Slashdot Mirror
Debian May 1 Release Delayed
andrew writes "Anthony Towns, Debian's Release Manager, posted this message regarding the status of the expected May 1st release of Woody made reference to in this slashdot story. In short, he says: "So, it's April 30th (for most of the planet, anyway), which probably means folks are beginning to get mildly curious about whether woody'll actually be ready for release tomorrow. The answer is a definite 'kind-of'. Which is to say, 'no'.""
How do you delay May 1st?
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
So Woody is going to become the new Stable, is that correct?
Keep that attitude up and you will be killed by thousands of "*BSD IS DYING!"-trolls. Believe me, they are greater in numbers than all open source zealots and even Microsoft fanboys together.
Delay of a release date is always a terrible thing, especially for the poor release manager, who, in this case, sounds like things got a little out of his control. Perhaps it's the peril of working on free software, and having volunteers instead of cubicle drones.
;p
Of course, the delay will net the Linux community something positive - a better Debian. Well, maybe not for the l33t d00ds out there who can take charge, and manually bonk around and get all their own security updates... but for the sysadmins, and the desktop supporting IT people.
What I'm wondering is why games are often the most delayed. If anything, a patch to a game won't be the most terrible thing you could do. But Neverwinter Nights, Duke Nukem Forever, oh, and that steaming John Romero pile... Every Blizzard game ever made! Hmmmm. Maybe they don't want us to have so much fun too fast.
If you would have read all of the article, you would have noticed that they were also delaying the release because they didn't have their procedures ready yet to release security updates on woody and potato at the same time. I think we should applaud them for remembering how important security is (Maybe msoft should take note?).
Currently there are 47 release-critical bugs;
woody will presumably released when these bugs
are closed... so help debuging !
I'm expecting to see a lot of 'Debian sucks, it's out of date before it's even released', but I think this is a good thing. Releasing a distribution before it's ready can be disasterous (RedHat's gcc 2.96 anyone?)... I'd rather have a working, secure, stable distribution a few days later than have a highly experimental one with all sorts of hidden defects right now.
I never really expected woody to go on May the 1st but still am obviously disappointed. However, getting over my own selfish wish to have new toys to play with - this demonstrates why debian is good. The guys preparing it have to deal with the same problems every other distributor deals with, except they seem to be obsessive about not releasing shoddy work just to meet a deadline. Given the enormous pressure to release they must be under from the community I reckon that takes guts and they should all be commended for it. (Doesn't stop me being desperate for woody though does it? :-))
Carpe Daemon
Why? Is it that project management and programming skills are two incompatible skills for a human brain? Is it that everyone try to hype their project by making people wait a little longer? Is it that `cal' has an undiscovered bug? Is the world made this way to please som obscure and annoying god?
I guess it's a mix.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
... as iso images.
People already running Debian/Sparc or Debian/Alpha will be able to update using apt-get.
The only problem will be that you can't install new machines using woody (but you can install potato and then do a apt-get dist-upgrade to get a recent OS).
Jo
--
Hi! I'm the infamous
reading the tone of aj's message, he seems to be blaming various members indirectly for the delay. surely if he is the "woody release manager", he:
a) wouldn't have let these issues which have been known for months only crop up now.
b) should have known earlier than the day before to announce the delay.
so if you consider the delay of woody to be a failure, i wouldn't blame the anonymous (yet cited) individuals who checked in code late. i would blame the process that resulted in these events.
Debian only uses a 2.2 kernel as the default, there's a number of different 2.4 kernels available as add-on packages. While this may be conservative, it _does_ give users a choice of either being conservative or going out on a limb and trying the still-not-entirely-stable 2.4 kernel.
I don't agree with that, the Millenium Bug went off at the right time on a few systems, did prove unreliable as it was expected to work elsewhere too, but they did get it out (well done guys).
Those timestamped virii seem to do pretty well, announcement goes out before hand and it does work for some people, of course for others it gets broken by another piece of software that just seems designed to break it (which doesn't seem very good software practice to me).
And of course Unix, which is delivered EVERYTIME you install it as Jan 1 1970, which is very impressive, that means you install it BEFORE you need it, even if you decide to install it after you need it!
