“With Etch you get the best package manager around in APT, a rock solid stable system, and the ability to tinker with the desktop all that you want – without having the procedure become too arcane. If you are familiar with Linux then I would strongly recommend you try out Debian Etch – just an awesome release by the Debian group.”
I have just installed it in VMware (but later I am installing it for real)
I used the “expertgui” option and I was very pleasantly surprised by everything, among others by the possibility to choose widescreen monitors resolutions.
Why does anyone need a live cd, and set up a chroot to mingle with xorg.conf? Isn’t it possible to just load console, or boot straight into a non graphical environment and go on from there, it’s how I solved my early nvidia problems, less fuss.
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.
I have used Debian on and off since potato, and for me, this is easily the best Debian release since that time. It looks good, installs perfectly on various boxes and laptops I have, and seems stable and fast. From my perspective, the Debian devs worked very, very hard on this release and it shows. Great job. It’s going to be my new general desktop OS.
I went to the mirrors and most of them have 4.0 r0 listed. Is that the final or a release candidate? The current directories are all empty.
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.
Let me tell you about MY experience with Etch. I have sarge installed on a dedicated server at a data center. Last night we are doing the usual apt-get to download security updates for sarge, when, to our dismay sarge starts automatically updating to Etch! Now we haven’t tested Etch at all, so rolling out these changes on a production system is UNACCEPTABLE. So we try to cancel the changes before things go straight to hell, which leaves the dedicated server in a foobar state. After looking around at what went wrong we discovered the default in sources.list was ‘stable’ and not ‘sarge’. Pretty lame if you ask me. When they changed ‘stable’ from ‘sarge’ to ‘etch’ it tried to auto upgrade the distro. Our debian system was up 500+ days prior to this incident.
I’m not impressed, not at all.
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.
I have been using it for a while on various test images and it is rapidly becoming my distro of choice for VMWare images. With XFCE4 everything is clean, simple, and easy to maintain. If it were not for the fact that I do not feel like futzing with a working install I would consider wiping my (Ubuntu) laptops and installing Etch.
OTOH I have had better luck with Ubuntu on recent hardware… ah well. I have gotten past the stage where reinstalling my OS is a hobby, I just want a computer that works.
>There are more friendly distro’s for the first time Linux user.
It’s KISS, it’s UNIX-like – why is the fact of being basic but powerful according to the user choice a con? I don’t get it.
>Renaming Firefox as “Iceweasel” was just lame.
“Selling” Firefox as opensource and doing mumbo jumbo with naming schemes is lame in the first place.
>Gnome 2.14 comes installed by default – rather than Gnome 2.16
You have to be a die-hard Gnome fan to see a disadvantage in it.
@irbis
>I agree that using a geeky code like r0
That’s not geeky, that’s how developers count, always beginning with zero. It depends on the audience.
This Debian 4.0 is a real quality release, it took some time, but it’s like some good wine, you have to wait for it.
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.
you wrote:
Yet most of the resulting replies are worse, and a good indication of why Debian is losing favor.
I’m not sure that is fair conclusion.
The OP is in hot water over a misconfiguration (which he or his fellow staff caused, not the Debian project). I agree that responders needn’t be rude about correcting him, but it looks to me like both the tone and content of his rant invited it.