Slashdot Mirror

Of course, this [1] tells me that it, in fact, *is* a i386 machine. So parent is *wrong*:

# Host name: gluck.debian.org
# Admin contact: debian-admin@lists.debian.org
# Architecture: i386
# Distribution: sarge Debian GNU/Linux
# Access: developer only
# Sponsor: Hewlett-Packard
# Sponsor admin:
# Processor: Dual Intel P4 2800

[1] http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=gluck

Debian has SELinux, it's just not enabled by default.

http://wiki.debian.org/SELinux

That's why, as a l337 hax0r, you can run a mixed system. Nobody stops you from installing unstable packages, right from apt, even! (Check out that -t flag!) Or even better, you can actually build your own source.

The argument for Gentoo that "I like the idea of building my own source" in the sense of "I like getting down and dirty into my system" is really kind of bull. I ran Gentoo for a while, and I thought they had done some amazing work. Portage/emerge is just amazingly well done, and it's nice to have code that's been optimized for my hardware requirements. It's not exactly scalable (maintaining a large set of diverse hardware is a lot harder), and it can lead to untenable situations and instability, but it's still damn cool. And you know what's really cool about it? It's the convenience of apt, for source packages! Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you are "building your own source" -- the Gentoo maintainers are very diligently, very cleverly packaging the source so that you can specify a set of system parameters and then let it build. If you really want to get nitty gritty, run Slackware (although, I guess they have package management now, too). Gentoo has lots of merits, but the truth is, most Gentoo users know no more or less about how things work than an average Liinux user.

For me, in the end, the speedup I was getting just wasn't making up for the hours it would take each time I ran a system-wide upgrade and the unexpected conflicts because the USE flags that made each package special for MY computer were screwing up MY computer something fierce.

It happened once in 2003, but I can't recall any other incidents. That time it was a previously unkown Linux kernel hole which was used to gain root along with a sniffed password.

This time it looks like another kernel hole - but we've not had public confirmation. Could have been been an exploit for CVE-2006-2451...

Security support for Debian 3.0 to be terminated. Coincidence? *duck*

Dear Hackers,

If you manage to hack into the main repository, please fix this bug. A well-tested patch has been available for almost 6 months, and it is even attached to the bug report. The bug has been fixed in Ubuntu, but Debian users are still waiting, more than a year after the bug was first filed.

If you hack, do it for the right reasons.

Does anyone know what in particular was exploited?

Not public information yet. If you're subscribed to debian-devel-announce, you'll be the first to know.

That's what you get for running UNSTABLE :)

Surely you jest.

Don't even get me started on games...

I would guess that if plotted where developers who have created open source software, enterprise or not, are located that you will find a *lot* more dots in Europe and a lot less in Silicon Valley.

Like this?

You know, to be fair, web/user/virtualmin are probably high quality products on their own. I don't know what it really boiled down to, but the debian packages that was part of the distribution ended up being buggy and unmaintained. Therefore the packages was removed from debian a while back.

Debian bug #343897

One annoyance I had personally was that it didn't use Debians way of dealing with apache virtual hosts, and the config file ended up being one big unreadable mess as a result.

One advice i would give is that as a Debian user, I expect most everything I install to come in nice little .deb packages. I think the effort could be better spend on making debian packages, compared to creating a custom installer.

Please switch, Steve Jobs needs another $850,000,000 contribution.

Alternatively, you can run secure, reliable GNU/Linux for free.

Let me throw some wood on.. :)

AlternC is thoroughly integrated with Debian. Which means it knows about how Debian does things and doesn't screw up your system, like virtualmin for instance.

I have used it on a couple of sites now, and I am pretty happy with it. The only inconvinience with it is that the lead developers are French, and the English translation isn't exactly perfect, but it is only a minor one.

I thought GNUCash had decent features, and happily used it for almost a year. Then an upgrade to either GNUCash or Mandrake (can't remember which now) caused it to crash every time I tried to print something. Having invoices to print monthly, this was a show-stopper, so I switched over to SQL-Ledger.

I wonder if this could be Debian bug #347390?

Daniel

Here's a better article on removing WGA. :)

(I actually prefer this article on removing WGA, or this one, but I freely admit that they're not for newbies.) ;)

Interestingly, Google's search toolbar will be available only when Shockwave is downloaded for use with Internet Explorer on Windows.

