Debian 2.2r5 Released

Debian potato has been updated to 2.2r5. See the press release for info on what has changed - mostly bugfixes, of course, since this is the stable distribution.

Comments

Accepted/rejected packages list

[Chocky2]

A comprehensive list of which packages were included and which were rejected is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/2.2r5/full.html

Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[CDWert]

Ok Im a RedHat follower, I like their distro's everything and the kitchen sink and It may or may not work right, but thts OK because theyre soo much overload youll never be bored....

Saying that Come On DEBIAN people, get that kernel moving, dont you know its guys like you that give linux a good name, stable, secure and a little archane ????

MY GO there are like 10 security fixes in this release !!!! (Im used to 10 a week !)

Seriusly, is there a reason the Debian people have dragged their feet on this for soo long ? Of course you can roll your own butt ...most dont...

2.5 is in the work FCOL, I mean at 2.4 release Ok I could see why not too, but all the dev is in the 2.4-2.5 does device support stink as bad as I think it should ?

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[reaper20]

You know, you can install 2.4 on any debian box. Sure, it's not as easy as installing an rpm, but I'd rather install a new kernel by hand than try to fix RPM Hell.

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[nickjennings]

you don't need to install the 2.4 kernel from source on a Debian system (stable). Use the 2.4 packages built for stable maintained by Adrian Bunk.

Add the following line to your /etc/apt/sources.list

deb http://people.debian.org/~bunk/debian potato main

run dselect and update your package list, then make sure you select one of the 2.4 kernels, it will upgrade several base packages to support the new kernel, but it works absolutely perfect!

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[dsb3]

Look here http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/kernel-24.html
for everything you need to upgrade to kernel 2.4.x under potato.

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[Allaria]

You mean people actually install new kernels from RPMs?
They shouldn't call themselves linux users.

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[reaper20]

Wow, that is awesome, thanks for pointing it out. Is there something like this for Woody?

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[rmull]

Woody has the package "kernel-image-2.4.xx". You can install it via apt. Be sure to follow the instructions though - they're ramdisk builds and a little wierd. Works fine for me though.

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[damiam]

Ummmm... Woody already has kernel 2.4 in the base distribution.

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[slittle]

There's more to it than that. Running on a newer kernel doesn't make it BASED on that kernel. For that, you'd have to upgrade to ext3/reiser, DevFS, iptables, etc. etc.

It's all much easier if the official disks support it so I don't have to spend hours doing it myself - that's why distros exist in the first place.

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[esbjerg]

Why update to 2.4-series when it's not stable yet? Perhaps it will be now that Linus has left for 2.5?

I'm serious. I have had a lot of issues with 2.4. Ram filesystem, RAID, NFS, eepro-driver, loopback, ppp and just plain scheduler panics.

So for those people that doesn't have to use 2.4 because of some hardware related issues (SCSI controllers and whatnot) sticking with an older and better tested kernel is a good idea.

Just think about all the people that upgraded to kernel 2.4.15 and got a nasty surprise when they rebooted...

2.4 shouldn't have been called 2.4 yet!

Re:Why dont you update the damm Kernel

[edwazere]

Just in case this is not a troll (not very likely IMHO):

That's the whole point of Stable, it stays mostly the same, because it is Stable.

If you want cutting edge, then get unstable where your ten a week sounds (even more) bloody stupid with the amount of package updates unstable gets in a week!

If you want a good working system with (pretty much) whatever kernel you want, get Testing - most of the time this is far more up to date than Redhat.

Actually, it's not bugfixes

[bconway]

It's a release for security updates. This is very different from a bugfix release, which would generally be a much greater undertaking and require a lot more packages to be upgraded to newer versions. Think of it this way: a security update would be when Slash code allows users to gain the access levels of other users, including elevated privileges. A bugfix release would be an increment in the Slash code that fixes broken features that do not include security compromises. Makes sense? =)

Re:Actually, it's not bugfixes

[noahm]

That's not true at all. For example, look at the changelog for bwbasic in 2.2r5:

"* Recompile. Due to strange interactions with libc6, functions weren't interpreted, and the package was practically unusable. Closes: #108924."

noah

stable vs. unstable

[dboyles]

I run Debian "unstable" on 3 out of the 5 boxes that I admin (personal use, not corporate). For the most part I prefer unstable because of the newer software that it allows access to. Some software isn't available in .deb form in the stable distribution ("gallery", for example, an online photo gallery system). Other software varies a lot between the stable and unstable distributions ("unstable" software being more advanced, usually). For the most part "unstable" is a misnomer.

But... there are those times when something breaks. This is the reason you shouldn't use unstable on a production box. Earlier this week I worked out a KSpread spreadsheet that I needed for a meeting with an advisor. The day for my meeting came and KSpread wouldn't open up because of a conflict with the libpng version. To the best of my knowledge this hasn't been fixed yet. Others report similar problems. Needless to say I wasn't pleased, and I had to go to my meeting without the spreadsheet.

Does that mean I'll stop using "unstable"? Nah. Should everybody use it? No way.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[reaper20]

check debianplanet.org for thee thread, i believe most of the libpng issues have been taken care of.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[the_2nd_coming]

it will be so nice when the GUIs become mature, at that point, there will be little reason to run anything BUT stable since yoou will be able to wait for the next release and keep up with the slower development of the GUI and other apps.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[Blob Pet]

I agree - I wouldn't use unstable on my email server at work....anyone who does is just asking for it...but I use it on all of my own machines because when things break, it forces you to learn how things work.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[mindstrm]

This is what I don't understand.
By what logic is using unstable for your email server bad?

The only difference with unstable is that newer packages may break dependencies until they are fixed.. that's the only part of it that is 'unstable'
For reliability, it's as stable as anything else.

As for a mail server.. if you aren't securing things by hand, and configuring mail by hand in the first place, you are asking for it regardless of what distribution you are using.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[awptic]

I've run into this same problem with libpng on my system running debian unstable, I found an article discussing a fix at www.varlinux.org
To summarize what needs to be done though:

rm -f /usr/lib/libpng.so.3
ln -s /usr/lib/libpng.so.2.0.1.12 /usr/lib/libpng.so.3

I just did an apt-get upgrade a few minutes ago and it undid this, I haven't noticed any problems yet so maybe they've already fixed this issue.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[barawn]

Because in a cron job, you can shove "apt-get upgrade" (and some switch to get rid of the "Y/N") and all of the basic security stuff is done, good, kay, everything's great.

You can't do that in a cron job for "unstable".

Regarding the hand-securing thing, well, for the actual PURPOSE of the box, I agree with you - the mail should probably be configured by hand, etc., but not necessarily for EVERYTHING - especially for security holes, rather than stupid security issues. What if there's a security hole in wu-ftpd? (God, that never happens) In that case, "stable" is best, because "apt-get upgrade" will just fix that. Unstable you'd actually have to GO to each box, and make sure dependencies weren't screwed with.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[FlyingDragon]

If you find stable a bit stoic and unstable a little wild, Debian has another distribution you may find just right: testing.

