Why was debian chosen over ubuntu?

SvenH wrote:

Sure, the cnc part works well and I look forward to the first job where I'd actually use the new trajectory planner.

It was not necessary to change OS to update to the latest release of LinuxCNC, but that advice probably comes too late.

I would rather have ubuntu back so I do not have to do all the research again I did when getting used to ubuntu.

You can do that.
linuxcnc.org/docs/2.7/html/getting-start...ng_on_ubuntu_precise

You might prefer Lubuntu, it does not have the Unity interface. Unless you already know and like Unity. (I don't mind it)

I speak only for myself, but here are some reasons I would not spend my own time working on an Ubuntu-based installation image of LinuxCNC:

Ubuntu has a troubling relationship with Free Software ideals. Most recently, even after multi-month negotiations with the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Conservancy, their trademark policy has made it more difficult to create derivative products based on Ubuntu . Before that, Ubuntu's organizaing company Canonical created a policy that allows them to re-use contributions made to their so-called Free software projects under proprietary licenses , a policy they have never reversed as far as I know.

When it comes to protecting users' freedom and privacy, Ubuntu has made some bad decisions. One example, which they later reversed, involved modifying what was once a local application/document search so that it sent your search terms to Amazon and returned shopping results! For example, imagine that you search for "wifi" to get wifi settings, but instead are presented with prices for items from Amazon.

Ubuntu has long favored default desktop environments that required accelerated OpenGL. Back in the Ubuntu 8.04 and 10.04 days, these enhanced graphical options frequently brought with them a latency penalty. I think this may have improved in the intervening time, but it was also a big consideration for us when we had a choice between Debian 7.0 and Ubuntu 12.04 (which was the first version to default to Ubuntu's new "Unity" desktop).

You mention problems that have been fixed in Ubuntu but not Debian, possibly for years. As you know, Ubuntu is a Debian derivative, albeit one that is increasingly distant. Recently, we heard that a LinuxCNC user on Debian ran into a bug related to a USB device that was incorrectly claimed by brltty, "Access software for a blind person using a braille display", even though the device wasn't a braille display. It turns out that Ubuntu fixed this bug in 2011 but never communicated the fix upstream to Debian or to the brltty project. While I am sure that some bugfixes fail to make it from Ubuntu to Debian or the original software authors for other reasons, here is a specific case where Ubuntu failed to contribute a bug fix upstream. (that document linked from Ubuntu's development policy document )

(and as far as embarassingly bad user interaction bugs go, I had the opportunity to watch someone—not sure if it was seb_k or skunkworks—use LinuxCNC on one of the Unity-based Ubuntu releases. When starting AXIS, it consistently appeared behind all other windows and you had to alt-tab to it. As someone who has a bad habit of leaving literally 100+ terminal windows open all the time, the task of alt-tabbing to the 101st window every time I started LinuxCNC to test would drive me insane within an hour. All Desktop Environments have mind-bogglingly bad UI bloopers and it's just a question of which ones any individual just can't stop noticing; I've made my peace with Debian's XFCE some years ago)

I don't know the technical side of building customized Ubuntu-based iso live or install images, but if someone does volunteer time to do it the biggest practical headache is the above-mentioned trademark policy. Since it is "deliberately vague", it's hard to be confident that an image doesn't infringe it; the "must rebuild packages" party line means that to e.g., provide security updates in a timely fashion, linuxcnc.org would have to take on a much greater burden. I hope that anyone who wants to build an Ubuntu-based live or install image goes in with eyes open and also keeps a dialogue open with the people in charge of www.linuxcnc.org to make sure that an they feel comfortable taking on the potential liability in trademark law of putting an image on that website. (disclaimer: I'm one of those people)

SvenH wrote:

But why on earth use Debian?
It bugs the hell out of me in a way ubuntu never has.

You don't have to use Debian even though for a machine OpenBox works just fine for your desktop.

I use LinuxMint with the Mate desktop and everything is happy for me.

gnipsel.com/files/linuxmint/mint-emc.txt
get the scrip from gnipsel.com/files/linuxmint/

JT

Razor_keen wrote:

if there was an iso available to install a custom kernel and linuxcnc, im sure there is no copyright infringement, is there?

Here's what Ubuntu has to say about intellectual property:
www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/...tual-property-policy

Here is what I think is the important part of it for the purposes of your question:

Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).

You specifically asked about copyright; the above paragraph is not about copyright, but rather about trademark. Copyright, patent, and trademark can all be used as legal tools to make redistributing software illegal. It is Canonical/Ubuntu's claim that under trademark law you cannot redistribute a modified version Ubuntu unless you meet the requirements of that paragraph.

Since I don't expect we would "be approved, certified or provided by Canonical .. for which you may be required to pay", we would have to "remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries", a task that would involve going through the source code of each package in Ubuntu to find and remove any Ubuntu trademarks. Ubuntu/Canonical do not provide a list of such packages, let alone a list the trademarked files (e.g., artwork) inside those packages, this creates a lot of good old fashioned FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) when it comes to modifying and redistributing Ubuntu.

Right now we distribute essentially one modified Ubuntu package: the kernel itself, with realtime patches. Assuming for the moment that whoever did this did due diligence in checking that there were no Ubuntu trademarks in the kernel package, this meets their requirements as set out in the intellectual property document linked above.

But distributing a live or installable image (.iso) that includes a graphical desktop could involve thousands of packages (a server version of Ubuntu 14.04 that I could easily check had over 500 packages installed, and a linux mint install I had handy had over 2400). To play by Ubuntu/Canonical's rules, each one has to be reviewed for containing Ubuntu trademarks; and if they are in there the package has to be modified and rebuilt. You could lose a year of your life in that project, even if you can review and recompile six packages a day everyday.

(And this all leaves aside the question of patents; in the same document linked above, Ubuntu/Canonical say they have unspecified patents in unspecified packages that of course you may not use without their permission. The kernel package would in fact be a very likely place for patent-infringing code to be included. Ugh)

Ubuntu/Canonical have deliberately made it very hard to create distributions based on Ubuntu, and in my opinion it's evil, but it's a fact and I absolutely don't want to pick a fight with them over it.