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I'm wondering, does anyone have any record/memory of how late other debian releases were past the promised date?
evanchik.net
Alot of other distro release x86 first and Sparc/Whatever later on. Why can't Debian do that?
... not many people can even name that many to begin with.
Debian supports _11_ architectures - a few weeks ago a friend of mine dug up an old sun he had in his basement. We installed Woody. It works exactly the same as it does on my x86 machine, that's awesome.
In one of the last XFree stories, the Xfree maintainer mentioned that he will not treat non-x86 people like second class citizens. Now, I partially agree with you, I'm an x86-only person myself, but think about it, 11 architectures
Woody will not include KDE 3. I don't mind them not having KDE 3 in May 2002, but that means they won't have KDE 3 in May 2003 either!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Who this really affects are us Debian Developpers who are sitting on packages waiting for woody to be released. I have a series of changes that must *not* go into woody.
I remember waiting for potato. There was no announcement about the release date, but a daily statistics of release critical bugs was published on debian.org. Often you could read a sentence like this:The number of release critical bugs is on the rise again.
Really, it's only the people using ISO's that even care. And they don't even need it. It's easy enough to install a base minimum system using the current release, then change one line in your sources file, run apt-get dist-upgrade, and magically you're using Woody. I'd venture to say that most people currently running Debian did this exact thing. And those very people won't gain much, if anything, from an official release.
So who exactly are the great hordes who are out there demanding that this new, wonderful product be released? Do they even exist?
Last time (2-3 weeks ago) I tested the Woody ISO:s you could choose a couple of different kernel-images for installation, three of them were 2.2.X images and one was with 2.4.18. I installed with 2.4.18 and it worked like a charm. I don't think there's anything wrong with the ability to choose. If you install it with the default 2.2 kernel you can apt-get the 2.4.18 packages and have that kernel installed instead.
Quite frankly, I fail to see what's news about it. There has never been a formal announcement of a May 1st release deadline, just a message in which the release manager went out on a limb: "So, to go out on a limb: Debian 3.0 (codenamed woody) will release on May 1st, 2002. Actually, as always, it'll release when it's ready: if we find that the software doesn't meet our expectations on April 30th, you'll find me on the ground writhing in pain with leaves, bark and wood all over the place [1].
(2) Because its a rather frivalous reason. Alot of other distro release x86 first and Sparc/Whatever later on. Why can't Debian do that?[1] I'm going out on a limb, remember."
Because Debian doesn't treat non-x86 users as second class citizens, and because the developers already have enough versions (stable, testing, unstable) of their packages to worry about without different archs having different versions.
Oh well I'm sure they will get it worked out in due time - until then I'm sure more and more people will begin to think of Debian as a dead distribution rather than as an active one.
Debian's release is going to be dead alright. Dead stable that is, which is exactly the goal of a Debian release. Anyone who gets a woody from a daily fix of "latest and greatest" versions can run woody (testing), or unstable and doesn't have to care about releases. Releases are for folks who require stability.
They really don't have anybody to blame but themselves I mean they are the only ones shipping a distro that still uses the 2.2 kernel. There are sound reasons for shipping with a 2.2 kernel as the default kernel; check the archives for the debian-boot and debian-cd lists. In any case, 2.4 kernels are supported, just use the "bf2.4" flavour of the installation system.For most purposes, Woody has been pretty stable for months. All this new date means is that "Woody" becomes the officially released "Stable" Debian distribution.
Debian is a little behind because they insist that all software be packaged and configured in a consistent way. It makes for a more stable and upgradeable system.
Debian has high quality standards, which contributes to these kinds of delays.
Trading off a few weeks of bleeding edge currency for stability seems well worth it to me.
Taco posts this in the "who's suprised by that department", yet let's all start the timer until the next time that one of the /. editors makes some sarcastic comment about .NET being delayed...
Come on, people. Just add testing to your apt-sources and upgrade already. The damn thing is much more stable than any other Linux distro at this point, and KDE1 and a 1.0 Kernel must be getting old by now.