Testing consists of packages from unstable that have gone a couple weeks without incident. The result is a very current system with the bleeding edge problems smoothed over. Most of our production boxes are now on it.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[dboyles]

One example of another problem I had once with unstable (when Woody was unstable) was PHP breaking. I just have a little webpage for personal use, and the problem was fixed within a day or two, but it served to remind me why unstable shouldn't be used for critical apps.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[DRO0]

Yep, I've been using testing (woody) for six months. I've run into occasional problems and a lot of people on newsgroups would lead one to believe that unstable is actually more stable than testing, but I'm really happy with it.

As for Debian being "slow", I wonder how those people who installed the infamous 2.4.11 kernel the day it came out? If you want to be adventurous that's fine, that's what freedom's all about. I'm just not advanced enough of a user to be on the bleeding edge so I'm willing to wait for Debian maintainers to release stuff to testing before I upgrade my packages.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[DRO0]

Here's a slightly different thread from DebianPlanet, but apparently this issue has had quite a few ramifications.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[DRO0]

Damn, I need to do more/better proofreading.

As for Debian being "slow", I wonder how those people who installed the infamous 2.4.11 kernel the day it came out feel about the bleeding edge?

Re:stable vs. unstable

[mindstrm]

to each his own, but if I ever caught anyone in my company doing any automatic updates of servers from a cron script, I'd be mighty pissed off.

I don't care *HOW* stable it is, you don't upgrade servers automatically. You upgrade them for reasons, knowingly.

You should not rely on apt to fix your security problems.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[dondelelcaro]

When you're working in an environment where a server is expected to be kept running without user intervention, sometimes a cron job that upgrades the distro is acceptable.

Ceteris paribus, it's better to do it by hand, but if the admins that be cannot be counted on to deal with it, a self sufficient machine is better than a rooted one. (Machines that I've set up never to see again run potato with cron jobs to take care of them automagically. If a admin comes along who knows that they are doing, the cron jobs are well documented. If not, at least the box is self sufficient.)

Re:stable vs. unstable

[swillden]

KSpread wouldn't open up because of a conflict with the libpng version. To the best of my knowledge this hasn't been fixed yet.

You can fairly easily fix all of the problems caused by the libpng update just by recompiling the packages with problems. Luckily, this is very easy to do. Log on as root and run:

apt-get -b source kspread && dpkg -i *.deb

apt-get will download, unpack, configure and build the softare, producing .deb files. dpkg -i will install them.

After downloading, dpkg-buildpackage may complain that you don't have some of the required development packages installed. Just look at the list, apt-get install them all and run the above commands again.

Note that in this case it will take a while, because you're actually going to rebuild/reinstall all of koffice.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[Peaker]

Last I checked, testing got none of the security fixes.

Makes it a non-option for me.

Fortunatly for me, I am very happy with unstable, and find almost all of unstable's problems trivial to fix, and if not, trivial to hack around.

Re:stable vs. unstable

[Cro Magnon]

IIRC, 2.4.11 only bit the SuSe installer. 2.4.15 was the real "brown bag" release!

Woody

[MoceanWorker]

why not just upgrade to Woody? even though it's classified unstable.. i've been running it and having no problems at all with it... there was a certain way to upgrade from 2.2 to 3 (i unfortunately forgot), but if you sign on to irc.openprojects.net, join #debian and message Apt.. it should give you a few simple steps on how to upgrade to Woody...

Re:Woody

[barawn]

Actually, isn't "unstable" 'Sid'? I think 'Woody' is the "testing" release.

Re:Woody

[mknapp905]

edit your sources file and change stable to woody.... apt-get update apt-get upgrade... all done go eat lunch

Re:Woody

[barawn]

Actually, don't you have to do apt-get dist-upgrade for Woody from Potato? Not that I'm sure what 'dist-upgrade' does over 'upgrade'...

Re:Woody

[MoceanWorker]

absolutely correct, my apologies :-)

Re:Woody

[nomadic]

'Why' are "we" talking 'like' this?

Re:Woody

[dsb3]

dist-upgrade does more flexible dependency checks and is often required when many of the dependencies change at the same time, such as upgrading the entire distribution.

Re:Woody

[Gannoc]

it should give you a few simple steps on how to upgrade to Woody...

Wow, you're going to get 32767 responses to this.

1. #vi /etc/apt/sources.list

2. Change all instances of "stable" or "potato" to "woody".

3. #apt-get dist-upgrade

(4.) #apt-get -f install ;apt-get dist-upgrade --yes , until it all works.

;)

Re:Woody

[barawn]

Offtopic, yes, I know. Hence the reason I got rid of the Score +1 bonus, so I've effectively already modded myself down. :)

I was using the word "upgrade" out of its English context, and was using qualifiers to set it aside. As for the single-quote usage rather than a double-quote usage, I don't know what's more proper, to be honest, and I usually just use whatever I feel like. :) While "dist-upgrade" really isn't an English word, it makes sense that if "upgrade" is set off, so should "dist-upgrade".

Strangely enough, in the previous post, I should've offset "apt-get dist-upgrade" as well, since it's a multi-word phrase that is being treated as a single noun, therefore I should probably group it in some way. But that was a mistake.

Re:Woody

[ShecoDu]

for that matter you can use this bash line:

until apt-get dist-upgrade; do echo "One more time"; done;

it will loop until apt-get returns succesful.

Re:Woody

[ntr0py]

Actually Woody is classified as "testing", Sid is "unstable".

Re:Woody

[ntr0py]

apt-get won't return successful without the "apt-get -f install" in between iterations. Sometimes, anyway :)

This might work though:
until apt-get dist-upgrade; do echo "One more time"; apt-get -f install; done;

Re:Woody

[Aaton]

I seem to have had very good luck with this in my /etc/apt/source.list

deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free

deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free

deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free

Then the following commands...

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade -u --fix-missing
apt-get dist-upgrade -u --fix-missing

(Had to force some packages but only a hand full)

I first added "testing" to the list then upgraded and dist-upgraded. After that was done added the "unstable" lines and did the same. I haven't had any problems keeping "stable", "testing", and "unstable" in my source.list...

Only issue was the last few days there were some libpng3 and libqt2 issues that broke icons and some other things under KDE, but most of that is fixed now...

Re:Woody

[diamondc]

because security fixes get put into unstable first, then a week or so later gets into testing. so for a whole week you could be cracked.

Re:Woody

[xer.xes]

Not to bash you, but that's totally useless, you're downloading Packages files of stable and testing, and they will never be used (because the versions in unstable are newer)...

