OSNews

Has Debian ever NOT been outdated at the time of its release?

Has Debian ever NOT been outdated at the time of its release?
Yes.. Obviously, you have not been around long enough to know that.

"""
//Has Debian ever NOT been outdated at the time of its release?

Yes.. Obviously, you have not been around long enough to know that.
"""

I've been in the Linux scene since 1996 and Debian has been behind the times pretty much the *whole* time.

This was going to be *the* time that they were current.

Predictably, some moral issues (which only Debian devs could possibly understand) have closed in to restore what I consider to be "normality".

I use CentOS and Fedora. ;-)

Edited 2006-12-19 03:11

While i have been using Debian off and on since about 1997, I will say that generally Debian stable is usually a few months out of date upon release, but this is only because they usually go into freeze for several months to make sure that everything works as it should.

You really honestly can't compare Debian and Fedora Core or CentOS. The reason for this is the sheer number of packages that Debian uses.

The ONLY reason that Ubuntu can manage it's release schedule and Debian cannot is because Ubuntu has a small (relatively) amount of packages that are in it's main (read supported) repository. All others are in Universe or Multiverse, which is not supported, and in general break a lot of times, sometimes with no fixes in sight. A good example of this is the gnome-sword package. The version in Edgy Eft depends upon libgnomesword5, but only libgnomesword6 is in the repositories. No one has bothered to fix this, even though there is the "Christian Edition" of Ubuntu, but I believe it's based on the Dapper Drake release.

The thing about Debian Stable is that it IS stable. I would compare Debian Stable to Red Hat, NOT Fedora Core. Fedora, every time I have used it, has not been the most stable of operating systems. It's probably on the scale of a little less stable than Debian Unstable without experimental packages.

I have been running Etch for some time, and it is actually quite up to date. Granted it'll slide back a little bit due to it now being in Feature Freeze, until they can squash the last few release critical bugs. It is also out of date with Gnome 2.14, but that is due to a bug within GTK 2.10. I wouldn't honestly mind if they delayed Etch long enough to fit in Gnome 2.18.

Currently I run Ubuntu on my Desktop and Laptop, but I run Debian on my Server and on my HTPC. Debian is perfect for the latter two, simply because you can completely customize everything from a very minimalistic start. Ubuntu isn't really good for that, even the 'server' install puts too much on for those who like to keep it lean.

Also there are quite a few underlying packages that are generally still newer under Debian than there is in Ubuntu.

I suppose this means that Debian will continue its long-tradition of outstanding cross-platform support and quality releases that deliver unmatched stability, not just the latest version number of an untested piece of software.

Debian has, in my opinion, the strongest quality assurance of any distribution, but hey it may not have the absolute latest package. So what?

Absolutely. Debian is rock solid. Most people simply do not need the latest and greatest, sadly, society has taught us from a very young age that we must have the latest and greatest.

For those that don't like Debian's ideals, or the fact that it's not supreme cutting edge, go use Ubuntu or Mepis and stop bitching. No one's making you use Debian.

Just remember, it if wasn't for Debian, Ubuntu and many others would cease to exist.

Dave

I suppose this means that Debian will continue its long-tradition of outstanding cross-platform support and quality releases that deliver unmatched stability, not just the latest version number of an untested piece of software.

Debian has, in my opinion, the strongest quality assurance of any distribution, but hey it may not have the absolute latest package. So what?

Not only that but for those that want the latest and greatest of everything can always use a healthy mix of Etch and Sid which is no more unstable than most "stable" releases of others distros.

To me this seems to be kind of one of those "No shit" moments. If you single out a small group of developers among the group and basically send a message saying their time is more important than anyone else's, therefore they should get paid; this tends to piss off the rest of the group who are being told their time and effort is second class.

The Debian folks were very careful not to send this message. Getting a new Debian Stable out the door involves a great deal more than simply squashing bugs in packages A, B and X. It involves a great deal of organizational complexity, attention to detail and careful prioritizing. In a word, management. That, so far as I can see, is what the Dunc-Tank folks were/are being paid to help with.

If a few thoroughly immature, prima-donna devs wilfuly refuse to see this and genuinely think that squashing bugs in their pet packages is all there is to a new Debian Stable, then Debian is better off without them, imho. In the short term this might cause a delay but in the long-term it will improve the stock of talent at Debian generally. Self-indulgent stupidity with "to hell with our users" tacked on has been the bane of Debian for too long now.

If a few thoroughly immature, prima-donna devs wilfuly refuse to see this and genuinely think that squashing bugs in their pet packages is all there is to a new Debian Stable, then Debian is better off without them, imho.

