Slashdot Mirror
Debian 3.0 (Woody) May 1?
dex@ruunat noted that this morning, in a message to the debian-devel-announce mailing list, Anthony Towns, Debian's Release Manager, wrote: "I'm becoming increasingly confident in woody's release
readiness. So, to go out on a limb: Debian 3.0 (codenamed woody) will release on May 1st, 2002."
Congrats to all the debheads putting this thing together. I have a blank
CDR waiting ;)
I'm confident in my woody as well, so much so I'm ready to release it too!
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Like anyone else does so? ...
Mandrake 8.2, RedHat 7.2,
Release numbers for packaging distributions are, and should be numbered by the people maintaining the distribution, to reflect their own perception of whether the release is a major, or minor improvement over the previous release.
For Linus and co, the enhancements to the kernel that moved it from 2.2 to 2.4, were minor changes, things like adding USB support, do not warrent a major version number. If the scheduler or virtual memory manager gets a major improvement, that would probably warrent a version 3.0, or so.
With Debian, the kernel is not the only thing that gets improved by moving from potato to woody. Updates to the user interfaces; Gnome and KDE; many packages, OpenOffice, ssh, and others; as well as the improvements to the kernel, moving from 2.2 to 2.4; suggest that this will be a Major improvement to the Debian Distribution.
Then again, they may be looking at other distribution version numbers and thinking that the public will percieve Debian 2.4 to be less "market" friendly than Debian 3.0.
After all, I wasn't in on the decision to version the software, and these are only my opinions. I could be wrong.
-Rusty
You never know...
Yes: 1 blank CD-R to boot from.
/var/cache/apt/archives of packages that I've apt-getted in the past.
Why bother downloading 8 images when most of the stuff isn't going to be used? Well, I speak for myself there... I need a portion of the distro. Use 1 disk to boot from, and then apt-get what I need. Which reminds, I need to clean out some 530MB from
if you have a fast connection. if not you might want to build a local repository. this would take much more than one cdr. apt-getting 600 megs of stuff over a modem is not a happy thing.
on a side note. many people say with respect to debian: just apt-get blah and it will install it. they never say apt-get blah and if it fails try apt-get -f. if that fails try touching the file it's looking for, etc. point: apt-get doesnt work 100% of the time-especially when you're not using potato. when it fails, a new user will find it confusing and might be turned off by all the posts where people say: oh well that always works fine for me.
this is not a troll, but a serious comment. apt is a great thing, and when it works correctly it is wonderful. this is also not ment to slight the debian developers. they work hard to make sure all the packages work together and all of the dependancies are met.
-- john
The first netinst cd for debian that I ever saw was here. Now, we also have this one and this one.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Debian includes more applications. And it's cheaper (even if you buy the CDs). It tends to be lag behind other distros when new stuff comes out (for example the current Debian stable distro, 'potato', is still using the 2.2 kernel - Woody will be the first Debian stable release based on 2.4). Part of the reason is that a Debian release is tested on 11 different architectures including Sun Sparc, 68000, alpha, etc whereas Mandrake is available only for 4 architectures (and most distros are just for Intel). OTOH this extra testing uncovers bugs that other distros just ship; Debian is widely believed to be the most stable and most nearly bug-free of all distros. Mandrake's main distinguishing feature is its GUI. It's supposed to be the easiest distro to learn and use. Debian is at the opposite end of the GNU/Linux spectrum in this regard, you need to be comfortable with the command line to like Debian.
Which kernel would that be? A BSD kernel perhaps? OpenBSD is at 3.0 last I checked, so that works out, unless you believe that Debian/NetBSD is more realistic.
Facetious, perhaps, but you fail to acknowlegde that Debian is a "kernel independant Operating System" that is popularly based on Linux. There is nothing stopping debian users from chosing KDE if that is their preferred desktop environment, just as there is nothing stopping x86 users from choosing The Hurd if their hardware supports it.