Re:Woody

[Aaton]

Well I have notice that if I do a "apt-get upgrade" true 95->98% of the packages come out of "unstable" but there are still afew that will be pulled from "testing". I haven't spent the time to see if the package listed in "testing" is the same one listed in "unstable". Which just might be the case...

The reason I listed all 3 is for someone first doing a dist-upgrade to "unstable" having the "stable" and "testing" listed I think should make installing it easier,atleast from what I have seen. I have had better luck with all 3 listed when doing my dist-upgrades on machines then just changing "stable" or "testing" to "unstable", might just be me.

In the end I agree it should really only need to have "unstable" listed but I have had enough small problems doing that I'll stick with what works for my setup at the moment.

Re:Woody

[nomadic]

Actually I always thought the correct usage on slashdot would be to use the teletype font to denote a typed command. After a quick bit of research I discovered that single quotation marks (') should be used in place of regular quotation marks when the word or phrase you're enclosing is in another set of regular quotation marks (i.e. "His exact words were, 'I used apt-get to install that package'")

It can also be used when referring to words in an unusual context, so I guess if you don't use teletype the single quotation marks are the way to go.

Maybe we need a Slashdot Manual of Style.

Re:Woody

[CentrX]

A security fix will almost always make it into woody within 3 days.

Re:Woody

[Fweeky]

> Actually I always thought the correct usage on
> slashdot would be to use the teletype font to
> denote a typed command.

HTML 2 defines <kbd> for commands to type in and <samp> for sample program output.

As for quotes, use <q> etc and let the browser work it out :)

Re:Woody

[nomadic]

Well, I was being slashdot-specific. Maybe someone should suggest that they put in and ; the gods know we talk about commands enough...

Re:Woody

[nomadic]

Errr, that should read "Maybe someone should suggest they put in and ".

Re:Woody

[barawn]

Teletype would make a lot more sense, I agree, (or the kbd tag, as others have pointed out) but I don't enter Slashdot comments in HTML - I typically leave them in plain old text. It makes it feel more like email, I guess (and if anyone suggests HTML email, I will refer them to my secretary, /dev/null).

I've never been able to figure out single/double quotation marks, because I have literally seen entire BOOKS where they used single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks and vice versa.

Re:Woody

[Fweeky]

> Well, I was being slashdot-specific.

SlashDot (barely) uses HTML, HTML provides standard tags for them, therefore SlashDot should use them :)

> Maybe someone should suggest that they put in and ;

Uh huh :)

Re:Woody

[CentrX]

Yes, it's also broken faster :)

ssh v1? 1:1.2.3-9.4?

[Odinson]

Will stable debian use ssh version 2 yet?

Or did they rig their package so protocol verion 1 doesn't allow your box to hacked?

Or are they just ignoring the huge exploit problems with the ssh1 protocol?

Re:ssh v1? 1:1.2.3-9.4?

[Colm@TCD]

The middle one. Although potato has ssh 1.2.3, it's been patched so as not to be vulnerable to the ssh1 exploit.

There are systematic weaknesses with version 1 of the ssh protocol, which this doesn't address, of course. However, as far as I'm aware, a successful exploit has yet to be mounted against these.

Re:ssh v1? 1:1.2.3-9.4?

[noahm]

Read the changelog for the ssh package. /usr/share/doc/ssh/changelog.Debian.gz. It is still SSH protocol 1, but the ssh daemon is patched to address recent remote exploit vulnerabilities. There are no known vulnerabilities in the version of OpenSSH included with Debian 2.2r5.

Still, though, version 2 of the SSH protocol is better, and building updated OpenSSH packages for potato is not difficult. The 'source' command in apt-get is very helpful here.

noah

Re:ssh v1? 1:1.2.3-9.4?

[Odinson]

First, thank you both.

I was planning on doing exactly that.

Do Debian's rules explicitly disallow a major version upgrade? Even for security reasons? I believe that boxes are already being exploited. Even if there isn't example code, I'm sure there will be soon. Why wait?

It seems to me that widespread use and critical funtion of this package might warrant a major version upgrade on a stable release.

Please understand that I have infinate gratitude toward the Debian people, but I also have broadband Debian stable boxes.

and a side note... Someone actually modded the top parent down. WTF? Even if I was wrong those are completely on topic questions. Someone metamod that guy.

Re:ssh v1? 1:1.2.3-9.4?

[e5z8652]

AFAIK in a heterogenous network you can't turn off SSH-1 on other systems and run SSH-2 only, if you expect to interact with the Debian box(en). The other distributions may or may not have the SSH-1 vulnerability, and have just said "to fix this, don't use SSH-1."

Why take the risk? Building OpenSSH or other SSH-2 port from source is the only real solution until the standard Debian SSH package includes SSH-2.

Re:ssh v1? 1:1.2.3-9.4?

[noahm]

Do Debian's rules explicitly disallow a major version upgrade? Even for security reasons? I believe that boxes are already being exploited. Even if there isn't example code, I'm sure there will be soon. Why wait?

Typically, major version increments are forbidden. In some cases, exceptions must be made (e.g. a package is rewritten from scratch to correct security problems).

As I said before, there are no known security problems with the current version of OpenSSH 1. There have been in the past, but they've been fixed. It's not that there is no example code, it's that there are no known potentially exploitable security issues in the current OpenSSH shipped with Debian.

noah

faster releases

[jonestor]

The release cycle seems to be getting shorter. Didn't they just release 2.2r4 a few months ago? What's up with that?

Re:faster releases

[Cro Magnon]

2.2r anything is still Potato, and by now the Potato is rotting and starting to smell.

Re:And I just put 2.2r4 on yesterday....

[JWhitlock]

Anyone have trouble with the current Woody boot disks? I tried installing that (wanted reiserfs support) on a Compaq DL360 yesterday too. It froze during boot and just put lines on the screen. I tried disabling frame buffer at the boot prompt...but that didn't help.

Yeah, I tried to upgrade a potato box to woody (wanted ipfilter for firewall AND portmapping), and I've never gotten it to boot. It prints a whole bunch of dots, then reboots. I'm currently booting potato off a floppy, and have no idea how to procede, and no time to mess with it...

Debian unstable

[ShecoDu]

For those of you who would want to use debian unstable, update your /etc/apt/sources.list to be like this, debian unstable is not really unstable after all, its just that the list might be broken some times:

# See sources.list(5) for more information, especialy
# Remember that you can only use http, ftp or file URIs
# CDROMs are managed through the apt-cdrom tool.
deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free

Potato

[Dionysus]

Hmmm... does anyone still use Potato. I thought most people move to testing/woody?

Re:Potato

[FatRatBastard]

PRODUCTION SERVERS.

My own workstation is testing/woody, as are most things at home. But test/production servers I leave a Potato because they're configured to do certain things, and I would rather not update stuff (beyond security updates... add that security line to your sources file) on a continous basis, and I want them to be rock solid.