Debian's got several cross platform compilers (like the popular avr) available to install. And it's got plenty of other support tools for the rest of the env, and you'll still have the flexibility to install your own stuff cleanly.

But before you jump in, it helps to dig through the platforms you aim to use and see what their official toolchain does, and what exactly is available for linux. GCC is definately popular with cheap embedded processor people, since it means less work for them usually, but sometimes you wind up with closed source tools in a processor gcc doesn't support. In those cases, linux binaries are a luxury. Basically do your research. p.d.o should prove valuable here; I think gentoo has something similar, and Ubuntu I know runs a similar service.

Reminds me of the excitement surrounding a Debain release! Of course that was probably just cause they happened so damn often :-P

DRM can be open

Define "open". Given DRM that permits viewing but prohibits copying, it's impossible to implement such DRM in free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation or by the Debian project because an attacker can edit the source code to tee(1) the work to a file, build the program, run the program, and make an unencumbered copy.

Encrypting a message is DRM, SSL is DRM, anything that prevents others from seeing or doing what they want with some digital data is DRM.

Encrypting a message is privacy: only the holder of the intended recipient's private key can view or reproduce it. Encrypting the digest of a message is authentication: the message came from somebody with the sender's private key. SSL is privacy with a bit of authentication added to exchange keys past a man in the middle. The term "digital restrictions management", on the other hand, is most commonly understood to refer to technical measures that authorize the owner of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord[1] of a work to view but not reproduce or modify the work, even where the law otherwise permits such reproduction or modification (such as the copyright exemptions of 17 USC 107 through 122). What are the honorable uses of such DRM?

[1] US copyright law defines "phonorecord" as any physical medium in which a sound recording is fixed, and "copy" as any physical medium in which any other work is fixed.

For the record, as far as Argentina goes, there are more women Debian Developers then men:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2006/06/msg00 078.html

GNOME might want to look into what Debian is doing.

Have you ever read the Open-Source Definition ? This is basically a rebranding of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

This stupid Open-Source vs. Free Software rethoric get us nowhere. Please get over it already.

Well, that's a common myth which holds true for small to medium installations but kicks back horribly in larger setups (>20 machines). Rackspace and power are cheap but not free. Maintenance overhead is expensive.

Which is why Google use C++ for their performance intensive systems, but a very small percentage of software projects need that level of computational efficiency. Modern computers are fast. Even Ruby, which can be as much as 300 times slower than C++, can maintain a web application that gets several million hits per day with fairly modest hardware requirements.

Put it another way: how many systems will have their CPU requirements double every two years? Anything less than that rate of growth, and the pace of progress rapidly outstrips the resources necessary to use the system. The efficiency of C++ simply isn't required for the majority of server-side applications.

Besides, if efficiency is that important, why not use C or even write parts in assembly?. At some point, the benefits of programmer efficiency outweigh the benefits of CPU efficiency, and a higher level language becomes more advantageous than a lower level one.

Encouraging sloppy programming is the last thing you want to do because it leads not only to poor scalability but also to misguided design decisions that will quickly eat up and reverse your dream of "increased productivity".

I have worked with both dpkg and rpm, and there is no question: rpm is vastly superior to dpkg, when it comes to building packages, checking what package a file belongs to, or verifying the installed software (can't do it with dpkg).

• building packages Lets see, to build a package we just run apt-get build-dep foopkg; apt-get install build-essential fakeroot; apt-get source foopkg; cd foopkg-*; fakeroot debian/rules binary;. Hrm. That wasn't so hard...
• checking what package a file belongs to Is the package installed? Ok, dpkg -S foofile; Not installed? apt-get install apt-file; apt-file update; apt-file search foofile; Not running Debian? Visit packages.debian.org and search for a file.
• verifying installed software cd /; md5sum -c /var/lib/dpkg/foopkg.md5sums|grep -v OK. Too hard? Install debsums and use it intsead.

No offense, but if you are getting faster Java code than C/C++ code then you are a terrible C/C++ programmer. Java certainly has its strengths, but it can't compare to C/C++ performance-wise. Not when the code is written by an experienced programmer.

There's less difference than you might think. Take a look at this computer language shootout benchmark. The only significant bottleneck Java has is its startup time.