Debian has a larger scope then you seem to realize. Distinction from the Linux kernel is the best reason I can see for supporting a Major release increment to 3.0, as otherwise I would much prefer a more conservative path better utilizing the range of our decimal counting system under the auspices of 2.x.
While I hope my post has contained a modicum of sensibility, I fear that this is not the case.
Please, just try a netinst image.
It's about 30MB, and only retrieves the necessary packages off of the internet / other sources.
Not planned:
-KDE 3.0
-Apache 2.0
-XFree 4.2
Not good, eh?
have you been defaced today?
If the scheduler or virtual memory manager gets a major improvement, that would probably warrent a version 3.0, or so.
Which is why they changed the VM in the middle of the 2.4 series :)
Fromo .h tml
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/editors/nan
"GNU nano is a free replacement for Pico, the default Pine editor. Pine is copyrighted under a slightly restrictive license, that makes it unsuitable for Debian's main section. GNU nano is an effort to provide a Pico-like editor, but also includes some features that were missing in the original, such as 'search and replace', 'goto line' or internationalization support. As it's written from scratch, it's smaller and faster.
"
I am seriously switching from slackware to something else, for the lack of tgz nowadays.
.tgz packages.
Try here. They have a good repository of recent stuff bundled as Slackware
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Debian is different in that:
I started with RedHat and Mandrake back four years ago. Went to Slackware so I could get things configured the way I wanted them. And ended up at Debian because it was the best of both worlds.
Generally, if Debian-Stable is too slow for you, run Testing or Unstable. That will get you the very best of the bleeding edge software, along with all the bloodshed that goes along with it.
I have been running with Testing for about a year plus. Last month I was really disgusted with Debian. After looking at the other Distros out there. Debian still rocks!!!
Check out the aptitude program (you'll have to install the package of the same name) -- it's really good and getting even better fast; the author really seems to be on the ball (it used to be pretty bad, so if you tried it before and dismissed it, try it again). Not only does it provide a great full-screen apt interface, but it also has a command-line mode that improves on apt-get!
This is the package management interface that debian's been waiting for, IMHO.
[another alternative is `deity' (ne `console-apt'), but though it's rather colorful, the UI basically sucks; aptitude is much better.]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
They are both excellent. It's like comparing apples and hamburgers. I have both on the drive (no win$low os in sight)... Mandrake can be made to install .debs and Debian can handle rpms, so I have the best ot both worlds. The APT labyrinth in debian is not easy to learn. You hit the wrong button and you're in for a 500MB download. I have used Debian since the very beginning of debian. Mandrake, however, is the only rpm based distro I like, the community is strong, and they are truly open. The PreZ of Mandrake, LeMarois, is a fine person, and devoted to Open Source.
The ideal is to have both Debian and Mandrake. That way you can take your time learning Debian.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
What the heck do user interfaces and packages have to do with an operating system? Why would any developer include packages when latest versions can be downloaded from the official web sites? Linux people, I'll never understand them.
Point for point:
In the case of the Debian Operating System, they are more significant than the fallacious significance of a kernel to the entirety of an OS. Some reasons include the desire for permanence and local reproducability of an instance of an OS enviroment, as well as potential scarcity of Web connectivity. The final statement is not a question. If you are referring to AI, then I am amazed that there are "Linux people" that are beyond the comprehension of the average HomoSapiens Technophilia. If you express puzzlement over the preferences exhibited by Linux-based OS bigots, then perhaps I can help point you in a direction to enligtenment. If youd rather remain Linux segregated, then go in peace; we are done here.
The confusion over the importance of UIs to OSes in my experience indicate an affinitty for Unix. Perhaps it would be a better world if an OS were naught but embedded daemons. There was a revolution, for better or worse, in which the "Personal Computer" lead the forefront, resulting in the sanctity of computer becoming debased. Now computing is a public phenomenon, and has at the very least benefitted from economies of scale. Your elitism against common "lusers" seems naive.
As for "packages", I can only assume that that you are a BSD fan. You already implied that you don't use a package independant Linux distribution, and I infer from your championing Web downloads that you aren't likely a commercial Unix weenie. Commercial Unices do tend to be use packaging systems in my experience. If I am correct in considering you a BSD fan, then statstically I can consider you a FreeBSD user.