I'd argue that the VAST majority of home/workstation folks are on at least woody, but there are very good reasons/situations to keep boxen off the bleeding (or in woody's case scabbed over) edge.

Re:Potato

[ultraw]

Exactly! We are using Debian everywhere (company, home use,...) All the boxes that we have direct access to are running testing or even unstable. These are the boxes that are used for devellopment, mail-reading,...

On the other hand, i dont want to run out, jump in my car and drive 45 min every time a new release of the "what-i-didnt-want-but-got-installed-anyway"-packa ge is broken. Stable is for machines you want to keep running, really a long long time. I'm very glad it exists, and is still maintained through the stable/testing/unstable system.
But hey, i didn't panic when i saw this on slashdot (the update to 2.2r5), i'm pretty sure the security updates went flawless this night. (I didn't receive any phonecalls this night also, so thats helping a relief too...)

Re:Potato

[demon]

I use it as a springboard to installing woody. Of course, if I had to install on a box (at least an x86 box) right now, I'd just use a woody prerelease ISO, or use a root/boot/driver set and net-install (the woody net install is much more slick than it was in potato).

Debian is odd

[bytor4232]

This is the EXACT reason I stopped using Debian. They need to get a clue. Debian is a great distro, don't get me wrong, but they need to stop screwing around with Potato and get Woody released. Potato is NOT a new relese, instead its a rerelease of an old codebase that is getting tired. Potato is getting on several years old, Debian needs to let it go.

Here is an example. I am not a KDE advocate or anything (Window Maker for me) but I noticed that all versions of KDE is still listed as "testing" or "unstable" while GNOME 1.0.55 is listed in the "Stable" package section? I'm sorry, but KDE 2.2.x is ALOT more stable that "October" GNOME which was released in 1999! Debian needs to get with it. Stability is one thing, but this is bordering on the rediculous. October GNOME was not all that stable, and KDE 2.2.2 is one of the most stable desktops out there.

Re:Debian is odd

[bytor4232]

Thats okay, I hate all the distros so much I decided to make my own mistakes and build it myself (www.linuxfromscratch.org)

Re:Debian is odd

[RisingSon]

This is the EXACT reason I stopped using Debian. They need to get a clue.

Ouch

Debian is a great distro, don't get me wrong, but they need to stop screwing around with Potato and get Woody released. Potato is NOT a new relese, instead its a rerelease of an old codebase that is getting tired. Potato is getting on several years old, Debian needs to let it go.

Uh, the debian volunteers are working VERY hard on woody. I wouldn't run potato on my desktop (I'm running woody), but I run potato on some servers. Those servers are not getting tired. They are performing very well, and have nice uptime under moderate load.

Here is an example. I am not a KDE advocate or anything (Window Maker for me) but I noticed that all versions of KDE is still listed as "testing" or "unstable" while GNOME 1.0.55 is listed in the "Stable" package section? I'm sorry, but KDE 2.2.x is ALOT more stable that "October" GNOME which was released in 1999!

We agree on something - WindowMaker is beautiful. As for which packages make it into testing - you need to enlighten yourself before making such statements.

I'd start with this. You need to think beyond your little x86 happy-happy-funtime world before you flame.

Debian needs to get with it. Stability is one thing, but this is bordering on the rediculous. October GNOME was not all that stable, and KDE 2.2.2 is one of the most stable desktops out there.

Again, this maybe the most stable desktop on your system for your language. There is not some dude at debian headquarters that says, "OK...this app seems stable on my box. Lets move it into stable." There is a complicated process to determine the status of packages. If stable isn't cutting edge enough, you can use testing or unstable (2 more entire binary releases for you!). If you're running unstable and you apt-get dist-upgrade every day, you are as cutting edge as you're going to get with any distribution.

Re:Debian is odd

[bytor4232]

I understand your position, but what I am saying is that most of Woody is very stable, has been for almost a year. They need to retire Potato and get on with making the next Testing, ie GCC 3.0, KDE 3.0, etc.

Re:Debian is odd

[Fjord]

they need to stop screwing around with Potato and get Woody released

I don't understand this statement. I though that Potato, Woody, and Sid were just names for staging environments. first a package is put into Sid and if it's moderately stable and works well with other packages, then it is promoted to testing. Finally, after showing good stability and no breaking of other packages, it is promoted to Potato. If they "released" Woody, it would mean they promoted everything to Potato, meaning you would still have all three. Then packages would again trickle into Woody from Sid.

But maybe I hanve this understanding all flowled up.

Re:Debian is odd

[bytor4232]

Stable is frozen, only bugfixes and security problems are released. Potato is, I belive, over two years old. KDE has been stable since 1.1.2, and it never made it in time for Potato to tell you how old the base of Potato is.

I just feel its time they moved into a new stable code base, Woody is ready, they just have too much politics getting in the way of timely releases

Yeah, I know, release when its ready. But do we sit with our thumbs up our butt while everyone else in inovating? (yuk, bad word)

Re:Debian is odd

[damiam]

Debian has very strict and specific criteria on when and how a new "stable" version can be released (things like no outstanding major bug reports in any base package), and they are evidently not met at the moment.

Re:Debian is odd

[mbanck]

Debian is a great distro, don't get me wrong, but they need to stop screwing around with Potato and get Woody released.

chill. Most Debian Developers are working for woody, alright? It's just that some of us do release security updates, if you don't mind. And then _one_ person (joey) does point-releases by getting all the security stuff and critical bugfixes together. No big deal. No Debian Developer is working on stable packages apart from security updates, OK?

Here is an example. I am not a KDE advocate or anything but I noticed that all versions of KDE is still listed as "testing" or "unstable"

That might be because QT was not released under the GPL before the release of potato, hmm?. And no, we won't let something as big as KDE into stable. The biggest thing that went in was Mozilla-M18 (the original version in potato was Mozilla-M12 or something, go figure)

October GNOME was not all that stable, and KDE 2.2.2 is one of the most stable desktops out there.

Of course, but october GNOME was all that was there by the time of the release. AFAIK, there are unofficial KDE-packages for potato available on the web, but if you want to run KDE, then you're better off with woody or sid anyway. I hope your concerns are adressed by now. We know that we release too infrequently, we got the stuff in place to do this more often by now, so hope for the future, sorry. This point release is necessary for everybody who needs to install _rock-solid_ software without security issues, not for the latest whistles. Besides, this is probably not worth mentioning on ./ anyway.

Michael

Re:Debian is odd

[bytor4232]

Maby calling it "stable" is bad. I noticed that one person said he was confused by the wording, and thought testing meant it was not ready for use, or so I gathered.

Maby Debian should split their releases in stable from "Stable" to "Server" and "Workstation". That might clear up some confustion.

Just some observations from an outsider, no offense.

Re:Debian is odd

[Glytch]

Ah, yes, the "grab the binary package with apt-get, don't you dare compile from source!" open-source way?

