“Eight years ago, as Purdue undergraduate Ian Murdock flipped through a Unix magazine, he came across an intriguing advertisement. It was for a Linux distribution that promised to let you run your Windows applications on the free operating system. Linux had sprung into existence a scant year before and now — according to the ad — it could support Windows applications. This seemed too good to be true. It was.” Old, but good read, to match the release of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0.
The Importance of Being Debian
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
i know this was dicussed in the last debain thread, but why are they putting out a distro with software that is for all intents and purposes, nearly obsolete?
does anyone know if this is a more stable distro than say mandrake or gentoo with the same apps installed?
this was already discussed in the last debian thread.
well except BSD (that is realy slow) but Debian is the most stabe and most administrator friendly system available.
I realy like Debian, and if you go and put the testing servers in your APT source list, you get updated stuff (it is like running RH or mandrake) you can also include Xandros sources and other non-debian sources for more up to date software…most software projects offer a debian apt server.
I would hardly call the software in Debian 3.0 to be obsolete. Since when is Mozilla 1.0, XFree86 4.1, and MANY MANY more recent packages obsolete?
The Debian team does not consider XF4.2, GNOME2 and KDE3 to be stable enough for Debian Stable. What Debian Stable gives you is rock solid applications, and a lot of them. If you want to run the latest and greatest, you dont need to take another distro, just “upgrade” to Debian Testing. Running Debian doesnt mean running old software, and thats something people have to realize.
Yes.. Distributions like Gentoo or Debian could probably be better called Meta Distributions. It doesn’t matter which software is available in a current release (Debian people usually don’t reinstall a system for a new release anyway), ist just matters which packages are available. And those few thousand Debian maintainers really do a great job in packaging up to date software. It just needs a good internet connection.
“The Debian team does not consider XF4.2, GNOME2 and KDE3 to be stable enough for Debian Stable. What Debian Stable gives you is rock solid applications, and a lot of them.”
Well, I know it isn’t an application, but I wouldn’t call Gnome 1.4x ‘rock solid’ by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I’d go on record to say that Gnome 1.4, when ran with Nautilus, crashed more often than WinME did
And besides, how many power users would really want to use KDE2 over KDE3 anyway? Is KDE3 really that much more unstable than 2.x?
Yeah, I can see something like waiting for include Apache 2 until more modules are ported, but IMHO, Debian takes it a little too far. I mean, you know you’re in trouble when your distro becomes more outdated than Slackware
People want their cake and be able to eat it too. I personally havent used Gnome since well…its earlier days, so i cant talk about it’s stability, same for KDE (i hate desktops). I dont see where there is a problem with Debian “taking it far” for stable packages.
No “modern” distro is outdated. What i mean by that, is that even if you take something “old” like RedHat 6.0, you could transform it into using new software anyways. The apps that come with the distro shouldnt really matter that much. Its what you get afterwards that matters.
Like i said, if you want the newest and greatest, Debian can STILL have it (check http://ftp.us.debian.org, you’ll see higher version numbers on those packages than most other distros i’ll bet).
When you download debian, you get tested, rock solid apps. Debian is on conservative end of things when it comes to software but that’s the trade off you get. Debian is non commercial so it can take it’s time.
The wonder of Debian is you can apt-get anything. Want gnome 1.4? edit your apt sources to add unstable and you can get apt-get it. Want xfree86 4.2? ditto.
I just switched to Debian after years of using Red Hat (since 5.2) and I am very happy. Everything is solid and just works. Apt-get rocks! Go Debian!
Yes that quote sums this distro up perfectly. Don’t like the older software? Use Gentoo 😀
If it doesn’t really matter what software comes with the OS and apt-get really is God’s gift to package managers, and if you’re just going to update the apps once you install the OS anyway, then what’s the point in including outdated apps (or *any* apps at all for that matter)? Why not just put the kernel with apt-get on a CD, install that, and apt-get everything else?