Typically, professional programmers have a limited time to develop software in, and languages that produce results faster leave room for implementing better algorithms, which can have a marked effect on the performance of a system. That said, there are limits; if you want cutting edge graphics, native code (at least for the engine itself) is pretty much a necessity. For most other systems, where performance is not the priority, native languages are less useful.

Perhaps I need to combine the first two sentences for you.

"popularity-contest" is a program that reports back the name of every package installed on your computer, plus how often and when the program was last used.

It's not a Windows program. It's a Linux program (originally just Debian) and is installed by default in Ubuntu.

Most of what you are saying seems to make good sence.

I just want to note that the scripts I am talking about are not from blackdown. They are included in the contrib archive, and allows you to convert a sun java package to a .deb, so you can easily install it with dpkg.

See - http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/java-pack age

The package does not contain java, so licensing is less of an issue, but it helps you install java on Debian more easily.

Great to see that the Debian developers start to break free from the strangulation of debian-legal and their overly religious OSS zealotry. It is usually debian-legal who pretends to act "in the name of the user" whereas the opposite is true and explains in large parts the success of Ubuntu.

The reason that Ubuntu has success on the desktop is that they're trying to be exactly what Debian is not - Debian on the desktop. Almost nothing about Debian is desktop-oriented... "unstable, testing, stable" "hmm, I want a stable desktop, what do I choose? stable?" "oh sorry that's old super-stable packages for 24/7 servers, use testing". The whole release cycle is based around a server OS, 18 months is too long for a desktop and there's no "point releases" matching a desktop. Being on testing is a rollercoaster with tons of changes right after a release, and glazier slow before a release.

Ubuntu is doing this perfectly correct for a desktop system - the releases match the Gnome releases, meaning every new version brings "the latest and greatest" and some new eyecandy. The last Debian stable doesn't even have a splash screen, as far as I can tell. You can't really claim it's a compatibility issue when it's set up to boot into X anyway. From what I've understood, the last Ubuntu as of breezy will also recognize my widescreen properly, something Debian does not (but I did it myself instead).

I mean, none of these are really big issues, but they've marketed themselves completely different. Plus a few cheap marketing stunts like changing from orange to brown default theme. Seriously, does it matter? It does get press, forum talk and of course a new round of screenshots though. I wonder what slashdot would say if the new "feature" of WMP11 was a new skin... Or something as trivial as comparing Debian's and Ubuntu's homepages, which looks most like a "for geeks" server OS with no pictures and a really square layout? (yes, this is a leading question)

Let me give you a typical language example:
Debian: "Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 15490 packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine."
Ubuntu: "Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, (...) Ubuntu includes more than 16,000 pieces of software,"

Most people wouldn't know what a "pure OS" is if you beat them with a stick, Ubuntu simply smooths over the details and says "whatever you understand by operating system, Ubuntu has it all". Debian spends a full sentence introducing the concept package, which it explains using words like "precompiled" where 99% of normal computer users who've never touched a compiler has fallen off already.

I could go on all day but there's no point. Ubuntu acts and communicates better in relation to desktop users than Debian does, and it's absolutely no surprise to me that Ubuntu is a success. Debian has this great potential but there nobody seems to be "trying", if you understand what I mean.

I am not a laywer, this is not legal commentary or advice or anything of the sort.

Exactly what is the relationship is a good question. Digging into it, it's a heck of a lot more than your normal laywer-client relationship. Read on..

"SPI projects shouldn't be taking advice from Sun's attorneys. We should be taking advice from SPI's attorneys" states the second of the linked articles.

Which does indeed suggest that, at least from a legal point of view, Debian is merely a project of SPI's. In fact, if you whois on debian.org, sure enough, SPI are the registrant.

In fact, in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/06/msg00 287.html, it seems that Debian doesn't even EXIST as a legal entity. Thus, who is taking the legal risk of Debian's actions should Sun decide to sue? (In other words, who would Sun sue?) http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/06/msg00 293.html explores that issue. It is either the ftp-master people themselves (the individuals!) or SPI, who (understandably) wish to limit their legal exposure.

Now, it could be argued that the people that made the ftp decision are legally responsible, not SPI. But SPI isn't sure that they could proove that in a court of law (honestly, it would be difficult to get a jury to follow.) And, anyway, if the ftp maintiners are legally responsible, don't you think somebody should tell them the risk that they are personally facing?