Re:Debian is odd

[spauldo]

I though that Potato, Woody, and Sid were just names for staging environments.

Nope (well, sid is...). Potato and Woody are names of actual releases. Unstable, Testing, and Stable are the names of the staging environments.

Once Woody is released, Potato will go the way of slink and hamm. Woody will be considered stable, and they'll have another name for testing (don't know what that will be - I haven't been paying attention).

Of course, sid always keeps the same name, so sid and unstable are the same thing. It's quite appropriate, since that's where all the toys get broken :)

Re:Debian is odd

[Fjord]

Ok. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Re:Debian is odd

[Fjord]

If Woody is ready, why don't you just use it? (Note: that is the release I use)

Re:Debian is odd

[bytor4232]

When I tried it last may, I migrated from a very used Potato release. I tried the apt-get dist upgrade or whatever command it was, and it proceeded to destroy my system in more ways that was worth it. I am now actually building my own Linux distro from scratch becuse, well, if you think you can do better, you might as well, or dont complain. I do Linux From Scratch (www.linuxfromscratch.org) cause I WANT to complain about other distros. hehe.

Don't get me wrong, I would use either Slackware of Debian if I "had" to use a distro. They are great. I just don't like the politics involved with Debian.

Re:Debian is odd

[Cro Magnon]

I tried a LinuxFromScratch but I keep running out of disk space compiling glibc. Apparently their claim that you can compile a LFS on a 750MB partition is out of date (I have just under 1GB).

Re:Debian is odd

[bytor4232]

You need to delete your sources when you are done with them. You probably have the chapter 5 sources lying around somewhere.

Re:Debian is odd

[Cro Magnon]

Nope! The first thing I did when I got to Chapter 6 was delete the sources except for the kernel.

Re:And I just put 2.2r4 on yesterday....

[Weird Dave]

Yeah, I tried to upgrade a potato box to woody (wanted ipfilter for firewall AND portmapping), and I've never gotten it to boot. It prints a whole bunch of dots, then reboots. I'm currently booting potato off a floppy, and have no idea how to procede, and no time to mess with it...

That shouldn't happen. I love Debian so much that when I hear of someone with a problem like this, I somehow feel personally responsible.

I'd offer you help, but if you don't have time to help yourself, you probably don't have time to get help from someone else (as that might take longer). I'm so sorry you're having problems with what I believe is the best Linux distro out there.

Yes! Use the debian testing distribution.

[brlewis]

I used to run debian stable, but switched to testing several months ago. I think testing is the dist for most users. Too bad newbies get steered toward stable. The testing dist is stable enough for just about everybody.

Debian Install Problems.

[ImaLamer]

I downloaded, and burned the last release onto CD.

Now I'm having some install problems. The box I'm trying to install to has no floppy drive. The installation tries to find the 'rescue' disk and prompts me to put it into the floppy drive.

This of course is before the installation of the base system. I've looked on the disc[from the prompt], and no image anywhere. So the install farts out and that's it.

I've tried to find a work around on irc, newgroups and the like. No one else seems to have this problem. As I understand it the 'disk' is actually what the CD is booting from.

Does this release fix this problem? Has anyone else had this problem? No one else seems to have this problem... that I've talked to.

I hate to be offtopic here... and I don't mean to point out a problem, and this isn't a troll etc.

I just hope the /. community has some insights.

I really want to get this RPM'n piece of crap off my box. apt-get packagename is so much easier when the only interface with the box is my Doze machine.

TIA

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[NetJunkie]

The only time it asks for the rescue disk is when installing the kernel and base setup. You need to tell it to get it elsewhere when it asks. I'm setting up Debian on a server RIGHT NOW and just installed it without the rescue disk. Set up networking first and then have it get it off the Debian site. Or you should be able to just point it at the CD.

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[Phexro]

if you are talking about the kernel prompt, which is something along the lines of `Insert floppy to be used as root...', the cd you made is broken.

the 1.44mb floppy images have seperate rescue/root disks. the cds should be booting from the 2.88mb images, which have a single rescue disk with the root ramdisk on it.

fwiw, i've _never_ seen this on any debian installation from official media. i've been using debian since 1.3 was released.

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[ImaLamer]

if you are talking about the kernel prompt, which is something along the lines of `Insert floppy to be used as root...', the cd you made is broken

No, no... since you've installed and used debian so many times you would know I'm speaking of the step between partitioning and installing the base system.

Simply, the CD boots, I can partition and all. But the install craps out when you are trying to install the base system. Basically I've got a CD worth nothing... coaster.

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[Phexro]

No, no... since you've installed and used debian so many times you would know I'm speaking of the step between partitioning and installing the base system.

since i'm a debian developer, i know that there are two places where the installer may ask for the root floppy.

perhaps you haven't gotten the help you need because of your bad attitude. i know that after being belittled by you for making an honest attempt to help you out, i'm certainly not going to make any further attempts.

why don't you try again after you've passed puberty? perhaps then you'll be able to hold a civil conversation.

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[ImaLamer]

Thank you... as much as I love debian and linux in general you've finally put me into that category of people who think the support problem in the linux world is arrogance.

This [and the last post] is the only time I've gotten a bad attitude about this problem [or any other problems].

Once again though, it's not the 'root' floppy it asks for, it's the rescue floppy it asks for. Just to check I've burned the CD again 3 times all 3 times a different way.

But please, let's be fair. Your attempt wasn't honest enough as it comes no where close to my problem. I'm sorry that you didn't help and that I've offended you because I told you it didn't.

No where though did I resort to name calling. You are the one who added the "why don't you try again after you've passed puberty?". This is civil conversation? And for what reason did you deduce I've not passed puberty?

That's simply childish. I felt belittled by the fact that you acted as if you were supreme computer god [Nick Burns is that you?] because you've used debian since way back when, and I'm nothing because I haven't.

Thanks.

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[mandolin]

Simply, the CD boots, I can partition and all. But the install craps out when you are trying to install the base system. Basically I've got a CD worth nothing... coaster.

Perhaps you could use it as a crappy rescue disk, if you can get to a prompt (redhat would) :)

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[Phexro]

"Thank you... as much as I love debian and linux in general you've finally put me into that category of people who think the support problem in the linux world is arrogance."

so it would be worth your while to pay for support, or buy a distribution which comes bundled with support, right?

"This [and the last post] is the only time I've gotten a bad attitude about this problem [or any other problems]."

the only time i gave you bad attitude was when you made it obvious that you didn't give a damn that i was trying to help you out.

"But please, let's be fair. Your attempt wasn't honest enough as it comes no where close to my problem. I'm sorry that you didn't help and that I've offended you because I told you it didn't."

you didn't sufficiently explain your problem, and when i gave you a suggestion (based on the information i had), you felt the need to flip me attitude. this is certainly different from telling me that i wasn't helpful.