I'm not ragging on Debian, it's just that Woody has been stable enough for production machines for a long damn time. That's a Good Thing(tm).
sm
I agree that there's nothing wrong with the ability to chose, but I just wondered what problems there were with 2.4.X. -- huw
Actually there is not even an official announcement about the release date of woody. Instead there is an official announcement that they will not announce any release date!
This is good news. I've been a Debian fan for a while, but being able to point to this posting as a proof of just how serious they take security (serious enough to delay a release) will make it much easier for me to push Debian in my work environment.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Murphy's Law #46 Each computer code has five bugs, and this number does not depend on how many bugs have been already found (it is conservative). and #36 Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
The last thing I want to read about is debate over when it's time to "release the woody." That is just nasty, and there is no place for such filth on the Internet.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
There have been several pieces of software which have been relased and then patched within weeks of the release... infact, wasnt XP one of those products?
As long as the delay is reasonable, and there are good reasons to delay (which I'm sure there are) then dont complain!
debian are doing us all a favour by not releasing something their note sure of quite yet
The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time
Last time I tested 2.4.18 the USB support was severely broken (uhci doesn't work, usb-uhci lockups right when inserting the module (or the other way round)). It worked fine in 2.4.17... Another example: half a year ago the fresh installation of Mandrake took my data for a breakfast. The reason was USB combined with devfs, it was actually quite reproducible. Alan Cox said something along "we have a reason why we don't enable devfs in Red Hat" after I reported the problems on linux-kernel.
I don't know whether Debian also quality-assures the kernel and makes own patches as the commercial distros do. If they don't, their concerns about stability are quite valid.
The 2.2 default with the ability to choose seems like a wise solution right now.
Some would still have the time to crawl to their computer and make it do the apt-get dist-upgrade when they're having fun
If you read Anthony's message, woody is now decoupled from unstable -- essentially as if it were a stable release. Since the only thing the release is waiting on is rbuilder (as I read the message), I think people can start uploading new stuff to unstable again if they want.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I'd rather have a working, secure, stable distribution a few days later than have a highly experimental one with all sorts of hidden defects right now.
Sounds like Linux isn't the system for you. Try FreeBSD
so i'm going around, wherever possible, and promoting debian as THE standard linux distibution. bye-bye red hat, au revoir mandrake, auf wiedersehen suse, adios connectiva, and so on. all of these distribution companies should stop trying to sell linux itself, and instead sell supporting content like applications, books, support services, etc. in turn they would then contibute to a single standard linux distribution, i.e. debian. why? because if they all did, hardware and software vendors would rally behind liux having a single install base to support, administrators could be confident in deployment of linux on the company desktop, and end-users would no longer be swimming in sea of distribution confusion, and then in about 2 seconds flat the microsoft tyranny would finally fall. it is really just that simple: united we stand, divied we fall. viva la debian!!!
:T:R:A:N:S:
NOTE: THIS IS MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF EVENTS AND NOT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEBIAN!
For people who didn't read or failed to comprehend Anthony's message, here are the relevant parts:
On the upside, woody itself is ready to be released. The only outstanding
changes that need to be made are the standard security fixes that need
to be made throughout the lifetime of stable anyway.
Unfortunately, that's exactly where we've dropped the ball: the security
team presently don't have the resources to handle security advisories
for woody.
...
the final automatic run of the testing scripts was today, and will
be reflected in the next mirror pulse. From this point, we'll have
manually approved security updates to some packages, and very little
else, until release.
This translates to the following: woody is now being treated as if it were a stable release. The only thing that it doesn't have at the moment is support from the security team.
The reason it is not being released as stable is that it is significantly harder for the security team to support than potato (due to almost-doubling the number of architectures), and "over the next week or so", technical solutions to this problem will be implemented. If you can live without this for a while (I don't know how long this will take to resolve, but it sounds like a few weeks is an upper bound), you can install woody now. Otherwise, you might want to wait a bit.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
How many people does this actually affect? I realize that their are probably some Alpha and Sparc owners on this board and in the community but how many of those people are actually running Debian?