Don’t take this the wrong way – I’m not bitching here (I don’t even use Debian), but I’m just wondering what’s the point of having rock solid versions of outdated apps, unless the newer apps are simply VERY buggy? And if that’s the case, how’s that any different than the ‘buggy’ software that’s out for Windows? If it’s a ‘final’ release, then it ought to be final, yes? Otherwise, ABMers bitching that MS can never get it right the first time have no reason to whine.
for the Net installer, that is what they do. you get a base system that runs apt-get and it installs through Apt-get.
for folks that do not have a lot of bandwidth, they offer a huge disk set with all the progams.
By the end of this i hope you want to convert to debian… eheh. The situation you described isnt only possible, its what i did. I used a few (6 if i remember correctly) disks, which gave me the linux kernel, modules for alot of harddware (as much as 2.2 has), a small primitive shell, a few tools to get stuff going (cat comes in handy) and the installer program. The installer went out, and got a base debian installation for me, the most basic stuff, and then from there it was all done with apt.
I use Debian Woody, and i’d ask that you PLEASE stop calling the apps outdated. Yes, potato was outdated, but Woody, non. Like i said, i probably use newer versions than most people do, and once i convert to Sarge (which doesnt require waiting till its officially released), i will have even newer versions once the software comes out.
Its not necessarily that newer software is VERY buggy, but until the Debian team has a chance to make sure that it isnt buggy, it stays in either unstable or testing. Once its deamed good enough, it’ll get into stable. What doyou mean “buggy” software thats out for windows? Do you mean those 3rd Party apps? You install them at your own risk right? Same thing with debian, i can run any software that the redhat guys do, if i want (by either running testing or unstable, or by manually downloading apps), or i can let apt manage what i get for me.
You can mix and match too. I can go and get a package that is meant for testing and install it on stable, it’ll work fine, but i have to keep in mind that it hasnt gotten the big Debian Stamp of Approval. I like the fact that they monitor the software so closely.
Feel free to ask more questions, as long as they are tasteful i dont mind answering them.
…the downloader program used to get your debian iso(s). *Very* nice.
Debian GNU/Linux includes two ripoffs of the Windows GUI, one ripoff of the low-level UNIX graphics engine, two different versions of a ripoff of the UNIX kernel, an “extension” of the Netscape browser (itself a ripoff of Mosaic), a ripoff of that “extension”, an installer that’s less advanced than the one for NT 3.1, a very nice program installer
, and various other small utilities that are ripoffs of something or other.
If Debian’s innovated at all, it’s apt-get. That means that, if Windows had apt-get (and it could easily be ported, with or without Cygwin), there’s nothing Debian can do that someone else, like Apple, AT&T, or Microsoft, didn’t think of first.
I thought open source was supposed to be better, because the programmers weren’t being paid; they were just doing it for the love of the code. Well, there’s a problem; if the programmers are doing their day job, they’ll barely have enough time at night to code their pet project. They won’t have any time at all to think up any new ideas. The only people who can do that are the people who are paid to do it, by AT&T Research, or Microsoft Research, or IBM Research, or Apple Research, or… the list goes on.
Why isn’t there a Debian Research, where people are paid good wages to play around with all sorts of technology and think of things we’re not doing that we should? Until that happens, open source will be resigned to copying things that companies thought of first. And I’m not sure it’ll ever change.
Subj!
Gee, aleksandr. Here I was, perfectly happy with my Linux system, but your compelling points have convinced me to go back to Windows 3.1.
your compelling points have convinced me to go back to Windows 3.1.
Hell, I’m either going to pull out my OS/2 2.11 diskettes or fold all of my 5 1/4″ (360KB) Dos 3 installation disks up to fit in these spang-dangled “compact floppy” drives.
Or maybe CPM…
Seriously, Debian rocks for a server install. It may be “old,” however I love uptime and proven stability – although since clients don’t call me with server failures, it sure doesn’t make me any money!