"No where though did I resort to name calling."

nor did i. i freely admit that i insulted you, but i did not resort to name-calling. if i had, my message would have read something along the lines of:

"ask again in a few years, you prepubescent fuckwit."

...which it didn't. see the difference?

of course, there's no reason for me to call you names, since you've kindly done that for me. or is calling yourself "ImaLamer" merely a coincidence?

"I felt belittled by the fact that you acted as if you were supreme computer god..."

well, i may not be the supreme computer god... but at least i can install an operating system.

p.s.: look in dists/<distro>/main/disks-<arch>/curre nt/images-1.44/rescue.bin for your rescue disk image. the cd should be asking where you want to install the o.s. kernel & modules from... you want to select "cdrom". the installer should find the rescue image on it's own, though some unofficial images don't do this very well. if it prompts you, try pressing enter - some versions of the installer (such as 3.0.x, for installing woody) will search the cd when you do. i honestly don't remember if earlier versions do as well. worst case scenario, you have to enter the paths by hand. don't forget that you have that handy shell on the second console that you can use to poke around on the cd to find the correct path.

if it still doesn't work, get an official cd image instead. you might also find debianHELP useful.

Re:Debian Install Problems.

[ImaLamer]

[not complaining]
I got the CD from debian, no where else. Both times.
[/not complaining]

I'm simply a home user, who loses his linux install at least once every three months. My fault everytime. Sometimes I just go with something else.

When I'm serious I plan to fully support linux financially. I've bought two [don't make fun] Mandrake sets, and even a RedHat box set a long time ago.

It's not that I feel as if the software isn't worth the money, or I want to use it because it's free as in beer free. Simply: I don't have the money. [or any money]

As I can/could tell the 'community' was also filled with some people who share my situation. I'm a hobbiest, and an advocate. Sorry I can't afford to put cash on the table.

Re:does it still have that installer?

[barawn]

Debian will use alien to convert RPMs into .debs for the LSB requirement.

There's an old phrase regarding Debian - and that's that the installer is so bad because you only ever need to install once.

That being said, the Potato installer is not maintained anymore - there's a brand new installer for Woody (Debian 3.0).

what about...

[MSG]

Conspicuously missing from the list of updates is glibc. Since Red Hat released a security update for the revision used in Potato, I'm assuming that Potato is also vulnerable to the heap corruption bug in glibc's glob() function. The fix is simple, so where's the update? AFAIK, the only major distributions that haven't addressed this problem are Debian and Slackware.

Re:what about...

[mbanck]

Conspicuously missing from the list of updates is glibc

There is no Debian Security Announcement for glibc out yet, i.e., not all architectures (Debian supports several...) have been rebuilt. This question was asked before and Joey said it'll have to wait for 2.2r6, sorry.

(Of course, you can update your potato box as soon as the advisory is out and packages are uploaded with apt-get upgrade, if you have security in your sources.list)

Michael

Re:what about...

[Glytch]

Actually, Slackware *did* release an update. It was on their security mailing list a few days ago.

Actually, it is bugfixes (and more)

[hal9000]

In fact, here are the requirements for a package to make it into a Debian stable revision:
(from http://people.debian.org/~joey/2.2r5/)

[Joey Hess's] requirements for packages to go into stable:
1. The package fixes a security problem. An advisory by our own Security Team would be quite helpful.
2. The package fixes a critical bug which can lead into data loss, data corruption, or an overly broken system, or the package is broken or not usable (anymore).
3. The stable version of the package is not installable at all due to broken or unmet dependencies or broken installation scripts
4. The package gets all architectures in stable in sync.
5. All released architectures have to be in sync.

Debian

[malus]

Evenually this post will make it's way onto google, somewhere. Here's my bit 'o debian advocacy.

I've been using it since 97, and haven't looked back. To the guys and gals on the debian dev team, thank you. You've made my life so much easier. One of these days I'll sit down and help squash some bugs so unstable doesn't remain unstable for so long.

Re:And I just put 2.2r4 on yesterday....

[JWhitlock]

That shouldn't happen. I love Debian so much that when I hear of someone with a problem like this, I somehow feel personally responsible.

I'd offer you help, but if you don't have time to help yourself, you probably don't have time to get help from someone else (as that might take longer). I'm so sorry you're having problems with what I believe is the best Linux distro out there.

I agree - it makes me a bit of a whiner to complain but not be able to do anything about it.

Let me just ask a general question then - what's the best way to install a fresh Woody system? My current system is a bastardized Potato with some ugly Sid stuff thrown in to make it complicated. I want a Woody system, upgraded to a 2.4 kernel with ipfilter, and I'm willing to start from scratch.

Do I remove all non-Woody sources from the apt-get sources file? Do I manually remove all potato and unstable packages? Or is it best to format and start over?

Do these questions make it obvious that there is some newbie book or documentation that I should be reading?

The biggest problem I have is that this is a P1-100 box, which takes about 3 hours to re-compile the kernel, AND it's my firewall/router, so I lose much of my ability to read net sources when it's down. The current bastardized system is ugly and doesn't do everything I want, but at least it works.

Re:And I just put 2.2r4 on yesterday....

[ThorGod]

You update /etc/apt/sources.list to whatever distribution you want to upgrade to, and run apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade.

Re:does it still have that installer?

[DRO0]

I don't know why a lot of people think the installer is so terrible. I'm certainly not an advanced user, but I've been through Debian's installer 4 or 5 times and don't find it to be a chore at all. Remember, Text-Based != Bad. I thought Slackware 7.0's text-based installer was OK too.

To me what's more important about a newer installer is the option to install newer file systems (Reiser, ext3, etc.).

Re:Debian sucks nuts

[barawn]

Re: ISOs:

Limited bandwidth - that's all I have to say. Most people don't need the ISOs.

Re: what Potato comes with
If you had looked around on Usenet for about 2 seconds - I believe it's the second or third post in response to a search for "XFree86 4 potato" you'd find out how to upgrade Potato to Woody (testing) in about 5 minutes.

Edit sources.list, replace stable with Woody.

Apt-get update.
Apt-get dist-upgrade.
Wait, relax, enjoy.

Re: the kernel
Please. A 2.4 kernel isn't THAT necessary.

Re:Debian HURD

[xer.xes]

What does the Hurd have to do with this release of potato? The Hurd doesn't even get included with Woody, it's just not release quality yet (although it's much fun to experiment/play with for the real men)...

There will probably be unofficial Woody ISO's of the Hurd, but Potato ISO's? Forget it.. There are too much PATH_MAX problems and stuff like that in Potato...

Re:Yes! Use the debian testing distribution.

[On Lawn]

Sometimes when someone points stuff out like this its considered trolling. Sometimes its insightful. We'll see how this plays out...

In my observation Stable really means "All the developers have moved on to the next latest and greatest so this won't change much. But we'll fix it anyway".

Bad joke time

[Scoria]

Perhaps you should use the "Viagra" beta boot disks. Much more efficient, I've heard.