SPI figure they should have some say in decisions that could get them sued. Anothony reckons that SPI have nothing to fear and it's just SPI power grabbing for veto.

(Should SPI have such a power? Are they taking all the legal risk? If they are taking all the risk, should they have veto? Are Debian people acting as representatives of SPI? I leave that to you to decide.)

I am not a laywer, this is not legal commentary or advice or anything of the sort.

Exactly what is the relationship is a good question. Digging into it, it's a heck of a lot more than your normal laywer-client relationship. Read on..

"SPI projects shouldn't be taking advice from Sun's attorneys. We should be taking advice from SPI's attorneys" states the second of the linked articles.

Which does indeed suggest that, at least from a legal point of view, Debian is merely a project of SPI's. In fact, if you whois on debian.org, sure enough, SPI are the registrant.

In fact, in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/06/msg00 287.html, it seems that Debian doesn't even EXIST as a legal entity. Thus, who is taking the legal risk of Debian's actions should Sun decide to sue? (In other words, who would Sun sue?) http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/06/msg00 293.html explores that issue. It is either the ftp-master people themselves (the individuals!) or SPI, who (understandably) wish to limit their legal exposure.

Now, it could be argued that the people that made the ftp decision are legally responsible, not SPI. But SPI isn't sure that they could proove that in a court of law (honestly, it would be difficult to get a jury to follow.) And, anyway, if the ftp maintiners are legally responsible, don't you think somebody should tell them the risk that they are personally facing?

SPI figure they should have some say in decisions that could get them sued. Anothony reckons that SPI have nothing to fear and it's just SPI power grabbing for veto.

(Should SPI have such a power? Are they taking all the legal risk? If they are taking all the risk, should they have veto? Are Debian people acting as representatives of SPI? I leave that to you to decide.)

The current Java license is obviously unacceptable;

Is it? The main problem seems to be the indemnification clause. But Java is not the only package in the standard archive or in non-free that has such a clause. And it appears that nobody complained about these other packages.

Here is a quote from another message from the Anthony Towns (DPL) in that thread:

From the xorg-x11 copyright file:

] 11. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages arising,
] directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License.
] Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Silicon Graphics, Inc.
] from and against any loss, liability, damages, costs or expenses (including
] the payment of reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of Recipient's use,
] modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Software or out of
] any representation or warranty made by Recipient.

From the openoffice.org copyright file:

] Therefore, if
] a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering, such
] Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby agrees to defend and indemnify
] every other Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages
] and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal
] actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the
] extent caused by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Contributor in
] connection with its distribution of the Program in a commercial product
] offering.

I think you are wrong here. Could you provide a link to a message where anyone is discussiong moving java from non-free to free in debian? All discussion I read was about including java in non-free at all.

Erg, you're completely right - I thought it was - I don't use Java, so hadn't really noticed!

No, read the social contract:

Yeah, I know what the social contract says, but semantic games about "debian" vs "debian system" aside, I think if I can download a .deb package of software from a debian server then I was say its 'part of debian'.

Any mods reading this, feel free to bomb my (incorrect) GP statement into the ground!

Check out this post. If it doesn't deserve to be put in Wikipedia as an example in the "ad hominem" article, I don't know what does.

The whole flamewar is quite one-sided: there is only a few people who support Java in non-free, and the whole rest opposes them. Too bad, the proponents are the DPL and more than one FTPmaster.

The current Java license is obviously unacceptable; the FAQ is ok. Too bad, the FAQ explicitely says that it doesn't bear any legal relevance, and, even worse, the license explicitely says that it can't be overridden by things like that FAQ. Thus, I'm afraid that Anthony Towns' argument that says "the FAQ makes the license fine" doesn't stand.

Fortunately, it appears that, albeit slowly, Sun actually exhibits a sliver of good will. Let's hope they'll change the license soon.

Check out this post. If it doesn't deserve to be put in Wikipedia as an example in the "ad hominem" article, I don't know what does.

The whole flamewar is quite one-sided: there is only a few people who support Java in non-free, and the whole rest opposes them. Too bad, the proponents are the DPL and more than one FTPmaster.

The current Java license is obviously unacceptable; the FAQ is ok. Too bad, the FAQ explicitely says that it doesn't bear any legal relevance, and, even worse, the license explicitely says that it can't be overridden by things like that FAQ. Thus, I'm afraid that Anthony Towns' argument that says "the FAQ makes the license fine" doesn't stand.

