Nitrux Demands Public Apology From DistroWatch DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
jim
I have no way to bore into the basis for the Distrowatch people's basis for their claim, but have an observation based on your comments about using tools.
We had a system we built from scratch using a -store bought- tool similar to Gentoo (i think) approach sold by Montevista to build out our system. Very much the same as building a distro.
So that said, we used a took to automate our builds, Jenkins to run builds, and it would not only pull every package doing a full build but any tools required in doing the builds. I don't think we deviated from using Debian parts, and I doubt they pulled any ubuntu tools, but certainly the parts of the build process in some cases were built before the process began.
The build process tools when built would not contribute to the built product, but if one were not observant pull tools from other than Debian during building the product.
We built not only a completely scratch Linux, but also all the parts that was our deliverable, so we pulled from our own source control systems and built as well. Those build products did end up on the Linux box and of course was the point of the product.
reply
I have no way to bore into the basis for the Distrowatch people's basis for their claim, but have an observation based on your comments about using tools.
We had a system we built from scratch using a -store bought- tool similar to Gentoo (i think) approach sold by Montevista to build out our system. Very much the same as building a distro.
So that said, we used a took to automate our builds, Jenkins to run builds, and it would not only pull every package doing a full build but any tools required in doing the builds. I don't think we deviated from using Debian parts, and I doubt they pulled any ubuntu tools, but certainly the parts of the build process in some cases were built before the process began.
The build process tools when built would not contribute to the built product, but if one were not observant pull tools from other than Debian during building the product.
We built not only a completely scratch Linux, but also all the parts that was our deliverable, so we pulled from our own source control systems and built as well. Those build products did end up on the Linux box and of course was the point of the product.
reply
William
To say a distro is 'based on' another in my mind means it uses the packages compiled by that second distro, or recompiles sources released by the second distro.
I just booted the amd64 release currently listed on the nitrux website: 2021.05.28
In the /etc/apt/preferences file various libraries are pinned to ubuntu packages:
pulseaudio and its various packages are pinned to archive.ubuntu.org
libglu1-mesa is pinned to the ubuntu focal release-
Additionally in /etc/apt/sources.list.d the neon-user-repo.list file adds the ubuntu focal kde neon packages and the gpu-ppa-repo.list file adds the ubuntu focal proprietry gpu packages.
So Nitrux uses pulseaudio and proprietry graphics drivers provided by Canonical for ubuntu, and KDE packages compiled for ubuntu.
Why the hate for distrowatch? What they've put seems reasonable. If Nitrux cares so much about people saying they are based on Ubuntu (and I don't understand why they care) they should stop using Ubuntu repositories.
reply
To say a distro is 'based on' another in my mind means it uses the packages compiled by that second distro, or recompiles sources released by the second distro.
I just booted the amd64 release currently listed on the nitrux website: 2021.05.28
In the /etc/apt/preferences file various libraries are pinned to ubuntu packages:
pulseaudio and its various packages are pinned to archive.ubuntu.org
libglu1-mesa is pinned to the ubuntu focal release-
Additionally in /etc/apt/sources.list.d the neon-user-repo.list file adds the ubuntu focal kde neon packages and the gpu-ppa-repo.list file adds the ubuntu focal proprietry gpu packages.
So Nitrux uses pulseaudio and proprietry graphics drivers provided by Canonical for ubuntu, and KDE packages compiled for ubuntu.
Why the hate for distrowatch? What they've put seems reasonable. If Nitrux cares so much about people saying they are based on Ubuntu (and I don't understand why they care) they should stop using Ubuntu repositories.
reply
Teal
4:16 Why should you believe the Nitrux team over Distrowatch?? You say Nitrux has been around for while, well Distrowatch has been around longer.
Lets think about potential motives here;
Ubuntu is viewed negatively by many. So it seems to me, Nitrux might have some motivation to want NOT be associated with Ubuntu.
Conversely, Distrowatch -stands to gain nothing- by misinforming people about Nitrux, then doubling down on twitter about it.
Usually, the information on Distrowatch applies to a few different versions of a distribution not just the latest one. While I know nothing about the Ubuntu packages in question that DT says Nitrux uses, it may come down to a semantical difference of opinions as to what -based- means. If I were running Distrowatch I would probably just remove Nitrux from my website all together and avoid the whole mess.
reply
4:16 Why should you believe the Nitrux team over Distrowatch?? You say Nitrux has been around for while, well Distrowatch has been around longer.
Lets think about potential motives here;
Ubuntu is viewed negatively by many. So it seems to me, Nitrux might have some motivation to want NOT be associated with Ubuntu.
Conversely, Distrowatch -stands to gain nothing- by misinforming people about Nitrux, then doubling down on twitter about it.