Re:Debian sucks nuts

[JWhitlock]

Re: what Potato comes with

Half of the people say "Add lines in sources.list for Woody.
Half say "Replace stable with woody".

I did the first, and now I have a screwed-up system, and will probably have to re-install, since I'm having a hard time finding out how to fix a %#$^ed-up system.

Re: the kernel
I need the 2.4 kernel. If I have to learn syntax for a firewall, I'd rather learn ipfilter and get portmapping for free.

Where is Woody?

[RelliK]

The big question is why Woody still has not been released? I thought going to unstable/testing/stable model was supposed to speed up release cycles. Apparently not.

Re:Where is Woody?

[bfree]

It alway's seemed to me that the proposed changes aren't really for any release, they are changes which will evolve the way the project exists! Think of it this way, since testing has existed it has slowly filled up to reasonable proportions. Soon it will become a full new distro by going through a final freeze. Throughout the entire freeze process (less time than testing has existed) new packages will appear in unstable, and some will make it into testing. After woody is released, their will be three complete Debian distros. Stable will be the current woody (which will be a freeze length out of date). Testing will be those nearly bleeding edge packages which appear to be ok, and unstable will still be bang up to date. The key is that the testing process is about ensuring that a stable release from now on will be only a freeze length out of date, and that the freeze cycle can become a continuous process (instead of an arbitrary affair). After woody (the next stable release) new stable releases will form nearly instantly and be frozen out leading to a great development AND user environment for both guru's and grannies. Testing is about evolution, and I for one cannot wait to see how the Debian devlopment process will benefit from it (I think projects like DeMuDi will find it helps them to fork and freeze out trees for specific applications).

Temp fix for png3 probs

[CodeRed]

With KMail, I used this to fix it:

LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libpng.so.2
kmail &

Give that a try til the probs get fixed for real!

Re:is being fat okay?

[Faceprint]

actually, apt-get install cruft, and then run cruft. It will remove old programs and libraries that aren't needed that you don't want anymore. It cleaned up my system quite a bit.

Re:And I just put 2.2r4 on yesterday....

[steveha]

Let me just ask a general question then - what's the best way to install a fresh Woody system? My current system is a bastardized Potato with some ugly Sid stuff thrown in to make it complicated. I want a Woody system, upgraded to a 2.4 kernel with ipfilter, and I'm willing to start from scratch.

Do I remove all non-Woody sources from the apt-get sources file? Do I manually remove all potato and unstable packages? Or is it best to format and start over?

First of all, if the only thing you really want is a 2.4.x kernel and ipfilter, you don't need to upgrade everything; you could just get kernel sources, build a 2.4.x kernel, and go from there.

But if you want to update your system, here is what to do:

Edit your sources.list file to point to a Debian mirror for the "unstable" packages. (Or "testing" if you want to try that, but I'm perfectly happy with unstable.)

Run "apt-get update", which fetches the list of new packages.

Run "apt-get dist-upgrade", which downloads the new packages and installs them.

The Debian APT system is really cool, but it isn't absolutely perfect. It will try to install packages like libc first, and then later on install packages that depend on the other packages; but sometimes it fails. Sometimes it will try to install a package, only to have the install fail because some needed package wasn't there. This especially happens when upgrading from Potato to unstable.

The solution is simple: you just keep running "apt-get dist-upgrade", over and over, until it reports that all packages installed. Each time more packages will install, as the dependencies get installed.

I've done this about twice, and that's what worked for me.

steveha

Re:does it still have that installer?

[bonk]

From a user friendly perspective, it is pretty bad. It REQUIRES you to have knowledge of partitioning, networking, etc. Not that I don't think those are good things to know, but if you want to appease to the non-lunix user you have to be understandable.

That being said, the setup has been improving over the years. I hope it gets even better.

Re:And I just put 2.2r4 on yesterday....

[deek]

• Let me just ask a general question then - what's the best way to install a fresh Woody system? My current system is a bastardized Potato with some ugly Sid stuff thrown in to make it complicated. I want a Woody system, upgraded to a 2.4 kernel with ipfilter, and I'm willing to start from scratch.

The best way is to just edit your /etc/apt/sources.list file, replace the potato entries with woody entries, and run
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade

You may have a problem with the kernel install, since debian compiled kernels use initrd for booting. In that case, you MUST have a line in your lilo.conf file specifying where your initrd file is. A typical lilo.conf entry would look like the following:

image=/vmlinuz
label=Linux
initrd=/boot/initrd-2.4.17

... or wherever your initrd file is called. I can't recall off the top of my head exactly what it defaults to.

• Do I remove all non-Woody sources from the apt-get sources file? Do I manually remove all potato and unstable packages? Or is it best to format and start over?

I'd just remove potato entries from the sources. You should be able to leave all non-Woody sources in.

You definitely do not have to format and start over. The Debian packaging system is smart enough to handle upgrading what exists.

After the general package upgrade, install the Debian 2.4 kernel separately, as this will not be installed in the upgrade. They've got 2.4.17 into Woody, and I'd go with that.

• The biggest problem I have is that this is a P1-100 box, which takes about 3 hours to re-compile the kernel, AND it's my firewall/router, so I lose much of my ability to read net sources when it's down. The current bastardized system is ugly and doesn't do everything I want, but at least it works.

Your downtime should only be as long as it takes you to reboot your machine for a new kernel. I wouldn't bother recompiling the kernel, unless you specifically need to. The stock Debian kernel suits just about every need.

Re:Debian sucks nuts

[steveha]

Hey, maybe next time you can do your homework instead of complaining about things you don't understand.

Debian "stable" is famous for being out-of-date. It is also famous for being stable. The two somewhat go together, since Debian doesn't have paid full-time people hammering together updates.

Potato was frozen when the kernel was at 2.2 and Xfree86 was at 3.x. If you want to run Potato, you can get packages for Xfree86 4.1.x and kernel 2.4.x; if you want the latest cutting-edge stuff, all you have to do is update your system.

To update your system:

edit your sources.list to point to a mirror of "unstable", then run "apt-get update", then run the command "apt-get dist-upgrade" over and over until it reports that all packages were installed.

I hope this helps, and maybe next time you won't shoot your mouth off so obnoxiously.

For the love of god... upgrade stable.

Oh gee, what a great idea. Debian wasn't planning to upgrade stable, but now that you suggested it, I'm sure they will get right on it.

Sarcasm aside, if you had taken even a little while to read the debian.org web page, you might have found out that "Woody" is in the middle of a "freeze" process, which will take time... but when it is done, it will become the new "stable" branch.

And apt... what a joke

Actually, it's not a joke. It's one of the best things about Debian, and if you don't like it, maybe you should be running Red Hat. (Red Carpet does some of the same things as APT, but you may wind up having to pay money every month to use it. APT is always free.)

