@terdon quick question is asking questions of type "my script works but does this script have any potential issues" on topic here ? or is it more suitable for code review ?
@SergiyKolodyazhnyy Yes, it is on topic. I mean, assuming you're talking shell scripts or at least something *nixy, and the issues are to do with files or other sysadminy stuff, if that makes sense. Of course, code review is dedicated to precisely that, so it might be better there.
But yes, I'd say it would also be on topic here although the details would probably depend on the specific question asked.
Belated comment: "Remember that Ubuntu started out as a fork of Debian, and to this day still retains a great similarity to Debian." As far as I know, Ubuntu is still derived from Debian. It's not a fork. — Faheem Mitha47 secs ago
Fork means it split off. AFAIK, Ubuntu never split off. It's still a Debian derivative.
@FaheemMitha I'm not sure how everyone uses the term "fork" these days, but I am inclined to agree with you. I do not consider Ubuntu a fork of Debian. When work begins on each new Ubuntu release (well before it is actually officially released, and well before the first alpha for it is even released; I'm talking around the time when the previous release is officially released), packages are synced or merged to it from Debian unstable.
Furthermore, when people want to get their software in Ubuntu officially, they are usually advised to get it included officially in Debian first, and then it "trickles down" into the next Ubuntu release. This is a much closer and more ongoing relationship between the operating systems than the term "fork" typically signifies.
Ubuntu is definitely a derivative of Debian. There's no question about that. I've seen the word "fork" used in different ways but I've never seen it used in way that I think would cover the relationship between Debian and Ubuntu (unless the author of that post intended to use it that way).
I suppose it should be edited but I'm not sure how best to edit it because I'm not sure what the significance is of the comparison between Debian and Ubuntu in that answer.
My concern with the recently changed text would not have been that it used the wrong term but that it described the connection between the projects as having only once existed. (Specifically, as being about how Ubuntu started out.)
But also consider chemical derivatives which can have completely different functions to the original compound. Words derived from other words whose meaning is very different etc.
So, what I am wondering is what the significance is of the whole paragraph. Quoting just the beginning:
> First off, I do want to repeat what has already been said: Debian caters to a rather different group of users than many other mainstream distributions, particularly so Ubuntu.
As terdon says, not a big issue. But I think everyone is a little sensitive about the Ubuntu/Debian relationship. At least people in the Debian side are.
Ubuntu does have an ongoing relationship with Debian, but I don't think people usually consider that to be required for one distro to be a derivative of another.
Every Ubuntu system I've ever installed has shipped without anything blocked by default by a firewall. So my remaining confusion in connection with that post is, why is it significant to the issue that Debian and Ubuntu are targeted toward different users?
@FaheemMitha I would guess that it is relevant somehow, and I'm not saying it should be removed, but I'm not sure quite what the relevance is. Also, since it's a post that explains why Debian doesn't have a firewall blocking anything by default, which starts out by stating that Debian differs from Ubuntu because Ubuntu is for people who don't want to have to set up stuff manually, it seems to be saying that this is an area where Debian and Ubuntu are different. But I don't think it is.
@EliahKagan I agree. So Ubuntu doesn't configure a firewall by default either? Debian certainly doesn't.
And Ubuntu really isn't that different from Debian, imo. They have a user-friendly layer, I think. And better hardware detection. And a more relaxed attitude towards non-free softtware. But under the skin it's pretty much the same thing.
I think that most of the packages are just unmodified Debian packages.
@FaheemMitha Like Debian, it has an all permissive rule when installed. Ubuntu has ufw installed by default but it's not configured to cause anything to be blocked.
ek@Kip:~$ sudo ufw status
[sudo] password for ek:
Status: inactive
I suppose some Ubuntu release at some point, of some flavor or other, might have blocked stuff by default. But I don't know of it. All the Ubuntu systems I've used have had nothing blocked by a firewall or they had things blocked that I or another user remembered setting up. I've heard from people that stuff is blocked by default but it's always turned out that it wasn't, except in one vague case where I don't have information about it. :)
@FaheemMitha Do you mean that the source code is unmodified? I believe that may be so, at least by number, and excluding snap packages, which supposedly are going to be replacing deb packages. There are thousands of packages from Debian where the source code is modified for Ubuntu, but that's still not most packages. For binary packages, however, they are different, as they are built separately. I don't believe there's always full toolchain compatibility, either.
On the other hand, I imagine there's something of a correlation between packages that have Ubuntu-specific patches and packages that are popularly used.
I suppose it's possible that more than a thousand packages might have been modified in Ubuntu relative to Debian, since the beginning. 2004, I think it was.