Why exactly do you find Linux people inferior? Unless you are among the minority of kernel hackers, you likely find the userland inferior. UIs differences between BSD and Linux based "Unices" being as trivial as the are, the only deficiency apparent from your message is that of many packaging systems associated with Linux. In that case, May I suggest that you give Rock Linux which doesn't use packages, but rather compiles binaries from officail sources, much like FreeBSD ports. It isn't makefile based, but maybe spending time with it will enlighten you, or at least elucidate your perceptions of Linux's apparent shortcomings. Note that FreeBSD also offers packages, so your criticism isn't very valid as it stands. Perhaps you have more fruitful criticisms to offer. Most likely, IHBT, IHL, HAND.
In any case, Debian news items should contain a disclaimer that Debian is not Linux! Debian is a very modular and comprehensive system that offers Linux, just like it offers GNOME and Emacs. Debian needs GNU, but it doesn't need Linux, and there are plenty of Debian users that aren't "Linux people". Debian can just as easily look like VIM running over the Hird. I look forward to a stable Debian/NetBSD running on SGI MIPS R5K hardware, hopefully decades before Debian "Soldier" release 4.0.
-castlan
- It tracks which packages were installed `automatically' (e.g., to satisfy a dependency). If such `auto' packages later become unnecessary because nothing depends on them anymore, they will be uninstalled automatically.
- It has a powerful and useful search system -- you can search not only for package names, but for descriptions (and other package fields), various special attributes, and boolean combinations of these things. For instance, the search string `(lib)~i!~M!-dev' will find packages who's name matches the string `lib', and are installed, and were not automatically installed (see above), and who's name doesn't match the string `-dev'.
- These search expressions can be used not only in interactive searches (which, incidentally, are incremental, like Emacs's isearch), but also to limit the set of packages displayed, or to perform various operations in command-line mode. I could use the command `aptitude remove "(lib)~i!~M!-dev"' to remove all packages matching that expression (but I won't, since that it happens to match libc6).
As you can see, although aptitude is great for the non-expert user, because of the simple and intuitive interface, it's not just for them. Even when I want to install something from the shell, I now always use aptitude's command-line interface instead of apt-get, because of the above features.We live, as we dream -- alone....
Not only does some moderator need a flogging, but this post should be distilled into a Slashdot Advocacy summary that all Debian Related Slashdot News items automatically link to. This would really make the comments for Debian items much less trifling.
I'd remove all of the political/economic theory references in the first point, and maybe just illustrate how Debian quality isn't compromised by profit-motive based considerations, or externally imposed deadlines.
Also worth mentioning is that Debian is not Linux, unless you want it to use Linux. If it can be phrased lucidly and marketably, a bullet might be spared for the "Open Organization" of the Debian Project, with it's clear policy and democratic operation which gave rise to "Open Source" as we know it today. That last bit might not be worth mentioning, as this document would ideally be less propeganda than a premptive strike against ad Nauseam misguided advocacy and "Linux" postings in Debian topics.
If such a document were to be made, would there be any way to float it by the Slashdot powers that be? If I weren't wasting my time, I'd gladly write it, and submit it to Debian Proper for approval. Is there any red tape trail that might end with an automatic footnote/link to Debian related items on Slashdot?
Yes, I have heard that there are bf- prefixed images that have the 2.4 kernel and ReiserFS/ext3 support.
I have been patient with Debian. I have been persistent with Debian. I come bearing the news to Debian webmasters everywhere that the "bf-something Woody install" is not obvious. Not only in name obscurity when a Debian newbie would only know to look for 2.2 or 3.0 disc images, but also in placement on the website.
I have gone searching in vain for this bf-something install. I have looked in all of the obvious places on the website under such topics as "Getting Debian," "Debian on CD," and ""Download with FTP." This is bullshit. If this is everyone's definition of publically available, I must have missed that day of class. I even download some of those potentially nifty netinstall CD images in the hopes that they simply weren't labelled correctly with the magical bf- prefix.