Fortunately, it appears that, albeit slowly, Sun actually exhibits a sliver of good will. Let's hope they'll change the license soon.

Non-free is not supported by Debian, but it is distributed anyway.

The "fight" is about licensing issues caused by Debian distributing java, as
discussed in the thread, as a follow-up to the comment linked by Slashdot.

• the Linus type "have fun and cooperate" and
• the RMS type "OSS is religion"

> What sort of legal advice has Debian consulted that came to a > different opinion? There is a sizable pool of people that regularly examine licenses for Debian, looking for problems. Debian does not regularly consult practicing attorneys on these issues. debian-legal

One has to go through a notorious process to become a developer but it just needs an email client and a subscription to debian-legal in order to strangle 1500 developers. Time to change Debian back from a supermarket thing to one of the leaders of technology. Congrats Anthony!

1) The fight is caused by the potential movement of java from non-free to free.

2) Java was in debian - non-free is part of debian, just not supported or on the CDs :-)

We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.

These are the problems:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70245

The US places export restrictions on certain types of software (mostly encryption related stuff), which Sun has reflected in it's license. Since Debian can't/won't control which country has access to US-based mirrors then that means that they can't fuffill the obligation to screen out illegal downloads from certain countries and such. According to this license the work around Debian has used in the past is to have non-US for exported restricted software. Which is basicly you can only have the software on non-US based mirrors.

Debian has gotten rid of non-US for Sarge due to the relaxation of export controls by the U.S. government. But it would still violate Sun's licensing.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70295

This is Sun's obnoxiousness showing with this one:
""" (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to
        run in conjunction with any additional software that implements
        the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;"""

The bug author mentions the Java version of Python, but basicly it would make things like a distro shipping GCJ and Sun's java would be a licensing violation.

Obviously (in My eyes) Sun chooses this for two reasons:
A. To keep it's java runtime pure and functional. Avoids bug-inducing conflicts.
B. Help kill off Free software java implimentation.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70296

In Sun's License states that you can't modify any sort of copyright notices and whatnot. But by splitting the package up like Debian does they can't avoid modifying this stuff. Thusly Debian is violating Sun's distribution license.

Debian can ship non-free stuff in non-free obviously according to their bylaws.. but Debian doesn't have the authority to break OTHER people's licenses.

Sun says that this is OK and it's legal mumbo jumbo they can ignore. Debian's lawyer are basicly saying we can't violate Sun's licenses... ESPECIALLY without a discussion and you should pull the package from non-free until Sun fixes it's licensing so that Debian can use it legally.

This has happenned before with other software. Sun's license is shit and should be avoided by any sort of sane Linux distribution.

These are the problems:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70245

The US places export restrictions on certain types of software (mostly encryption related stuff), which Sun has reflected in it's license. Since Debian can't/won't control which country has access to US-based mirrors then that means that they can't fuffill the obligation to screen out illegal downloads from certain countries and such. According to this license the work around Debian has used in the past is to have non-US for exported restricted software. Which is basicly you can only have the software on non-US based mirrors.

Debian has gotten rid of non-US for Sarge due to the relaxation of export controls by the U.S. government. But it would still violate Sun's licensing.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70295

This is Sun's obnoxiousness showing with this one:
""" (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to
        run in conjunction with any additional software that implements
        the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;"""

The bug author mentions the Java version of Python, but basicly it would make things like a distro shipping GCJ and Sun's java would be a licensing violation.

Obviously (in My eyes) Sun chooses this for two reasons:
A. To keep it's java runtime pure and functional. Avoids bug-inducing conflicts.
B. Help kill off Free software java implimentation.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70296

In Sun's License states that you can't modify any sort of copyright notices and whatnot. But by splitting the package up like Debian does they can't avoid modifying this stuff. Thusly Debian is violating Sun's distribution license.

Debian can ship non-free stuff in non-free obviously according to their bylaws.. but Debian doesn't have the authority to break OTHER people's licenses.

Sun says that this is OK and it's legal mumbo jumbo they can ignore. Debian's lawyer are basicly saying we can't violate Sun's licenses... ESPECIALLY without a discussion and you should pull the package from non-free until Sun fixes it's licensing so that Debian can use it legally.