I just don’t get it sometimes. I have tried and used extensively ALL flavors of linux and just don’t see how so many get the attention of users and big corporate teams (ibm/hp,etc) while Slackware sits in its little corner with only its devoted userbase. No fluff, stable tested packages, and straightforward administration. Even package management is better => simpler and more stable than apt-get/rpm(yuk). “I” think.
But it seems that Mandrake, Redhat and debian get all the attention. And Slack is NO harder to use than any of them. Even it’s install is easy and no worse than many others.
Maybe what happens is what happened to me. After trying the others FIRST and liking Linux but feel it should be better, THEN you find Slackware. So now I am on the inside looking out wondering why everyone is standing in the cold. Saying, but no one hearing me, “The freaking door is over there!”..
But seriously, why do the Big names when they decide to get into *Linux* always seem to pick the most arcane distro? IBM with Suse/turbolinux. Is it because they are commercial and ripe for pickup? No – Debian isn’t. Maybe company know nothings try to make themselves look “hip” and “in” with the their newfound Linux project, they go after the large userbase or flavor of the moment. I dunno.
But the more I really do think about it, I actually like Slack just the way it is. It is run by a brilliant person who sticks to his philosophy and works his ass off to put out a Kick-Ass distro for anyone who has discovered it…
Scott
It is amazing how many times the same comments are replicated here over and over again. It seems that every time a Linux distribution is mentioned, everyone is all over the place praising the particular distribution they use.
I really think people should let other people use what they like the best and be happy. There is no real point in arguing whether Gentoo or Debian or Slackware is best.
However, it can be useful discuss what features differentiate between the distributions. And the usability of those features.
Each distribution seems to have something going for it:
Debian: Rumoured to be stable but outdated
Gentoo: Cool and fast.
Mandrake: very up to date
etc…
This of course means that different distributions appeal to different people. And no shameless plugging of your favouriet distribution is going to change that. Personally I use Debian because it suits my needs best. No “Gentoo is the best!” will change that.
Scott: What exactly about Slackware makes it so fantastic for you? I’ve never been able to figure out why people praise it.
And to those complaining about Debian being outdated: sure, Debian is outdated, that is the entire point of the distribution: get stable software, integrate it, test it, test it some more, give it a little more testing and then release it. This gives a stable system, but naturally also program versions which might be at least a major version behind (think KDE3). Like someone wrote above: it is a trade off, stability for outdatedness. Not all people need the latest minor (or even major) version of a program. The only thing that matters is that it works.
The fact that it is entirely possible to have a really up to date Debian system is a completely other matter, and not one of the major selling points. Being stable is what it is about.
Exactly what I think. The beauty of Linux is the ability for users to have this choice of what they want out of a system. If they want cutting edge stuff, then they can go and use Mandrake Cooker. A fast system? Gentoo compiled for their architecture. Something reliable in which all the applications have been used and debugged over a long period of time? Use Debian stable. A server with commercial support? RedHat. And so on.
I really do not understand why their is so much flak aimed at distros that don’t meet a persons requirements. If someone wants to run Gnome2 or KDE3, get the Mandrake 9.0 beta, don’t look at Debian. Nobody is restricted to just one distribution. You have the choice, and if none meets your exact needs, you can roll your own!
“If Debian’s innovated at all, it’s apt-get. That means that, if Windows had apt-get (and it could easily be ported, with or without Cygwin), there’s nothing Debian can do that someone else, like Apple, AT&T, or Microsoft, didn’t think of first.”
You understand the meaning of the word “distribution”? It means to “distribute” software packages, not to create software. That’s the reason why Debian (of course) only creates software that is related to software packaging and installing. Duh.
“I thought open source was supposed to be better, because the programmers weren’t being paid;”
That is the funniest reasoning I have ever heard. No, open source software isn’t good because programmers get no money for it. In fact many Free Software developers get paied for their work.
