Ubuntu
- archive called <command>universe</command> but were not
+ archive called <span class="command"><strong>universe</strong></span> but were not
guaranteed to be supported with bug or security fixes. By
focusing on a small subset of packages, the Ubuntu team was
able to select a maintainable subsection of the Debian archive
- that they could maintain over time.</para>
-
- <para>The most simple derived distributions — often
+ that they could maintain over time.</p><p>The most simple derived distributions — often
working within the Debian project as CDDs but also including
- projects like Userlinux — are merely lists of packages
+ projects like Userlinux — are merely lists of packages
and do nothing outside of package selection. The installation
of lists of packages and the maintenance of those lists over
time can be aided through the creation of what are called
- <emphasis>metapackages</emphasis>: empty packages with long
- lists of "dependencies."</para>
-
- <para>The second item, configuration changes, is also
+ <span class="emphasis"><em>metapackages</em></span>: empty packages with long
+ lists of "dependencies."</p><p>The second item, configuration changes, is also
relatively low-impact. Focusing on moving as many changes as
possible into the realm of configuration changes is a
sustainable strategy that derivers working within the Debian
project intent on a single code-base have pursued actively.
Their idea is that rather than forking a piece of code due to
disagreement in how the program should work, they can leave
- the code intact but add the <emphasis>ability</emphasis> to
+ the code intact but add the <span class="emphasis"><em>ability</em></span> to
work in a different way to the software. This alternate
functionality is made toggleable through a configuration
change in the same manner that applications are configured
through questions asked at install time. Since the Debian
project has a unified package configuration framework called
Debconf, derivers are able to configure an entire system in a
- highly centralized manner.<footnote> <para>More information on
- Debconf can be
- found online at: <ulink
- url="http://www.kitenet.net/programs/debconf/">http://www.kitenet.net/programs/debconf/</ulink></para>
- </footnote> This is not unlike RedHat's Kickstart although the
+ highly centralized manner.<a href="#ftn.idp32057520" class="footnote" name="idp32057520"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a> This is not unlike RedHat's Kickstart although the
emphasis is on maintenance of those configuration changes over
the life and evolution of the package; Kickstart is focused
- merely on installation of the package.</para>
-
- <para>A third type of configuration is limited to changes in the
+ merely on installation of the package.</p><p>A third type of configuration is limited to changes in the
environment through which a system is run or installed. One is
example is Progeny's Anaconda-based Debian installer which
provides an alternate installer but results in an identical
range of invasive changes that span all items in my list
above, other Live CD projects, including Ubuntu's "Casper"
project, are much closer to an alternate shell through which
- the same code is run.</para>
-
- <para>Because these three methods are relatively non-invasive,
+ the same code is run.</p><p>Because these three methods are relatively non-invasive,
they are reasonable strategies for small teams and individuals
working on creating a derived distribution. However, many
- desirable changes — and in the case of some derived
- distributions, <emphasis>most</emphasis> desirable changes
- — require more invasive techniques. The final and most
- invasive type of change — changes to code — is the
+ desirable changes — and in the case of some derived
+ distributions, <span class="emphasis"><em>most</em></span> desirable changes
+ — require more invasive techniques. The final and most
+ invasive type of change — changes to code — is the
most difficult but also the most promising and powerful if it
can be done sustainably. Changes of this type involve
bifurcations of the code-base and will be the topic of the
- remainder of this paper.</para>
-
- </section>
-
- <section>
- <title>Distributed Source Control</title>
-
- <para>One promising method of maintaining deltas in forked or
+ remainder of this paper.</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="idp32061728"></a>Distributed Source Control</h3></div></div></div><p>One promising method of maintaining deltas in forked or
branched projects lies in distributed version control systems
(VCS). Traditional VCS systems work in a highly centralized
fashion. CVS, the archetypal free software VCS and the basis
must commit to the centralized repository. While CVS allows
users to create branches, anyone with commit rights has access
to the entire repository. The tools for branching and merging
- over time are not particularly good.</para>
-
- <para>The branching model is primarily geared toward a system
+ over time are not particularly good.</p><p>The branching model is primarily geared toward a system
where development is bifurcated and then the branch is merged
completely back into the main tree. Normal use of a branch
might include creating a development branch, making a series
of development releases while maintaining and fixing important
bugs in the stable primary branch, and then ultimately
replacing the stable release with the development release. The
- CVS model is <emphasis>not</emphasis> geared toward a system
+ CVS model is <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> geared toward a system
where an arbitrary delta, or sets of deltas, are maintained
- over time.</para>
-
- <para>Distributed version control aims to solve a number of
- problems introduced by CVS and alluded to above by:</para>
-
- <itemizedlist>
- <listitem>