But I doubt many packages are modified between one Ubuntu release and the next.
I never got the impression that Ubuntu/Canonical had that much manpower. Not counting volunteers.
Given that comments are supposed to be ephemeral, it actually makes more sense to always expand to the question title. Otherwise, if the comment is deleted the link is completely useless. If it expands to the question title, you still have some idea of what it was about.
I have a Google Play Music subscription, I use that.
Used to use MOG. Then Beats for a bit, after MOG became Beats. But canceled before it become Apple Music.
I pay $7.99/mo for Google Play Music. That's a special price because I signed up early, I think it's $9.99/mo otherwise.
Amazon has one that is $7.99/mo if you're already an Amazon Prime member... which I've never tried, but I suspect is about the same.
@FaheemMitha BTW, I heard you can now get your very own NSA obelisk, now shipping to India. Well, I guess it's not really the right shape to be an obelisk, but column, pillar, or pile just don't have the same ring to them.
@FaheemMitha Voice control is useful. E.g, last night was using one while cooking. Can change the volume of the podcast, or skip an episode, or set a timer — all while hands were messy.
@FaheemMitha A horribly simplified version of this is that Spain, the country, is a collection of various nations, some of which had existed previously as nation states and all of which were joined through warfare. The relationship of Catalynya and Spain is similar to that of England and Scotland, but if the UK were not called 'UK' but instead were called 'England'.
Add to that the fact that Spain and the Spanish flag represent the oppression of Franco's dictatorship to many Catalans, during which they were violently repressed and their language (which is completely different and quite as old as Spanish, older, actually) was attacked in an effort to wipe that out too.
Now, on the other hand, you have the Catalans who consider themselves an "oppressed" nations which is just absurd. They have their own government with extensive autonomy, their own schools and universities, in their language etc etc. And yet, they consider themselves comparable to say the Palestinians or the Kurds.
So while they do have some very valid demands, painting themselves as the poor downtrodden nation is ridiculous. Especially given that they are far richer than their presumed oppressors.
Now, every poll they've ever had in the past several decades has shown support for independence to be juuust under the 50% mark.
Nevertheless, the idiots currently in power in the regional government decided to call for a referendum, something which is (apparently) anti-constitutional and therefore illegal under Spanish law.
They were told it was illegal, ignored it and had it anyway. The result was 90% pro independence but there was only around 40 something % turnout, so basically only the pro independence people voted.
They then proceeded to treat that as a mandate from the people, conveniently ignoring the silent majority.
Now, the absolute morons in the Spanish government, instead of letting things play out and simply allowing them to hold the damn thing and then ignoring the results seeing as it wouldn't have been conclusive, decided top send in the cops who started beating people up in an effort to block the referendum.
@terdon What's Catalonia's normal turnout? You need a lot of no votes staying home to turn 90% into <50. Oddly none of the news stories I've seen answer that, and I've been too lazy to look it up
The violence from the Spanish state was really quite shocking and way over the top and, as a result, many more people are now pro independence than were last month.
@derobert Hmm, good question, but the normal turnout would not be representative. This was a plebiscite for independence so many people who never cared to vote for what they would have seen as a puppet, subservient government would have voted here and many who would vote normally wouldn't have.
point is, polls have always shown a support for independence in the high 40s but never a majority and that's what the actual plebiscite showed as well. There were next to no votes against independence, so those people simply didn't vote.
@terdon Still, in order to get it to 50%, you'd need another 40% (80% total turnout!) to vote 90% against. I know our turnout numbers are low in America, but... 80% seems sky-high turnout to me....
Since the whole thing is unconstitutional under Spanish law, suppose Catalonia decided to secede or something on the basis of that. Presumably that would be quite serious for Spain.
But more importantly, they can't use the turnout to indicate broad popular support. Not for something as momentous as this and not knowing that the numbers align perfecty with what was already known about people's opinions on the subject.
@FaheemMitha They did. They declared independence and then put it on hold for a month to "open dialogue". The Spanish state ignored that and brought in article 155 of the constitution which gives the Spanish goverment the power to suspend the independence of any of its "independent regions" (kinda like US states, but without thre being an actual federal state). Closer to the UK, actually.
@terdon No, they can't — or well, at least shouldn't. But it's hard to believe the support is actually a minority. Or at least, that it was a minority on that day...
It was, given the turnout. Although, to be fair, the fact that you had cops roaming the streets hitting people would make it hard to judge the true turnout.
@FaheemMitha it was.
Basically, the reaction of the Spanish state gave credence to what had always been an absurd claim to oppression by the Catalans. Suddenly, it ain't so absurd no more.