I am runnung Woody on Aplha, and I realy appeciate Debian's policy: RedHat and Suse do not seem to care about alpha any more and Debian is probably most up-to date alpha distro if you are using testing (which seems to be very stable). Anyway you can all the time add packages from unstable.
dont particulary care for Debian myself - but this all seems rather stupid.
So shut up and do not call stupid peopple that are probably much smarter than you
(1) Because they shouldn't have waited until the last minute to break the news (2)
What news do you mean? Posts to the mailing list?
Because its a rather frivalous reason. Alot of other distro release x86 first and Sparc/Whatever later on. Why can't Debian do that?
Maybe because they just care about their users - not just to be like other distros?
Oh well I'm sure they will get it worked out in due time
Do not you thing theat it is the best policy - release something when it works? Untin then you can still use it - it is probably more stable than most other stable distros
until then I'm sure more and more people will begin to think of Debian as a dead distribution rather than as an active one
If those peopple are the ones that care only about higher numbers they should choose other distro.
They really don't have anybody to blame but themselves
They do not blame anybody, these are morons like you who complain about something they do not use
I mean they are the only ones shipping a distro that still uses the 2.2 kernel
Yes, and also 2.4.
happy debian user
some of the speed issues are rather maddening. Consider: I work very closely with the debian maintainer for
nano, in fact I'd say we are friends. He has done his best to get a particular nasty issue, in fact the problem was annoying enough that it required a fix upstream (on my end). But even though two official releases have gone by since the fix was put in upstream, it may not in fact end up in the first release of woody, four months later. I have used debian for probably 5 years now, but I have to wonder if source distros like gentoo have the right idea about making the user decide how to compile his or her package which severely cuts down the burden on the package maintainers. I guess it all comes back to how to balance the burden of upstream/package maintainer/end user...
v2sw7CUPhw5ln6pr5Pck4ma7u7LFw0m6g/l7Di5e6t5Ab6TH.
I honnestly don't mind it if Woody is a few weeks late from the ETA, especially if it's about making the build more consistant between all architectures and to ensure the security patches will be uploaded in a timely manner.
What I do mind is Woody being delayed, only a few weeks from when packages like KDE 3.0 and Gnome 2.0 would become stable enough for inclusion. Meanwhile, at the moment, Galeon and Mozilla don't build cleanly on all platforms, not to mention XFree86 4.2 ...yes, Branden explained that he must first smooth the process for all architectures and I agree with him, however...
What makes Debian support by makers of non-free packages so absent is because Debian stable distros are always 2 years behind everybody else, in terms of what version of glibc, XFree or kernel the stable distro is installing with. There are two solutions I can think of for that:
Otherwise, if we're gonna wait a few more weeks, we might as well give KDE 3.0 and Gnome 2.0 (not to mention XFree 4.2) enough time to slide from unstable to testing and be included with Woody. Nobody that needs Linux in a production environment can afford to wait 2 years for those to be released, at a time when they are just upgrading to Woody from their already much deprecated Potato. When it comes to that, the solution will be to crossgrade to Suse or Red Hat, if a desired package is not available the day Woody makes it to stable and becomes a priority upgrade on everyone's TO-DO list; Debian will be no more in yet a few production environments, if it looks like it's gonna be obsolete at birth again, the same way Potato was.
As for those who feel like saying Blah! Just point your APT sources to unstable, you'll always have the latest!, don't.
While testing is almost sufficiently stable for a production environment, it is a constantly moving target that would need to be upgraded every couple of days; this is simply impractical for a production environment, nobody has that much spare time on their hands at work.
Then unstable is, as its name implies, unstable; I've often had computers become partially incapacitated for a few days, because some new package was uploaded without its updated dependencies, making APT stop the upgrade process right after unpacking a few packages.
The solution to the perpetual Debian release lag is simple: release always, release often. Allowing new packages based upon existing libc or xlib to be released within the lifespan of a distro - not just bugfixes and security patches - is a must, at the very least.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Read the message from Anthony Towns. The only real problem is getting a mechanism in place to automatically build security updates for the 11 architectures supported by woody when the need arises. The architectures currently in potato are not a problem, just the additional 5 added since. The release will be delayed until this mechanism is in place.