- <para>Allowing people to work disconnected from each other
+ over time.</p><p>Distributed version control aims to solve a number of
+ problems introduced by CVS and alluded to above by:</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>Allowing people to work disconnected from each other
and to sync with each other, in whole or in part, in an
- arbitrary and ad-hoc fashion.</para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>Allowing deltas to be maintained over time.</para>
- </listitem>
- </itemizedlist>
-
- <para>Ultimately, this requires tools that are better at merging
- changes and in <emphasis>not</emphasis> merging certain
+ arbitrary and ad-hoc fashion.</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>Allowing deltas to be maintained over time.</p></li></ul></div><p>Ultimately, this requires tools that are better at merging
+ changes and in <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> merging certain
changes when that is the desired behavior. It also leads to tools capable
- of history-sensitive merging.</para>
-
- <para>The most famous switch to a distributed VCS model from a
+ of history-sensitive merging.</p><p>The most famous switch to a distributed VCS model from a
centralized VCS model was the move by the Linux kernel
development community to the proprietary distributed version
control system BitKeeper. In his recent announcement of the
decision to part ways with BitKeeper, Linus Torvalds
- said:</para>
-
- <blockquote>
- <para>In fact, one impact BK has had is to very fundamentally
+ said:</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>In fact, one impact BK has had is to very fundamentally
make us (and me in particular) change how we do things. That
ranges from the fine-grained changeset tracking to just how
I ended up trusting sub-maintainers with much bigger things,
and not having to work on a patch-by-patch basis any
- more.<footnote> <para>The full message can be read online
- at: <ulink
- url="http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/1/message/48393/thread">http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/1/message/48393/thread</ulink></para>
- </footnote>
- </para>
- </blockquote>
-
- <para>At the time of the switch, free distributed version
+ more.<a href="#ftn.idp32069728" class="footnote" name="idp32069728"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
+ </p></blockquote></div><p>At the time of the switch, free distributed version
control tools were less advanced than they are today. At the
moment, an incomplete list of free software VCS tools includes
GNU Arch, Bazaar, Bazaar-NG, Darcs, Monotone, SVK (based on
Subversion), GIT (a system developed by Linus Torvalds as a
- replacement for BitKeeper) and others.</para>
-
- <para>Each of these tools, at least after they reach a certain
+ replacement for BitKeeper) and others.</p><p>Each of these tools, at least after they reach a certain
level of maturity, allow or will allow users to develop
software in a distributed fashion and to, over time, compare
their software and pull changes from others significantly more
merging and resolving conflicts over time, and the ability to
"cherry pick" certain patches or changes from a parallel
developer each make this type of development significantly
- more useful than it has been in the past.</para>
-
- <para>VCSs work entirely on the level of code. Due to the nature
+ more useful than it has been in the past.</p><p>VCSs work entirely on the level of code. Due to the nature
of the types of changes that Ubuntu project is making to
Debian's code, Ubuntu has focused primarily on this model and
Canonical currently funds two major distributed control
- products — the Bazaar and Bazaar-NG projects.</para>
-
- <para>In many ways, employing distributed version control
+ products — the Bazaar and Bazaar-NG projects.</p><p>In many ways, employing distributed version control
effectively is a much easier problem to solve for small, more
traditional, free software development projects than it is for
GNU/Linux distributions. Because the problems associated with
parallel development. As the tools and social processes for
distributed VCS evolve, they will become increasingly
important tools in the way that free software is
- developed.</para>
-
- <para>Because the problems of scale associated with building an
+ developed.</p><p>Because the problems of scale associated with building an
entire derivative distribution are more complicated than those
associated with working with a single "upstream" project,
distributed version control is only now being actively
deployed in the Ubuntu project. In doing so, the project is
focusing on integrating these into problem specific tools
- built on top of distributed version control.</para>
-
- </section>
-
- <section>
- <title>Problem Specific Tools</title>
-
- <para>Another technique that Canonical Ltd. is experimenting
+ built on top of distributed version control.</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="idp32075664"></a>Problem Specific Tools</h3></div></div></div><p>Another technique that Canonical Ltd. is experimenting
with is the creation of high level tools built on top of
distributed version control tools specifically designed for
maintaining difference between packages. Because packages are
usually distributed as a source file with a collection of one
or more patches, this introduces the unique possibility of
- creating a high-level VCS system based around this fact.</para>
-
- <para>In the case of Ubuntu and Debian, the ideal tool creates
+ creating a high-level VCS system based around this fact.</p><p>In the case of Ubuntu and Debian, the ideal tool creates
one branch per patch or feature and uses heuristics to
analyze patch files and create these branches
intelligently. The package build system section of the total
very simple, very streamlined interface for dealing with a