Believe me, I have gone through a lot more effort than most casual visitors to the Debian site would have gone through. Unfortunately this is one area that Debian could learn from RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, et al in that the others provide an iso image, you download it, you burn it, and off you go. If the newer install with the updated kernel works so well, why hasn't the old installer been mothballed? Why would the old installer be offered? If the new installer has problems that preclude its replacement of the old installer, then the appropriate answer to my previous post would have been "they're working on it and it should be ready when 3.0 is released."
Is it a work in progress? Sure! I acknowledge that. I am used to that. I have no illusions that any Linux distribution is without its rough edges. But how much effort is it really to have in the download area, clearer instructions for creating a up-to-date install disc? All I see is the same old crap that makes me jump through hoops and auto-detects nothing (another gripe that I will forget for now simply because I know my hardware well enought to answer the endless series of questions) while making use of journalled filesystems far from the simple case it should be.
By all means, prove me wrong. By all means, show me an obvious link that demonstrates me to be a dullard who cannot read a web page. I am not above humility. Otherwise I will assume that a clean and complete Debian install is bullshit, must first be excavated by a Debian veteran who knows how to find it, and/or is of no use to the general public. Debian may be a great distribution, but that's pointless if most people can't install easily without sacrificing popular features (like journalled filesystems) or hunting through mailing list archives without really knowing for what they search.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
try this package: http://packages.debian.org/testing/admin/pine-trac ker.html
Desperation is a stinky cologne
That can't be good for the drive.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
apt-get build-dep pine
apt-get source --compile pine
dpkg --install *.deb
There's also a pine-tracker package, which apparently reminds you to upgrade when appropriate. I hope the standard tools make this unnecessary some day.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Thank you for the info but once again I must point out that none of this information is apparent from the main web page (or its primary links). If individuals (like myself) are looking into a distribution's feature set, they will not see journalled filesystems as an option; They will see it as an option for Linux, but not Debian. What's the difference? With RedHat, for example, you can set up a kickstart disc to handle bulk, unattended installs of RedHat Linux (since v5 or something like that). Journalled filesystems are available by default in the RedHat installer and therefore are available to kickstart.
Now let's look at Debian: install must be manually performed for each workstation/server and an extra setup tax is imposed to get it working with a journalled filesystem (to beat a dead horse). Therefore Debian doesn't support journalled filesystems. Linux supports them and Debian tags along for the ride.
With regard to Ext3 being "safer." How do you figure? Have you come across more failures (catastrophic or otherwise) with ReiserFS or XFS vs. ext3? Is it safer because you can revert back to ext2? I have not seen the former and don't consider the latter to be an advantage or inherently safer. FWIW I used XFS for months on several boxes both at home and at work and never had any problems. Why did I even try XFS? Because it was easy to setup with SGI's custom installer for RedHat.
And as the AnonCoward mentioned, what does recompiling a kernel have to do with the quality of install programs or a person's choice of distribution? For the record, I can and have patched and recompiled my kernel. I can also program in C, C++, Perl, Java, and a few others. I am well versed in multi-threaded and multi-process programming as well as distributed programming. What are your credentials?
Now that the big-dick thing is out of the way, I feel it necessary to point out that Debian's big advantage over RedHat (aside from being completely volunteer-driven) is maintenance after install while RedHat is historically easier to install. Recently with utilities such as up2date and red-carpet, RedHat has become much easier to maintain. So what is Debian offering me other than a warm, fuzzy feeling? People in general don't start or stop using a particular distribution (or Linux or BSD) because of a warm, fuzzy feeling.
RedHat (and others) are finally catching up with maintenance. If this "if you can't recompile a kernel" crap continues to be spewed from the Debian community, you may find that it gets ignored not because of technical inferiority but because most people don't care about comparitive excellence as long as the job gets done. An easy install program is the first step in making sure you keep people's attention long enough to demonstrate technical excellence.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.