This is a very sensible decision, and should be applauded.
How many people does this actually affect? I realize that their are probably some Alpha and Sparc owners on this board and in the community but how many of those people are actually running Debian? Are they really comtemplating dragging out their already elongated release schedule because of two platforms that the vast majority of Debian Users dont care about?
Believe it or not, quite a few of us run Debian on Alpha and SPARC and most of us also care about _correctness_. That is, Debian should behave exactly the same (apart from bootloaders and hardware-specific stuff) across all its supported archs.
Read: correctness. Remember that we Linux advocates (like the NetBSD project) tout the fact that Linux is portable as a mark of its quality? Well, Debian is the practical manifestation of that assertion.
Alot of other distro release x86 first and Sparc/Whatever later on. Why can't Debian do that?Because Debian doesn't discriminate against non x86 and non PPC users. All are equally important.
And again, the distro is broken until all release-critical issues are resolved on all platforms.
On the contrary, a lot of non-x86 users (particularly Alpha and SPARC) are abandoning the other distros (esp. commercial distros that must contend with "userbase" viability issues) in favor of Debian.
A analogy: Debian is to Linux as NetBSD is to *BSD.
They really don't have anybody to blame but themselves I mean they are the only ones shipping a distro that still uses the 2.2 kernel.This shows that you are really clueless about other archs.
I suppose you must fall into either the "overclocked 3+GHz Pentium IV" or "yummy Apple G4 Supercomputer" crowd.
How the shoddiest technology always wins the greatest marketshare :-/
~PA
I was hoping to celebrate two things on that day. Now I can only look forward to cheering the first year with my beloved. Life is so cruel! Damn you Debian for letting me down! *sobbing*
j/k
Why bother.
Meaningless misleading statistics on how many packages of each architecture are downloaded every day from gluck.debian.org (a main http.us.debian.org rotation server) are available here. Someday I'll get the rrdtool feed working.
This strikes me as really good news. Here is an outfit which takes my security seriously. This gives me a lot more confidence that I can rely on them to keep my machine running with no hassles to me. I have my apt-get sources file pointed at the stable distribution, and that description is going to continue to be accurate.
Thanks, Debian maintainers!
8088
8086
80186
80286
80386
80486
Pentium
Pentium Pro
Pentium II
Pentium III
Pentium IV
There ya go, all ten-plus-one of them.
this will result in worldwide protests.
police will have a hard time, calming down the debian-users.
join the revolution
(SPARC hardware is a thing of beauty, it really is. I wish x86 had these kinds of capabilities. (Net booting, not floppy booting.))
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
Now I can only look forward to cheering the first year with my beloved.
You've had a Real Doll for a year now? How time flies. Post a review!
When Potato became the stable distribution, everyone said that they should have waited just a tiny bit longer, because Linus was supposed to release the new 2.4 kernel any day now. It turned out that the 2.4 kernel was delayed, and if Potato had waited for it, it would have been far too long.
/etc/apt/sources.conf file to read stable. Leave it at testing, and you'll get the new KDE and Gnome very soon.
There are thousands of packages in Debian. If any single package upgrade is not ready for the release, it's not fair to the other packages and their maintainers to make them wait. If you want to have more up to date stuff on your system, then when Woody becomes stable, don't change your
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
On my Debian system, I don't install any kernel packages or headers at all. I get the source and compile it myself, in the same way that everyone else does (not the Debian way - compiling the source through the packager).
This works just fine. Woody has absolutely no problems with the 2.4 kernels, so if you want to go that route, you should be fine.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I think this is a bit of equivocation.
The project manager definitely said that they were planning release of May 1. Call it unofficial or official or whatever, the statement was made by the person nominally in charge of the project.
I'm using Red Hat right now, and one reason (the main reason is that it actially installed smootly on my machine, unlike mandrake, slack or debian) is that I'm a little put off by the seat of the "seat-of-their-pants" way the project seems to be run.