Usually, the information on Distrowatch applies to a few different versions of a distribution not just the latest one. While I know nothing about the Ubuntu packages in question that DT says Nitrux uses, it may come down to a semantical difference of opinions as to what -based- means. If I were running Distrowatch I would probably just remove Nitrux from my website all together and avoid the whole mess.
reply
Kenny
It's strange for a website about open-source software (as in linux distro's) that keep their information so centralized ( meaning distrowatch).
( as in incorrect information on the description page of the distro, releases not up to date, etc...)
It would make a lot more sense to basically give the developers/maintainers of the distro access to update their own page's information. That would work perfectly fine ( you might just need some common sense rules and moderate it - it would be a lot less effort than maintaining it all yourself) .
reply
It's strange for a website about open-source software (as in linux distro's) that keep their information so centralized ( meaning distrowatch).
( as in incorrect information on the description page of the distro, releases not up to date, etc...)
It would make a lot more sense to basically give the developers/maintainers of the distro access to update their own page's information. That would work perfectly fine ( you might just need some common sense rules and moderate it - it would be a lot less effort than maintaining it all yourself) .
reply
RetroGamePlus
I actually looked a bit closer at this DT and I think Nitrux does actually use the Ubuntu repositories, just in a roundabout way. I downloaded the ISO and installed it and looked at -/etc/apt/sources.list.d/-.list- files. In there you'll find the KDE Neon repositories, which are built on top of Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. Why on earth they are mixing a Debian base with Neon repositories is another question, and probably a mistake, but all the KDE Neon stuff is build on top of Ubuntu repos.
reply
I actually looked a bit closer at this DT and I think Nitrux does actually use the Ubuntu repositories, just in a roundabout way. I downloaded the ISO and installed it and looked at -/etc/apt/sources.list.d/-.list- files. In there you'll find the KDE Neon repositories, which are built on top of Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. Why on earth they are mixing a Debian base with Neon repositories is another question, and probably a mistake, but all the KDE Neon stuff is build on top of Ubuntu repos.
reply
DevDungeon
Honestly, if Nitrux says they USED to pull from Ubuntu but don-t any more, then technically the distrowatch entry is right if you consider it applying to older versions too. If it used to be based on Fedora in old versions would it be factual to list Fedora as one of its base distros if it was only in the past? But what makes this case unclear is that it sounds like Nitrux is pulling Ubuntu packages and the creator is arguing whether that counts as -based on- or not.
reply
Honestly, if Nitrux says they USED to pull from Ubuntu but don-t any more, then technically the distrowatch entry is right if you consider it applying to older versions too. If it used to be based on Fedora in old versions would it be factual to list Fedora as one of its base distros if it was only in the past? But what makes this case unclear is that it sounds like Nitrux is pulling Ubuntu packages and the creator is arguing whether that counts as -based on- or not.
reply
Enderger
Looking at their GitHub page, there are indeed a few Ubuntu packages pulled in by their -add-pkgs- repo (a few Python packages, among others). However, there are also a few others in that script as well (a polkit package from Devuan, dosfstools from Debian upstream, and Pacstall directly from GitHub). That being said, the description does correctly state that it only pulls a few Ubuntu packages in.
reply
Looking at their GitHub page, there are indeed a few Ubuntu packages pulled in by their -add-pkgs- repo (a few Python packages, among others). However, there are also a few others in that script as well (a polkit package from Devuan, dosfstools from Debian upstream, and Pacstall directly from GitHub). That being said, the description does correctly state that it only pulls a few Ubuntu packages in.
reply
Braelin
What a ridiculous thing to argue over.
I mean really... how difficult would it
be to modify a text field on the website.
As I see no reason why the Nitrux team would
lie about their distro's sources... I must read this
as someone at DistroWatch having some beef with
the Nitrux project or a member of it.
reply
What a ridiculous thing to argue over.
I mean really... how difficult would it
be to modify a text field on the website.
As I see no reason why the Nitrux team would
lie about their distro's sources... I must read this
as someone at DistroWatch having some beef with
the Nitrux project or a member of it.
reply
dotslashluis
As I've seen in that thread, it seems that using multiple PPAs is enough to be classified as an Ubuntu derivative
Also, Ubuntu LTS is not based on Debian stable. They don't even stick to an LTS kernel, they just maintain latest kernel at the time until that LTS dies.
reply
As I've seen in that thread, it seems that using multiple PPAs is enough to be classified as an Ubuntu derivative
Also, Ubuntu LTS is not based on Debian stable. They don't even stick to an LTS kernel, they just maintain latest kernel at the time until that LTS dies.
reply
Gm
If you look there is a link to Nitrux's web page on distrowatch. What is the problem if one hole shows his exit-hole to another hole. If one distro is based on ubuntu or debian makes no difference. Nitrux is trying to join the ranks of the offended
reply
If you look there is a link to Nitrux's web page on distrowatch. What is the problem if one hole shows his exit-hole to another hole. If one distro is based on ubuntu or debian makes no difference. Nitrux is trying to join the ranks of the offended
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
