OSNews

agreed.

sudo vim /etc/X11/xorg.conf


man <videodriver> set the settings, remember your Xfree86 background and test away:

:wq!

%startx

If it fails, check /var/log/Xorg.log

Find the EE/WW; repeat and rinse.

4.0 r0

That should be the one.
r refers to update numbers (so r0 is the first release not yet an update). For example, the first update to Debian sarge (3.1) was 3.1 r1.

I agree that using a geeky code like r0 can be a bit confusing, and there might be clearer ways to say things...

Edited 2007-04-10 21:13

Thanks

For those that didn't quite state why it's called 4.0 r0 it's because the rX stands for revision number.

It's kind of like service packs for Windows. So for example, Sarge was up to 3.1r4 (or something like that) which stood for 3.1 revision 4. Since there haven't been any revisions for Etch yet, it's at r0.

The revisions are mostly just security updates and patches that are re-rolled into the ISO images.

Debian always changes the new releases to "stable" and the old stable release becomes "oldstable." They've been doing it that way for 10 years or more. If your apt sources said "stable" then yes, when Etch was released and you do an apt-get whatever, that meant Etch. If your apt sources had said sarge instead, then it wouldn't have happened.

The issue here is that a default debian sarge install should have said 'sarge' and not 'stable'. Because it said 'stable' things got messed up. Pretty poor on debian's part if you ask me.

No offense, but it seems the issue here is that you did not take the time to understand the Debian apt system and naming conventions, and how they relate to the release of a new stable version. Etch has been in development a long time and if you are going to administer a Debian box, perhaps you should have taken the time to determine what the new stable release would mean to your systems. I can understand your frustration, but seriously, Debian has done it this way for a long, long time and anyone who administers Debian systems knows how it works. PEBKAC.

Edited 2007-04-10 20:43

If you install Etch you get your sources to etch and not stable. Was this not the case in Sarge? How about before that?

Well, it has to be one way or the other. The default behaviour is that "stable" gets upgraded when a new stable release is out - because many people (most users and developers?) want it that way. And it is also clearly documented in all the Debian docs.

Edited 2007-04-10 20:45

Yep, that problem would be more related to poor or confusing Debian documentation(?), or more likely (sorry to say this) poor understanding and system administration.

It is clearly stated in all Debian documentiation what it means to have either the release code name (like sarge or etch) in the sources.list file or just "stable". Stable is the same as sarge only as long as stable is sarge, when stable changes to etch everything is going to get updated. Many want it just that way. But it is easy to avoid if one wants to stay in the old stable.

Your situation sucks and all, but you're blaming debian for your mistake.

Sorry, but didn't you notice that the download was *huge* and it must have taken a long time to complete? If you stopped the download before the upgrade began, nothing could go wrong.
Now what you could try is:
# dpkg --configure -a

You should have run apt with the -s switch to simulate the install first on a production machine. Sorry to be mean but you should also of had a backup for a critical sever.You would have lost the uptime but a restore would have been reasonably quick.

Now that your system is in a "foobar" state, might as well go ahead and upgrade :-)

oh and make sure to replace "stable" with "etch" to avoid a similar surprise in a couple of years :-)

Your ignorance regarding Debian's naming conventions and update methodology doesn't give you the right to shout that. If you take your sources from "stable" and don't care about anything else, than you can't be surprised when such things happen, unless you havbe absolutely no clue.



You say that's a production server. Who is in charge of it ? If (s)he hasn't so much clue about Debian to check what's in the sources.list, what else can one expect ? Geez.

All these things are out there in the open, not secrets by any means, documented and known by everyone who knows Debian only a slight better than a potato farmer knows the Soyuz's engine.

Other than that, Debian stable distribution upgrades are not that frequent that you couldn't know about it well ahead

Granted, the original poster's comments were quite standoffish. Yet most of the resulting replies are worse, and a good indication of why Debian is losing favor.

Try to resolve people's issues, and avoid blaming them.

It's only good PR.

He (or she?) is probably referring to stuff like YaST (or YAsT? ah, whatever). I don't see the problem tho, since Gnome and KDE have both useable configuration tools.

But isn't this quite normal these days?
User-friendly == you don't see what happens in the background, it's freaking MAGIC!
not user friendly == anthing that involves a terminal.



Well, I *can* understand the Mozilla-people. They just don't want to hear the whining about problems which they didn't make. Renaming it was the only logical thing to do if the Debian-team wanted to backport security-fixes.
But calling the Debian-people "immature" without knowing *why* it was renamed is plain retarded (yes luna6, that right).

Edited 2007-04-11 00:30

Hehh, for some reason it's the other way around for me )) Hiding useful ifnormation is not friendly for me If I want magic, I watch a Copperfield video )

Well, when my sister (just a plain windows user, but not really scared of my kde) saw the Iceweasel namechange and the logo on one of my debian laptops just cried out "cool" and wend along using it noticing by herself that it was still the same old Firefox on the inside. I think I can't sum up better how low significance of this namechange I have (or haven't) noticed.