Edit:

Actually I found out a similar question made by another user about the debian-ubuntu thing.

Sorry about that, I did miss it at first.


Because the past topic is 1 year old, I decided to make this new post on the matter.
If I'm wrong in doing this, please let me know and I will correct my behave thanks .


Going back to the matter quoting ostendali:

There is no big difference between Debian and Ubuntu the latter depends on previous one so it a matter of personal taste I have to say if you dont like ubuntu. Said that, Backbox is not Ubuntu, it is core been built on ubuntu simply because there is no need to reinvent the wheel as it is already there. Another reason is the repository system, ubuntu has better organized repository system where everyone can contribute to that. Since I am Debian fan really, I can't say the same about the Debian repo. So there are a number of reasons behind the choice of building BB on ubuntu core...

I have to disagree with that, if you are referring to the ppa system, you can use them as well in debian.

Speaking of its usability, ubuntu repos (not bbox) are a mess, I will make an example:


- Trying to search and install the virualbox-guest packeges, a user will get this from apt search result:

newbielink:https://pastebin.com/REPFAKU7 [nonactive]

really?! all the past LTS iteration are there?! how is that supposed to be user friendly and clear for a new comer? Why not list\have just the lts version ubuntu\bbox is based upon?!

- Without talking about making a customized backbox ISO, I did that and after a long headache, I just cope with the fact that ubuntu customization state is broke as f*ck, and the only way to make one usable customization iso is to hold some packages from the build and fix them later once installed in persistent mode or such.
This is a known ubuntu bug that goes back since freaking 14.04 version o.O was fixed for a version I believe, and then reappeared.
Probably for the same reason, you don't have a guide on the wiki on how to make a custom iso, to spare headache to the other users I guess am I wrong (or are other reason behind it)?
Again never happened with debian customization scripts.

- More important overall, let's talk about portability, with debian maintaining other platforms as arm and such, it could open huge opportunities for backbox in future development.
ubuntu portability is...none

- I think I made my point without going further with examples, or talking about poor ubuntu upgrade system that from time to time broke the system on dist-upgrades for newcomers (although that's probably more user's fault not paying attention to apt-get and knowing how to use it properly, but again never happened on debian even on sid).

- Also I'm interested in the future of this matter in the light of the ubuntu situation right now, as I stated in my previous post.

- Indeed I will take a look at ostendali's suggestion of use bbox packages on top of debian and see what happens.

That could be fun to play with, I thought was a bad idea to mix "backbox\ubuntu package" with debian itself, but if everything will go smoothly could be a great thing, use this awesome distro and tweaks, with a much better stable distro as debian. Any thoughts on why should it be a bad idea?

[ firing up virtualbox \o/ yeyyyyyyy ]

Indeed I would like to clarify that this post is not made to start a flamewar or creted to be disrespectful, as I said I love backbox and the whole community, I'm trying to support it in any way as much as I can, proof is I'm still using it since day 0 despite I'm not in love with the ubuntu ecosystem lately.

My only intent is to open an honest and interesting discussion about it, and maybe find a reason to change my point of view, I'm totally open minded so

P.s.

Sorry for this huge wall of words

Hey ostendali, thanks for the answer.

First and foremost, thanks for the pentesting with backbox publication, it was fun and useful to read also a great way to sustain the project.
Coming back in this field since a long time, it was a fun read to catch up on the matter, really appreciated that.

We have many other reasons why we don't move to Debian, compatibility, repository (bb is on launchpad), packaging system and most importantly is the lack of resources from core team side.

This make sense actually, I can understand why you went in that direction.

I am also aware of the contribution that ubuntu did to free software and it will be foolish to not recognize that.

Totally agree with you on that. I'm not one of the "death to ubuntu" club.  I respect them, and I like some of the stuff they brought, first and foremost make linux more mainstream, it just happen that I like debian better and see more potential in it, but it's just a matter of taste I guess.

You need to add additional and extras repos of ubuntu manualyl if you want to, that is why you couldn't get what you were searching I assume..

If you are referring to my issue with building up the custom iso..I was trying to include some packages that I needed with uck first and then manually from scratch without it (thought that was the culprit at first), both gave me the same error at the end of the iso build, a problem updating\breaking package of postgresql and another lib (I don't clearly remember which one now, it's been 3\4 months since I made it)

Looking through google back then, I found out was a known bug in ubuntu's build scripts, on 14.04 fixed for a release or two and come back from the dead in 16.04, it still happens if you try to custom build bbox 4.7, but no big deal I solved as I said before, and my persistent custom usb works wonder!

If you were referring to my pastebin instead, I didn't have a particular problem, I was using it as an example searching for virtualbox-guest packages it spit out all LTS virtualbox-guest packages instead just the one relevant to the xenial release that I suppose bbox 4.7 is based on (I guess), it was just an example to explain my point of view in "ubuntu be bloated for no reason and not so much user friendly in some department".

That could be just me being  more used to the simplicity of debian package nomenclature and the awareness of what I get from it.

Now let me ask you a question: how good you are in linux and packaging systems and would you be interested in participate actively/responsible if we happen to decide to do such step and how many other people would be interested in participating at the same level?

That sir, would be an honor for me, I'm thrilled by the idea.
About my skills, I have to advise though, I'm not professionally involved in security or programming fields nor system administration, so what I know is based just on my curiosity, In the specific I have some years of experience with debian systems, I love to thinkering with and break them :°D build package\backports from source the debian way and so on.

I've been exposed to debian and redhat on desktop side overall at work, so I feel pretty confident in a linux environment, especially when I want to throw it outside the window  , most important I'm used to the "google is your friend" rule.

I would be thrilled to get involved and learn new things!

Having said that, it all depends on what the real workload is to say "yes I can" or "no I shouldn't" but for the moment I can say I'm all in.

To put simply I like to be a paddawan, but I must advise that I like more the dark side than yoda, and that all the fuss about "one shot laser destroy the dark star and sh*t" is freaking bulls*it they deserved to rule the empire  

I am glad you liked the book, it was written in a very fast pace without paying to much attention to particular details

I hope it was useful and good hint for every paddawan and I am glad you enjoyed

If you really are interested in helping core team for the development than I welcome you, likewise by everyone in this community. We have a community group on telegram, if you'd like to join pls supply your telegram user so we can invite you. From there we will take it forward and discuss all your ideas and proposals.

How is that sounds to you?