If you want a menu front-end to APT, you have many choices. I like aptitude ("apt-get install aptitude" if you want to try it) but there is also gnome-apt and others.

Your attitude sucks. You ought to work on that.

steveha

(How I) update the damm Kernel

[castlan]

I don't quite understand why RPM has been mentioned more times than APT, dpkg and alien combined. This thread is supposed to be about Debian, not RedHat or the LSB. Nobody has even mentioned apt-rpm yet, which is at least periphially related to Debian technology.

I don't install new kernels from RPMs, I install them from dpkgs, usually using apt. I don't consider myself a linux user - I consider myself a Debian user. I consider myself a user of the Free Gnu OS, of which Linux is just one optional part. I look forward to being able to use APT to upgrade my kernel away from Linux.

And FYI, more than a few times, I have heard in the popular press mentions of Red Hat as an OS, without calling it "Linux". I'd hardly say that the rote typing of four lines in a BASH shell makes you more of a "linux" user than the next geek. I'd like to see you install a functional Linux kernel without utilizing a previously installed (by RPM? Tar.gz?) Linux kernel. Even more impressive, to be a literal "linux user" you should avoid the GNU toolkits.

The problem with Debian...

[aussersterne]

[Okay, I'm prepared to lose four karma points over this, offtopic, flamebait, troll, overrated, all the way to -1, just because there are so many damn Debian cheerleaders here and moderation is so damn broken]

The problem with Debian is that it's too stable. What I mean by that is that though Debian does feel very stable, the current release also feels about 5 years behind other Linux operating systems in many ways, while not being all that much more stable than Red Hat, Caldera, or Slackware.

I run Debian on a couple of PowerPC-based Web servers so it's not like I've never used it. I'd run Red Hat or Slackware on them if I could, though.

And dselect has to go. Is there a new installer/package selector coming in the next major release, or will Debian still be the ugliest and clumsiest Linux to install on the face of the earth? Way back at Slackware 2.x, its installer was pretty, powerful, automatable, and easy to use.

Red Hat installs a lot of crap, but it's got a decent record of keeping up on updates in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. no lurking glibc bug) and most of the software around the net will run on it.

Aside from the multi-platform abilities of Debian, I really see no reason to use it, especially as .deb packaging moves farther toward the standardization fringes...

Re:The problem with Debian...

[dondelelcaro]

The problem with Debian is that it's too stable.

That's the oddest complaint about an OS that I've heard in a while.

Yes. The stable distribution of debian is stable. If you want the newest wiz-bang stuff, you use testing or unstable. It's that simple. My servers that need to be up 24x7 run stable. My workstation runs unstable with custom packages.

You also don't need to use dselect to install stuff. Haven't you used apt-get yet? Even the install process has a redhat like package selector for people who don't want the power (and hassle) of dselect.

Re:The problem with Debian...

[Peaker]

As people always respond to this bogus, false FUD:
Debian is NEWER than Redhat, and I won't even compare with Slackware, which I wouldn't call a distribution, as an installer and a bunch of precompiled tarballs are not a distribution.

Debian unstable is more stable than Redhat's current, and contains a lot newer packages from my experience, and everyone else who used both.
Not to mention that Debian's much saner file system hierarchy standards, configuration defaults, alternatives system, package managers and packages' quality are much better.

Yes, Debian's installer sucks, but if you're going to choose a distribution on the basis of its installation process, which occurs once, rather than the basis of use, which is what you do with it forever, then go ahead and use Redhat, Mandrake, or any of those nice installers.

As for dselect, you're living in the past. Nobody uses dselect.
Whenever I install Debian, I choose (6) and quit dselect immediately when its run. I don't see dselect ever again.

There are MANY alternatives to dselect, you just weren't looking:

apt-find

aptitude

kpackage

gnome-apt

and ofcourse, apt-get

Aside from the multiplatform abilities, I see reasons to use Debian:

Stable, good quality packages, that all come from a centralized source that makes sure they work well together, have a decent and secure default configuration, and just require no hassle to manage, install, and upgrade.

A great bug tracking system to make sure all bugs are known by Debian, the authors, and anyone else involved

Great package managers (See above list), and really amazingly smooth upgrade-ability

The most stable distribution, assuming you use stable, and the newest assuming you use unstable

And many more...

Debian on 68k Mac

[bedouin]

I'm about to trade an old PC for a Mac Quadra 700. Has anyone tried the 68k version of Debian? I'm either going to install it or BSD, but I'm leaning more toward Linux since I'm familar with it.

Re:Debian on 68k Mac

[saintlupus]

I ran Debian briefly on a Mac Quadra 950 I had kicking around - it was all right, but being more of a BSD guy, I preferred NetBSD.

I actually installed NetBSD on the very same machine you're asking about, a Q700. Go to my site (www.roadflares.org) and check in the "hardware" section for details.

--saint

Standard Debian Bash.

[TheQuantumShift]

Personally, I don't use it, as I have not attained the level of "leetness" that is required. That said, I thinks it's awesome that development is still going for this and many other distributions (Slackware...). It may not be ready for "Prime Time" (whatever the hell that means...) but Linux is gaining ground everyday while the major OS vendors (Mainly M$) are slapping ever more intelligent users with useless bloat, and the silliest licensing schemes known to man. Someday thank God, when I go into comp USA, and buy a PC, they'll ask "and which OS would you like?" That's when open source has won. God, I love stating the obvious...

Re:Debian sucks nuts

[Xoro]

What I'd love to see are ISOs of kernel + base. Since everybody needs base anyway, no bandwidth is wasted. Since CDs cost about 25 cents, no waste burning just that small amount. From what I could tell on the site, the only way to build a debian bootable CD was from debian scripts, hard to do before the install. At the least, they could write a faq on how to lay out the directories and such when writing the floppy images to disk to burn your own.

I just had to work through an install with a flakey floppy drive and it killed me to fight through all that when it could've been so easy.

Upgrading my kernel to 2.4.x, though, was shockingly easy.

Re:And I just put 2.2r4 on yesterday....

[rl117]

When upgrading from CD e.g. slink->potato, versions of dpkg and apt are provided on the CD, which are required to be manually installed before running 'apt-get dist-upgrade'. I didn't do this when upgrading from potato->sid and had dpkg segfault and apt-get fail several times. Once it upgraded to the new versions, I got no further problems...

Upgrading from one distribution to another is a major task, but if you prepare for it, it should go smoothly.

cruft doesn't remove anything

[CentrX]

cruft reports files on the system that do not belong to any Debian package (and aren't in a list of known configuration files for installed packages). You yourself can then remove them. It's still very useful.

Re:cruft doesn't remove anything

[Faceprint]

oops, you're right. debfoster is what I was thinking of. Both very useful tools.

Re:does it still have that installer?

[Cro Magnon]

I like Slackware's installer and FreeBSD's, but Debian's still sux!