particular type of source that is created and distributed in a
particular type of way with a particular type of
- change.</para>
-
- <para>While HCT promises to be very useful for people making
+ change.</p><p>While HCT promises to be very useful for people making
derived distributions based on Debian, its application outside
distribution makers will, in all likelihood, be limited. That
said, it provides an example of the way that problem and
context specific tools may play an essential role in the
- maintenance of derived code more generally.</para>
-
- </section>
-
-
- <section>
- <title>Social Solutions</title>
-
- <para>It has been said that it is a common folly of a
+ maintenance of derived code more generally.</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="idp32079568"></a>Social Solutions</h3></div></div></div><p>It has been said that it is a common folly of a
technophile to attempt to employ technical solutions toward
solving social problems. The problem of deriving software is
- both a technical <emphasis>and</emphasis> social problem and
+ both a technical <span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> social problem and
adequately addressing the larger problems requires approaches that
- take into consideration both types of solution.</para>
-
- <para>Scott James Remnant compares the relationship between
+ take into consideration both types of solution.</p><p>Scott James Remnant compares the relationship between
distributions and derived distributions as similar to the
relationship between distributions and upstream
- maintainers:</para>
- <blockquote>
-
- <para>I don't think this is much different from how Debian
+ maintainers:</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>I don't think this is much different from how Debian
maintainers interact with their upstreams. As Debian
maintainers we take and package upstream software and then
act as a gateway for bugs and problems. Quite often we fix
it upstream. Sometimes the upstream don't incorporate that
patch and we have to make sure we don't accidentally drop it
each subsequent release, we much prefer it if they take
- them, but we don't get angry if they don't.</para>
-
- <para>This is how I see the relationship between Ubuntu and
+ them, but we don't get angry if they don't.</p><p>This is how I see the relationship between Ubuntu and
Debian, we're no more a fork of Debian than a Debian package
- is a fork of its upstream.</para>
- </blockquote>
-
- <para>Scott alludes the fact that, at least in the world of
+ is a fork of its upstream.</p></blockquote></div><p>Scott alludes the fact that, at least in the world of
distributions, parallel development is already one way to view
- the <emphasis>modus operandi</emphasis> of existing GNU/Linux
+ the <span class="emphasis"><em>modus operandi</em></span> of existing GNU/Linux
distributions. The relationship between a deriver and derivee
on the distribution level mirrors the relationship between the
distribution and the "upstream" authors of the packages that
make up the distribution. These relationships are rarely based
around technological tools but are entirely in the realm of
- social solutions.</para>
-
- <para>Ubuntu has pursued a number of different initiatives along
+ social solutions.</p><p>Ubuntu has pursued a number of different initiatives along
these lines. The first of these has been to regularly file
bugs in the Debian bug tracking system when bugs that exist in
Debian are fixed in Ubuntu. While this can be partially
automated, the choice to automate this and the manner in which
- it it is set up is a purely social one.</para>
-
- <para>However, as I alluded to above, Ubuntu is still left with
+ it it is set up is a purely social one.</p><p>However, as I alluded to above, Ubuntu is still left with
questions in regards to changes that are made to packages that
do not necessarily fix bugs or that fix bugs that do not exist
in Debian but may in the future. Some Debian developers want
to hear about the full extent of changes made to their
software in Ubuntu while others do not want to be
bothered. Ubuntu should continue to work with Debian to find
- ways to allow developers to stay in sync.</para>
-
- <para>There are also several initiatives by developers in
+ ways to allow developers to stay in sync.</p><p>There are also several initiatives by developers in
Debian, Ubuntu, and in other derivations to create a
stronger relationship between the Debian project and its
ecosystem of derivers and between Ubuntu and Debian in
the realm of appropriate social relationships that will ensure
that they can work together and be informed of each others'
work without resorting to "spamming" each other with
- irrelevant or unnecessary information.</para>
-
- <para>Another issue that has recently played an important role
+ irrelevant or unnecessary information.</p><p>Another issue that has recently played an important role
in the Debian/Ubuntu relationship is the importance of both
giving adequate credit to the authors or upstream maintainers
of software without implying a closer relationship than is the
work on a project without implying that the others work for,
support, or are connected to the derivers project to which, for
any number of reasons, the "upstream" author might not want to
- be associated.</para>
-
- <para>In the case of Debian and Ubuntu, this has resulted in an
+ be associated.</p><p>In the case of Debian and Ubuntu, this has resulted in an
emphasis on keeping or importing changelog entries when
changes are imported and in noting the pedigree of changes
more generally. It has recently also been discussed in terms
been decided at the time of writing, one idea involved marking
the maintainer of the package explicitly as a Debian
maintainer at the time that the binary packages are built on
- the Ubuntu build machines.</para>
-