It would seem not. Doesn't look like Etch is going much of anywhere without those "thoroughly immature, prima-donna devs."

This

That, however, did not turn out to be the end of the matter. Many developers, led by Joerg Jaspert, a well-known Debian maintainer and programmer, issued a position statement on October 26. In this statement, which was published on the Debian developers' announcement list, the developers spelled out why they objected to the Dunc-Tank initiative.

for some reason doesn't strike me as immature or any of the other ridiculous things you came up with (obviously without you having actually read the article).

Edited 2006-12-18 22:40

If a few thoroughly immature, prima-donna devs wilfuly refuse to see this and genuinely think that squashing bugs in their pet packages is all there is to a new Debian Stable, then Debian is better off without them, imho.
-----------------------------
It would seem not.

Perhaps, but only if you look at the short-term. In the long term, however, it's inarguably better to amputate a gangrenous limb, even if the amputation does cause short-term trauma.

Doesn't look like Etch is going much of anywhere without those "thoroughly immature, prima-donna devs."

No really, what *is* your opinion on the economics of Chinese tea retail?

Doesn't look like Etch is going much of anywhere without those "thoroughly immature, prima-donna devs."

Dunc-Tank was clearly voted on and clearly accepted by a majority of Debian voters who were and continue to be given the skinny on what Dunc-Tank is and what it's doing. An attemtpt to recall the Project Leader over the matter was decisively rejected.

In most sane, normally organized outfits that would be the end of the matter. I guess only in the strange world of Debian does it then have to be pointed out that damaging the project after it's been so clearly voted on is a bit reprehensible. If some devs feel that strongly against Dunc-Tank, the correct action in the circumstances is to resign.

What do I say all this? Because I like Debian very much and don't at all like the project's apparent propensity for self-destruction.

Edited 2006-12-18 23:19

What do I say all this? Because I like Debian very much and don't at all like the project's apparent propensity for self-destruction.

Absolutely agree. The majority voted in favour, the last thing Debian needs for its rather unpredictable release schedule is a few devs acting like petulant children.

A meritocratic payment pool with objective measurement is fine in theory.

In practice I guess people will start to behave differently in order to fudge the stats in their favour.

The whole thing is tricky and maybe some folk were reaching their moment to move on and this is the straw that breaks the limit.

I do not agree. Splitting resources up according to such an algorithm would probably delute them to such a degree that no one would really benefit much from it. The sum of $50+-X or so pay-checks per developer could probably be spent much more efficient by paying a few temporary (near) full-time salaries for a month or two to help release new stable versions, just as what is done now. The important thing is to have the *Debian community* elect or re-elect devs that would get this short-term financial backing, which I think creates an scholarship platform that in the long run would favour technical/leadership excellence and recognise and award people according to their degree of contribution. This is more in line with the "academic" and democratic spirit I think is part of the Debian project.

Linux doesn't have this problem because virtually all the developers are paid.

Here you go chappy:

http://www.google.com

They cater to everyone there!

Slackware is the only stable, time tested and fully supported alternative there is! :-)

No "Dunc Tank" debacle with Pat V. The Man has it all under control...

Thanks and happy holiday Patrick. Thanks for a great distribution!!

Not really. Slackware is ok tho I have a few objections that makes it impossible for me to use it:

- installation routine is very poor
- proper package management is misssing
- depends on _one_ person (single point of failure)
- no 64-Bit support
- no GNOME support
- partly as much outdated as Debian

And no, I don't want to have second or third hand support. I want it to be part of the system.

no 64-Bit support

http://www.slamd64.com/

no GNOME support

http://www.droplinegnome.net/
http://gsb.freerock.org/

partly as much outdated as Debian

Besides having a rather old-ish monolithic X.org (6.9) and having a 2.4.x option (2.6.17 if you rather use a 2.6 kernel), what else is "outdated"?

- Gilboa
FYI, I use Fedora for workstation, Debian for testing and Slackware for low-end/embedded machines.

/quote/
- installation routine is very poor
- proper package management is misssing
- depends on _one_ person (single point of failure)
- no 64-Bit support
- no GNOME support
- partly as much outdated as Debian/QUOTE/

I'll address these fallicies one at a time:

"- installation routine is very poor"

Says who? The install is ncurses based and is very easy and simple to use. By "poor" do you mean that it doesn't autodetect everything and set it up for you? Slackware gives you the power to configure your system your way without getting in the way.

"- proper package management is misssing"

You mean it doesn't resolve dependencies and hold your hand like Debian does? Slackware gives you the control without the bloat and hand holding. The package DB doesn't get corrupted like Debian's can and does.