Yes I know it’s a troll, just had to set this straight. =)
I agree with you jbmadsen and after looking at my comment I wish I wouldn’t have wrote it the way I did. All it does is start a blind, distro flame war. I was just speaking from MY experience and what “I” have found to be the best distro. And that is from having extensive experience in so many not to mention high experience with Linux itself. So Slackware appeals to me for being me I suppose.
What I would have like to say is this: Try different types/distro’s. Even try BSD. Then settle on what you like the best and which one fits your ideal of what you are looking for.
I think Slackware is best because of its simple, no-nonsense philosophy, It’s outrageous stability, it’s bsd-style scripts, and it’s simple package format. But of course this is why “I” like it. But what appeals to me so much might be frowned upon by others. I am a Slacky and will continue to use Slackware for all my clients and future Linux needs. It fits my business and it is what I am comfortable using and recommending.
Hope I cleared that up a little. I did not mean to sound like a dumb distro whore…
Scott N
“Even package management is better => simpler and more stable than apt-get/rpm(yuk).”
Now, it’s been two or three years since I last used Slackware, so this may be wrong, but: the Slack package tools are in fact simpler, but therefore less powerful compared to Debian’s tools. Can you easily upgrade Slack to the next major release with a simple command like ‘apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade’, or do you have to resort to format/reinstall? That and the way ‘apt-get install PKGNAME’ discourages compiling from source are the real reasons i switched from Slackware.
That is the funniest reasoning I have ever heard. No, open source software isn’t good because programmers get no money for it. In fact many Free Software developers get paied for their work.
I *still* think that the strength of open source software is that programmers aren’t paid for it. The reason that the Linux kernel is better than the NT/2000 kernel is because the NT/2000 kernel team just wants to get paid and be done, whereas the Linux kernel team does it because they want to use a good kernel.
Gee, aleksandr. Here I was, perfectly happy with my Linux system, but your compelling points have convinced me to go back to Windows 3.1.
I don’t know about you, but I use Debian sid. And I plan to keep on using it, because Debian is much better executed than Windows. There’s some exceptions, especially concerning X, but as a whole, I’d rather be using Linux.
But I still think it’s a problem that Microsoft Research, and IBM Research, and all those teams manage to do such great innovation, and Linux is mainly making better copies.
It doesn’t have to be that way. It used to be that these research teams created software, and it was public domain. Most research was done at universities, and it was illegal to create private code with publicly-funded computers. So what happened? Why are so many more good ideas coming out of companies nowadays than universities? Why can’t OSS come out with some good ideas of their own, rather than simply copying everybody else? I’m still going to use Linux, but I wish that Linux could do something before MS for once.
I don’t think I need to summarize the amazing projects that are driven by open source (Apache would be a fine example) and the amount of innovation contained within.
If you’re talking about clicking on pretty widgets and playing games then, yes, linux will probably not satisfy you. Seriously, though, the more complaints that I see about Linux being derivative the more I find that those complaints are exclusively concerned with issues of look and feel. Journaling file systems, perl, zope, and many other innovations that other operating systems haven’t come close to catching up with are transparent to an end user. That is the way they should be. If you don’t like the desktop paradigm you can apt-get remove xfree86.
I don’t think any of you understand the kind of innovation I’m talking about. I’m not talking about widgets, or speed, or stability. I’m talking about complete, wholesale innovation. Stuff like the Internet. Now that was innovative. There’s speech recognition, there’s Bluetooth, there’s database filesystems that let the user start thinking in terms of projects or documents instead of “files”. There’s grid computing. There’s AI. The list goes on.
It used to be that this research did go on in universities, like with ARPANet and UNIX – together, arguably the two most influential technologies in computers today. In the 70s, all the technological innovation was coming out of universities and public labs. In the 80s it’s been less so, and I can’t think of a single publicly-funded major innovation involving computers in the last decade. Why is it that way?