- <para>The emphasis on social solutions is also essential when
+ the Ubuntu build machines.</p><p>The emphasis on social solutions is also essential when
using distributed VCS technology. As Linus Torvalds alluded to
in the quote above, the importance of technological changes to
distributed VCS technology is only felt when people begin to
- work in a different way — when they begin to employ
- different social models of developer interaction.</para>
-
- <para>While Ubuntu's experience can provide a good model for
+ work in a different way — when they begin to employ
+ different social models of developer interaction.</p><p>While Ubuntu's experience can provide a good model for
tackling some of these source control issues, it can only
serve as a model and not as a fixed answer. Social solutions
must be appropriate for a given social relationship. Even in
situations where a package is branched because of social
disagreements, a certain level of collaboration on a social
level will be essential to the long term viability of the
- derivative.</para>
-
- </section>
-
- </section>
-
- <section>
- <title>Conclusions</title>
-
- <para>As the techniques described in this paper evolve, the role
+ derivative.</p></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="idp32092080"></a>Conclusions</h2></div></div></div><p>As the techniques described in this paper evolve, the role
that they play in free software development becomes increasingly
prominent and increasingly important. Joining them will be other
techniques and models that I have not described and cannot
capacity to produce better products and better processes.
Ultimately, it will help free software capture more users, bring
in more developers, and produce more free software of a higher
- quality.</para>
-
- </section>
-
-</article>
-
-
-<!-- Keep this comment at the end of the file
-Local variables:
-mode: xml
-sgml-omittag:t
-sgml-shorttag:t
-sgml-namecase-general:t
-sgml-general-insert-case:lower
-sgml-minimize-attributes:nil
-sgml-always-quote-attributes:t
-sgml-parent-document:nil
-sgml-exposed-tags:nil
-sgml-local-catalogs:nil
-sgml-local-ecat-files:nil
-sgml-indent-step: 2
-sgml-indent-data: 2
-sgml-set-face: t
-End:
--->
+ quality.</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp26988128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp26988128" class="para"><sup class="para">[1] </sup></a>Information is listed on the distrowatch homepage
+ here: <a class="ulink" href="http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=independence" target="_top">http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=independence</a></p></div><div id="ftn.idp26990736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp26990736" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>Netcraft posts yearly updates on the speed at which
+ Linux distributions are growing. The one in question can be
+ found at: <a class="ulink" href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/28/debian_fastest_growing_linux_distribution.html" target="_top">http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/28/debian_fastest_growing_linux_distribution.html</a></p></div><div id="ftn.idp26993168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp26993168" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a>I spearheaded and help build a now mostly defunct
+ derivation of Debian called Debian-Nonprofit (Debian-NP)
+ geared for non-profit organizations by working within the
+ Debian project.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp26998016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp26998016" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>Information Ubuntu can be found on the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.ubuntu.com" target="_top">Ubuntu homepage.</a>
+ Information Canonical Limited can be found at <a class="ulink" href="http://www.canonical.com" target="_top">Canonical's
+ homepage</a>.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp27004416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp27004416" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>Scott James Remnant maintains a list of these patches
+ online here: <a class="ulink" href="http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/" target="_top">http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/</a></p></div><div id="ftn.idp27006336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp27006336" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>You can see that explicit statement on Ubuntu's
+ website here: <a class="ulink" href="http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/" target="_top">http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/</a></p></div><div id="ftn.idp27008624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp27008624" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a>The
+ entire post can be read here: <a class="ulink" href="http://www.netsplit.com/blog/work/canonical/ubuntu_and_debian.html" target="_top">http://www.netsplit.com/blog/work/canonical/ubuntu_and_debian.html</a></p></div><div id="ftn.idp32057520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp32057520" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>More information on
+ Debconf can be
+ found online at: <a class="ulink" href="http://www.kitenet.net/programs/debconf/" target="_top">http://www.kitenet.net/programs/debconf/</a></p></div><div id="ftn.idp32069728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp32069728" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>The full message can be read online
+ at: <a class="ulink" href="http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/1/message/48393/thread" target="_top">http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/1/message/48393/thread</a></p></div></div></div></body></html>
projects / to_fork_or_not / commitdiff