This has happenned before with other software. Sun's license is shit and should be avoided by any sort of sane Linux distribution.

These are the problems:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70245

The US places export restrictions on certain types of software (mostly encryption related stuff), which Sun has reflected in it's license. Since Debian can't/won't control which country has access to US-based mirrors then that means that they can't fuffill the obligation to screen out illegal downloads from certain countries and such. According to this license the work around Debian has used in the past is to have non-US for exported restricted software. Which is basicly you can only have the software on non-US based mirrors.

Debian has gotten rid of non-US for Sarge due to the relaxation of export controls by the U.S. government. But it would still violate Sun's licensing.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70295

This is Sun's obnoxiousness showing with this one:
""" (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to
        run in conjunction with any additional software that implements
        the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;"""

The bug author mentions the Java version of Python, but basicly it would make things like a distro shipping GCJ and Sun's java would be a licensing violation.

Obviously (in My eyes) Sun chooses this for two reasons:
A. To keep it's java runtime pure and functional. Avoids bug-inducing conflicts.
B. Help kill off Free software java implimentation.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 70296

In Sun's License states that you can't modify any sort of copyright notices and whatnot. But by splitting the package up like Debian does they can't avoid modifying this stuff. Thusly Debian is violating Sun's distribution license.

Debian can ship non-free stuff in non-free obviously according to their bylaws.. but Debian doesn't have the authority to break OTHER people's licenses.

Sun says that this is OK and it's legal mumbo jumbo they can ignore. Debian's lawyer are basicly saying we can't violate Sun's licenses... ESPECIALLY without a discussion and you should pull the package from non-free until Sun fixes it's licensing so that Debian can use it legally.

This has happenned before with other software. Sun's license is shit and should be avoided by any sort of sane Linux distribution.

https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

http://www.apple.com/

http://www.debian.org/

http://www.openbsd.org/

in case I missed somebody :-) -> http://distrowatch.com/

( I could go on and on here, no offense to any I left out )

It will be integrated in the latest version of the Debian installer, IIRC, it will be in 'etch beta 3'. Which should be available soon (check out the PartmanCrypto stuff in the wiki and the Debian Installer pages). Since Ubuntu uses a derived version from the installer, they will presumely pick this up once it is finished.

It will be integrated in the latest version of the Debian installer, IIRC, it will be in 'etch beta 3'. Which should be available soon (check out the PartmanCrypto stuff in the wiki and the Debian Installer pages). Since Ubuntu uses a derived version from the installer, they will presumely pick this up once it is finished.

I've seen this before ... oh yes, the off button. It is very quiet and just what Vista needs to be save and secure.

Of course, you could just use an OS that requires neither "protection" nor subscription fees.

Here

Debian developers do this. It may not be a week at a time but several weekends a year and it eventually evens out.

http://wiki.debian.org/BSPMarathon

Debian developers do this. It may not be a week at a time but several weekends a year and it eventually evens out.

http://wiki.debian.org/BSPMarathon

Perhaps it's a matter of opinion, but I'd hardly call Debian stable (plus security updates, of course) a "moving target". Isn't the real reason that LSB requires RPM? (Not wanting to start a flame war, the greatest benefit I found when I switched from R.H. to Debian was no longer having to use RPM. But that's just my personal preference, I guess.) In fact a search leads us to Red Hat package manager for LSB package building which says, "This is a version of rpm built to create rpm v3 packages as used in the Linux Standards Base. You should need this package only if you are developing LSB packages; you do not need it to install or use LSB packages on Debian."

Maybe you need a more Universal OS.

Yeah likewise. I'm on a Dell Inspirion 1150, totally seamless install and use.

I've also got a Dell Inspiron 1150, and I've been running Ubuntu Breezy Badger. The install was seamless and all that, but it's got a couple of issues. If you don't mind, I'd like to quiz you to see if they're fixed in Dapper.

1) Fan control sucks. It'll let itself get so hot that it shuts down. (I know that this is a stupid BIOS issue.) When I was on Windows XP, the motherboard driver (I think) handled this, so I had to write a script to turn the fan on using i8kutils. Annoying as heck.

2) ACPI buttons: the reset button and lid close event do not work. As far as I can tell, this is a kernel limitation.

Thanks in advance.