I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm sure that the project is filled with fine programmers, but for users and potential users of the system, there seems to be a lack of accountability.
evanchik.net
Actual Debian release dates:
1.1 Buzz: June 1996
1.2 Rex: December, 1996
1.3 Bo: July 1997
2.0 Hamm: July, 1998
2.1 Slink: 09 March, 1999
2.2 Potato: 14 August, 2000
3.0 Woody: Somewhere May/June 2002
As you can see Debian didn't always have the 2 year stable waiting problem....
The First 1.x Stable releases where half a year away from each other...
That could however be explained by the fact that then there where only 474 (1.1) - 974 (1.3) packages when today there are over 2500 packages....
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
In one of the last XFree stories, the Xfree maintainer mentioned that he will not treat non-x86 people like second class citizens.
Its more than that; from Branden's (Xfree86 maintainer) posting...
In woody, we support 11 architectures: alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc. For how many of these machine architectures do Slackware, Mandrake, or Red Hat have 4.1.x, let alone 4.2, available? [emphasis mine] XFree86 themselves don't test or prepare distribution tarballs for several of these architectures. Debian is the de facto portability laboratory for XFree86 on Linux. Sure, I'll grant you that a lot of people, the kinds with the overclocked Pentium 4's and the latest GeForce card, really don't care about portability, or supporting architectures they've never heard of. But portability is important to me and it's important to Debian. I refuse to treat non-i386 users like second-class citizens.
Now that's class, and that's why I'm going to kiss a little backside and give all of the Debian developers/maintainers a big virtual pat on the back and say "thanks for all of the work you guys have done, both on Woody and in Debian in general."
Jay (=
(A perfectly happy Debian user who doesn't mind one whit that Woody will take a few more days...)
You never really explained why you don't care for Debian. But you should know better than to drop flame-bait like this.
Debian is stable
Debian is consistent
Can't beat that with any other distribution on the market, free or otherwise. And no, I cannot name 11 differenct architectures, can you? Can RedHat? Can anyone claim to have support like this?
Yeah, but don't they have more people working on the packages as well?
BTW, thanks for the dates. They really help to put things into perspective.
I'm wondering if maybe debian ought to consider lessening the scope and ambitiousness of its releases, if only to keep them a little more current.
I now await the being repeatdly told that apt-get will solve all problems, including war in the Mid-East.
evanchik.net
someone *please* mod this up
evanchik.net
I fully agree with that, if you read my previous post until the end. Unfortunately, people in charge of the Debian project seem to insist upon freezing a distro until the next snapshot... which usually means in about 2 years.
My main point concerns those killer apps that would make Debian the desktop Linux distro of choice, instead of constantly relagating it to server setups. Right now, KDE 3.0 and Gnome 2.0 with its faster Nautilus, along with XFree86 4.2, is what's on every desktop user's lips, along with Evolution and OpenOffice.
That's why I suggested that we either wait a few more weeks until those packages are fit for release, or otherwise implement a faster release schedule that would allow integrating them within 6 months from now, not in two years. Otherwise, we can kiss Debian goodbye as a desktop choice. If you don't understand what I mean by that, ask the Opera or Ximian people when they expect to have Woody packages ready, you'll see what I mean (and those are companies willing to support Debian).
By the time you get to companies whose traditional market is commercial Unices, Linux means Red Hat to them, because the product is well-known, supported by certifications programs and professional services. Trying to convince those companies to support anything else than Red Hat is a pure waste of time, because in supporting Debian they would need to produce packages using libs and compilers dated from two years ago, instead of using alien or whatever else to repackage existing binaries; you simply won't get any of them to go that far to begin with... until Debian manages to keep itself in sync with the rest of the Linux universe. Harsh reality, but true.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
when today there are over 2500 packages....
Actually, Potato has around 4500 packages, and Woody will probably be released with something like 8500 packages (and Unstable is closing in on 10,000).
From /usr/share/doc/kernel-source-2.4.18/changelog . z:
kernel-source-2.4.18 (2.4.18-5) unstable; urgency=low
* Corrected AdvWriteDWordLramNoSwap in drivers/scsi/advansys.c
(Jerome L. Quinn, closes: #128080).
* Added check for VIA KT266 IO-APIC, version == 2 (closes: #136163).
* Updated pegasus driver (2.4.19pre6).