"- depends on _one_ person (single point of failure)"

I'll take the streamlined development of Slackware over the politics and bickering that is prevelent in the Debian community. Slackware did not get the be the oldest distro in continual development by producing a sloppy distro. It is what it is and where it is due to the craftmanship that goes into it.

"- no 64-Bit support"

There are unofficial ports to x86-64 and when 64 bit reaches critical mass Slackware will be there...

"- no GNOME support"

As Pat V has stated in so many words: This is open source...you want Gnome? Build it yourself or get it from third party packagers--isn't hard to do at all...

"- partly as much outdated as Debian"

You're joking, right? Though Slackware uses sane defaults and tends to remain conservative it does include up to date packages. Plus, any competent Slackware user can easily compile their own updates and make their own packages for the system. After all, Slackware comes with the tools and libraries to do this. In Debian I guess you have to wait for the outdated package to be updated with a slightly less outdated package...or was that just a bug fix? (Those who live in glass houses...)

"...I don't want to have second or third hand support. I want it to be part of the system."

Security updates and bug fixes are routinely handled and supplied in a timely fashion. As for "official support" there is the support forums and email support. Debian is non-commercial so there isn't any "official support" for it. Besides, there is a great and robust community around Slackware. Lastly, as Pat V said in a recent 90-minute interview, Slackware users tend to be self-sufficient in the support department. So a 24/7 support is unecessary (but you get that in the forums and irc groups).

Slackware Rocks!

Edited 2006-12-19 19:46

THere is no such thing, and in this particular case, why is this biased?

ubuntu builds off debian's unstable branch. debian is hardly irrelevent

Please, let's not turn this into another Ubuntu vs. Debian thread. We've had plenty of these here at OSNews already during this year. These two projects are highly different with different goals, and the way they are intertwined grants recognition to both of them. If you can not see that you need to read up a lot on these projects, and perhaps most so on the history and accomplishments of Debian. The strictness of Debian has helped the FOSS community in many ways, for instance bringing about the Qt GPL licence if I am not mistaken.

It's a free and open source project, built on volunteer supplied labor. If some companies want to sponsor a group of developer's work, then let them, but that doesn't mean that every deserves to get paid. What that means is that a group of developers found someone to pay them for their work. Nothing is stopping the rest of the volunteer developer base of Debian from organizing and looking for funding.

If the moneys were coming from the Debian Project directly and going to pocket groups, then I could see a problem. If they were paying the release leader and other folks like that, then I don't see as big an issue. If every developer is on an even playing field with regards to the Debian Project itself, then there shouldn't be a big problem. The folks that are leads are either elected or appointed by elected officials, so in my mind, money exchanging hands from the project itself seems more fair.

When money is coming from the project to some developers and not others, then I think there is a problem. If the money is coming from third parties to certain developers, good on the certain developers for raising the cash.

I very much agree with you. And being able to make a living from helping a project like Debian and its user community for some time would be a fantastic experience. Remember that in the end, Debian is all about its users, which may or may not happen to be Debian developers as well.

A problem could potentially arise if there are unexpected conflicts in interests from the community compared to the sponsor though. It is important that priorities should always be set by and for the community.

keep going.

>> I am downloading Debian 3.1r4 (DVD's iso images)
>> now, should abandon that download and await Debian4
>> release or would it be wise for me to continue with
>> the download. I get around 256 kbps (~ 30 KB/s) at
>> home and it would take me easily more than 3 days to
>> download the iso images. Thanks.

My approach would be:

1) Download the CDROM image rather than the DVD image;
-- 95% of your needs will be met from the CDROM and
-- the package manager can easily pull the remainder.

2) Use BitTorrent to pull the iso. Get on with life
-- and the isos will appear.

3) Expect a large quantity of updates when you have
-- installed.

Bon Voyage.

If you want to use Debian at home, you don't want Debian stable. You don't want all the ISOs either.

Get the etch RC1 installer from here: http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/

Either the netinst CD (150MB, install the rest as you go) or the first 1 or 2 CDs from the full set. Upgrading to the next stable release should be smooth and automatic.

If you decide to follow the testing branch, expect frequent updates and an up to date computer for the rest of its lifetime.

If this sound a bit too much, don't get discouraged. Debian is fun! One of the best out there.

So if you were in a pool of volunteers and everyones work benefited everyone else and THAT was the payment, that suddenly a few of those volunteers setting something up to pay two of those *volunteers* $6000 each would not bother you in the slightest?

I would obviously be somewhat envious, who wouldn't? But personally people can donate to whomever they want, as long as the receivers of the donation aren't granted more rights than anybody else.

The latter would piss me off.

Exactly! And a volunteer can put in less effort if they feel they aren't appreciated. Certainly a volunteer is not expected to perform a certain amount of work, especially the same commitment that a *volunteer* who has $6000 in his pocket puts in.