@derobert Yep. Precisely. Quite appart from being offensive and shocking, it is just plain counterproductive.
Hence the sobriquet moronic.
@derobert Oh no, I don't doubt that. It was a very partisan thing and people on both sides were pretty strung up. They saw the vote as thei basic, fundamental right. You had people spending the night in polling stations to protect them and be sure they got to vote.
Including people I know personally.
So the <50 who are pro independence would have gone out to vote in mass.
@FaheemMitha That one\s complicated and I don't have a very good handle on it. Apparently, the Spanish judiciary declared the referendum anti-constitutional and therefore illegal. The Catalan parliament passed a law that (according to mostly Spanish sources) was not legally valid. But I really don't know what happened there, legalese is complicated.
@FaheemMitha Probably. The Spanish goverment is currently a coalition led by center-right (right being more relevant than center) parties, while the Catalan one is mostly left leaning nationalists (yes, they have those there)
The French Revolution is generally considered to be a horrible warning on the risks of violent revolutions. Admittedly, some of the commentators may have been biased.
@derobert That might be true. I don't know much about French history either.
Last I heard, Catalonia's leader is in exile, and new elections have been called for 21 December. Not sure to what extent Catalonia is actually under the national government's control at the moment (de jure, of course, it's 100%).
@derobert Four (not counting earlier revolts that didn't bring a change of regime). Three that managed to bring down the previous government, and ended up with a return of a monarchic regime. Then a fourth that failed in a bloodbath, but was a link in a chain of events that led to a mostly stable democracy.
At the beginning of the revolution, a lot of people wanted a British-style regime, with the bourgeoisie getting political power that was commensurate with their economic power, in the form of a constitutional monarchy.
one main opponent was the king, who really didn't want to give up absolute power.
@FaheemMitha you can pick up Revolutions Podcast which did quite a few episodes on the first French revolution (and is now doing ones on the 1848 one, and all the other revolution in 1848). Same guy also did a podcast on the history of Rome, also interesting.
That's separate from dependency relationships, isn't it?
As I understand it, in both Debian and Ubuntu, each package is classified by "Priority" as you say, and this can be viewed by running dpkg --status packagename. When I run dpkg --status ufw, it does shot it as having "optional" priority, as in Debian. However, I don't think the Priority field in a package has the same relationship to Ubuntu overall as it does to Debian overall.
Numerous "optional" packages are present on nearly all Ubuntu systems because they are included in several important tasks, and also specified as dependencies of the corresponding metapackages. If Ubuntu is installed from the server or minimal ISOs or the old alternate ISO, then debian-installer runs and tasks are installed through tasksel. If the graphical installer Ubiquity is used, the situation is more complicated (from a Debian perspective anyway).
However, conceptually speaking, we Ubuntu users often talk about various ubuntu- metapackages as defining what goes into each "flavor" of Ubuntu.
So, aside from the even more minimalistic Ubuntu Core, I believe it is accurate to say that Ubuntu systems should always have at least the packages that depend on ubuntu-minimal with a "depends" relationship. Not all Ubuntu systems have that task or metapackage installed, but if not they usually have another one that covers what it provides and more.
I guess this is not really a difference, except that in Ubuntu a number of additional tasks and metapackages have been defined. For example, Ubuntu has the lxde metapackage from Debian but also a lubuntu-desktop metapackage, which is the generally recommended way to install LXDE on an Ubuntu system that doesn't have it.
And Debian has metapackages too. Although I don't use them much.
Mostly because they just install too much stuff.
I suppose hard drive space (even SSDs) are so large it doesn't matter that much, but, for one thing, the more packages you have installed, the less idea you have of what your system is doing, and the more the possibilities of bad interactions.
I have in mind, for example, that wacky KDE database search thing, nepomux or something. It's constant hard drive searches would really mess up I/O.
Something called "semantic search".
Maybe ask people first whether they want their hard drive constantly hammered for no particular reason.
I'm not sure if using packages like kubuntu-desktop and lubuntu-desktop makes that worse or better. Having things configured so they work is better than not having them configured so they work, at least in case where there is no performance penalty; a few years ago I installed LXDE on Debian and couldn't shut down from the desktop, even though I could on other DEs on that same system without having to configure anything. This is a problem I've never had with lubuntu-desktop on Ubuntu.
On the other hand, I definitely have encountered situations where it seems like the default choices are unreasonable. I had a USB flash drive with a huge file on it, and every time I plugged it in, an attempt was made to read the file in its entirety to produce a hash of it to be associated with a thumbnail for it. This was on Lubuntu 16.04 LTS, which is supposed to be lightweight... and other than that experience of mine, I did find it to be lightweight.