* Added ATARAID device names to main.c (Eduard Bloch, closes: #139604).
->* Updated uhci driver (Johannes Erdfelt, closes: #135785).
* Translate slashes in broken Acorn ISO9660 file systems (Darren Salt,
closes: #141660).
* Added newline to printk in drivers/sound/i810_audio.c
(handler-case@gmx.net, closes: #142214).
* Updated parport driver (2.4.19pre6).
-- Herbert Xu <herbert@debian.org> Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:07:22 +1000
Judging by what's said in bug 135785 <http://bugs.debian.org/>, it seems the problem is fixed. I'm not ready to swear that this package is the one used on bf2.4, however. I've got no USB hardware myself.
Maybe another solution is to build packages yourself if you need them that bad...
> 8088 > 8086 > 80186 > 80286 Unless you're considering the Elks project, Linux won't run on these MPUs. ~PA
Why are you forbidding me? :-)
Well, I skim -devel. I have too little time for it nowadays, which actually supports my point. We're all volunteers so there's nobody telling us that we must hand-hold that particular guy over there.
It ties a negligible amount of time, unless you voluntarily decide to hand-hold them. In traditional projects, where you work from nine to five, more than half of your daily eight hours can be taken by hand-holding that new guy, and you are forced to do that, you cannot choose to do development instead. And that's what causes Brooks' Law.
Debian does not live in the same world where a manager has to decide who does what. For that manager, Brooks' law shows that it's not useful to regard people and time as interchangeable quantities (ie. one developer for a month does not equal thirty developers for a day) and manpower is not a magic bullet. In Debian, nobody makes such centralized decisions.
Also, see this story on Debianplanet...
xer.xes -- 4181
Whenever a new release of Debian approaches, there are always people wanting it sooner and people wanting it later (so the very latest version of their favorite package can be included). Because Debian is released so infrequently, people fear they will be stuck with old software. As suggested, if Debian released every six months, like clockwork (and FreeBSD), then both parties would be satisified. There is always a new version just a few months away, so there is no need to worry if your favorite package didn't make it in this release. If Debian does not drop its "cathedral" developlment approach for shorter incremental developmenet.. well, we'll see ya'll in 2004 when a Debian stable released finally includes KDE 3.0, Gnome 2.0, and Mozilla 1.0.
cpeterso
but 'woody'll' is not even remotely proper. You can't make it into a contraction. 'woddy will' would be the correct way to say it.
Yes, they were planning a release for May 1, and he said so. Then, on April 30, he decided that there would not be a release on May 1, because the necessary infrastructure for successfully supporting security updates for 9000 (!) packages on 11 (!) architectures was not complete. What's wrong with this? Nothing.
I would not be surprised if some other distribution, such as possibly Red Hat, would release on May 1, no matter what regardless of any problems with such infrastructure, or even problems with the actual software. Rather than delaying the release (and making it seem like they're flying by the seat of their pants = bad PR), they would most likely it in some bad condition (and they have made many bad releases).
May 1 was set as a tentative date, and the stability and security of the Debian release was not compromised in order to meet it. This is commendable.
there seems to be a lack of accountability
Accountability for what? Anyone with such concern over the security of their system would not be so blithe as to use woody right away on May 1. They would test it thoroughly first, so there's no problem with people relying on that. Anyone who is not so concerned over security can still use woody anyway, right now, so there's no problem there. The fact is, Debian has consistently provided an extremely stable and extremely secure distribution, with many features not found in any other distribution.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Woody has over 9000 packages on 11 architectures. This is much more than any other Debian release, or any other distribution. Quite simply, I think the magnitude and stability of it is astounding.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
I'd like to point out something that a lot of non debian (and some debian) people miss, that the official release of woody as stable is realy only the concern of those running production (or mission crittical) machines.
normal desktop users dont realy need to concern them self with this, woody has been plenty ready for desktop (as long as u can afford the big apt-get upgrade d/l each week).