So if some of those volunteers are a bit put-off and have slowed down some then I understand it. People put in time and effort into something they enjoy. If something has happened to make that person enjoy it less and they put in less time and effort then I don't think anyone could hold that against them. At least I don't...

Nooo no. You can't twist my words that way

I still think they are childish, since the devs who receives money aren't granted more rights than anybody else.

Being envious doesn't make it okay to act this way.

All that "feeling" stuff is hilarious. There is no reason for them to feel less appreciated. Not getting the money isn't a reason, unless it is specifically said that those who got the money did so because they were much better.

Nobody has come with such a statement, therefore there is no basis for "feeling" less appreciated. It's childish, and as grown-ups they should know better.

Now, if the paid developers had more rights that would be a major problem. Right now we just have a bunch of laze whining childish developers, who cannot accept a decision made by a majority. Booo-hooo.

Money doesn't divide people - rights divide people.

The original scheme was, I think, that there are two distributions inside Debian: the released distribution and the development distribution.

Packages in the former distribution are never upgraded to newer versions, only security fixes are added or backported from the development distribution. It is called the "stable" distribution precisely because packages are never upgraded.

But packages in the development distribution are upgraded all the time, as new versions become available. Because the package versions change, it's called "unstable." Of course, upgrading software to newer versions always introduces potential dependency breakages, potential problems with packaging, and also potential new problems that are inherent in the packaged software itself. So this additional unstability adds a new meaning to "unstable" -- the constant upgrades can break your system.

The "testing" distribution was later added to Debian. I think that the idea behind "testing" was mainly to make it easier for Debian to prepare new stable releases, because the sheer size of Debian (many supported CPU architectures, lots of packages) made it an exceptionally difficult task to prepare new releases by unpaid volunteer developers who also have real life to live beside this GNU/Linux hobby.

After packages have been tested in "unstable" for about ten days, they are moved to "testing" if no big problems have been found in these new packages. When Debian prepares to make a new "stable" release, packages in "testing" are frozen and put under rigorous bug-squashing.

From the users' point of view, the "testing" distribution makes it somewhat easier to track a development distribution and to get newer versions of applications while avoiding some unstability of the "unstable" distribution. It's possible to pin "testing" as the default distribution to track (see "man apt_preferences") while also making the packages from "unstable" distribution available. This way you can track "testing" and tell APT to fetch any missing dependencies from "unstable," and you can also upgrade some select packages to newer "unstable" versions while keeping most of your system safely in "testing."

Another option would be to run a "stable" system and to enable upgrades from a special "backports" repository. This "backports" repository is not officially supported but it is still maintained by official Debian developers. Packages in the "backports" repository are taken from "testing" or "unstable" and then re-compiled against the current "stable" system but their possible security problems are not actively surveyed or fixed, like in "stable."
http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php

Then there's the "experimental" repository but that's not really a full distribution like "stable," "testing," and "unstable." "Experimental" is just a temporary storage place for some new packages that for some reason or another have not yet been considered suitable to be added to "unstable." There is usually a good reason why the packages in "experimental" have not yet been added to "unstable" -- some packages in "experimental" are known to break dependencies or they may contain some other known problems.

well you excellently explained why the naming scheme doesn't cut it.

"it's called stable because there are no upgraded packages".

people don't get such things. you know how the naming is made, I know, but my neighbor thinks "stable" is something that doesn't crash. ok, so he installs and finds all is old, very old, compared to other distributions that are stable too but containt current software.

now it's up to your imagination why the onther naming schemes don't fit too well either.

yo start with unstable. what's the first word youthink of ? "my computer is unstable" etc.

that's why i said that it should be rethinked and not given a name that doesn't tell what it exactly is.

stable is no more stable as RH or SLES, openSUSE etc. However the latter have packages .... you see?

Yes, it might make sense to rename "stable" as "server," "testing" as "desktop," and "unstable" as "development."

Debian could also prepare snapshots of "testing" say, once in every six months, and spend some time fixing any broken dependencies in those snapshots, and then release them under the name "Debian desktop release" or something like that. They could be a bit more lax with the bug-fixing of those "desktop releases," and they could still concentrate their main efforts in preparing the less frequent and higher quality "server releases."

In fact, I've seen some Debian Developers suggesting special desktop-oriented Debian releases on the mailing lists. But such ideas take a lot of hard work before they can become reality, and I'm not sure if there exists enough interest among the DDs to push the idea forward. Things are already pretty good as they are in the Debian land and there's the old UNIX wisdom: "If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it."

They already do. It's called Ubuntu