in fact i'v ran woody since last summer, and it has been far more stable then any of the mandrake installs i've had (i use to use mandrake before i switched to debian last summer)
i've encountered plenty of people who run pototoe when i feel they should be at least on woody. I think its what people imagine 'stable' and 'unstable' to be they use their experience with that other proprietory os, which dont realy apply to debian, because as this article points out releasing packages aint as important as testing them, unlike that other os vender
a program not working in sid, aint that likely because the apt-get tends to fail before it gets to install a nasty package, and any way stuff gets fixed quick.
woody/testing only get these packages once they seen to install and run ok in sid, but some less obvious bugs may remain, up until the freeze starts (which it did some time ago) then only packages that fix know problems in woody packages get moved on from sid
potatoe is 2 years old, aint ever going to get younger, bugs are fixed by the security updates, but for a desktop its hopeless, you have no chance of compiling any decent games =)
So if the product's late, obviously the team is just on strike....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If the release is delayed for a short period of time, ( >1 month), I would agree that this is not a big issue.
But the delay does bring into relief the very long development lags in debian. Two years is a long time for a version upgrade. Take a look at any other distro two years ago, and they don't stack up against more recent distros.
On the other hand, the forthrightness of the explanation for the delay is pretty commendable.
But debian really should do something about making for frequent "Stable" upgrades. I believe this could be done without impacting security.
I suppose the biggest problem is debian's huge scope. Not only 10000 packages, but 11 platforms. The old sytem of development that started with far fewer platforms and packages is not scaling well with the project's increase in scope.
So either the process needs to change or the scope should be lessened. Security and stability should not be compromised.
evanchik.net
Led Zeppelin's "Physical Graffiti," a double LP that is deffinatley one of the best works of the band, was delayed something like 8 weeks for the cover. That most have sucked for the Zepp fans in 1975.
Here's the catch: It had the most expensive cover ever made to that date. And it was soo damn cool (an apartment building that had pieces of paper with differnt pictures in the windows of the building that you could slide around to change. On the front AND back)
I don't know if that's a good analogy, but... hey, anything for a good time!
Da comp cant tell u da emotional story.It can give u da exact mathematical design,but whatz missin is da eyebrows. -FZ
First, let me start by saying that stable just doesn't cut it for anything but a server anymore.
Then, what many have missed is that I insist throughout my post that I am talking about corporate desktop environments, not your overpaid fat hacker's souped-up 2 GHz AMD Impossibilium with a 4-D graphics card and a surround-dick sound card.
To answer a third post, no, Potato doesn't cut it on the corporate desktop. You won't find the Evolution (except for the i386 version packaged by Ximian) or the OpenOffice one needs to replace Windows and aging UNIX variants on workstations with Potato, for starters.
To answer yet another post, yes I should care about what the corporate world defaults to and yes I should worry if I cannot offer Debian as a solution when setting up IT infrastructures for corporate customers. Right now, I cannot recommend any Debian release (potato, woody, sid) to my customers asking for desktop packages, because: a) Evolution builds only exist for potato/i386 and is still a work-in-progress b) OpenOffice is barely at an unstable release stage. In a nutshell, my customers would not mind Debian if it had what they needed; it doesn't, so they ask for Red Hat since that distro is advertised to have what they need.
Finally, no, deciding not to update Woody for a few days is not an option. Security fixes are not released separately for testing, only for stable; if I wanted to just install the security updates for Woody, there wouldn't be any as of yet.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Why can't they speed things up a little by moving unstable to testing at the same time as they move testing to stable? ie -- there would always be the following three distros:
stable -- current stable release
testing -- almost feature-complete next release
unstable -- new features get added here
Then, as soon as testing is declared stable, unstable moves to testing, and a new unstable is created...
Maybe that would make things a little faster, as it's basically biting off less at a time... unless of course, they already do that...
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Adding more developers is a long-term investment, not a short-term, and it takes a smart manager to know when that long-term investment is worth it.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Last post you cockgobblers!
Now that that's out of the way, I would like to address a very serious issue. I, as do many of my collogues, find the term "troll" offensive and degrading. I prefer the term "conversation engineer". See, Slashdot is crap. I know it, you know it, Malda knows it, and so does Homos. Slashdot is becoming more unstable and filled with more crap daily. How many of us would have ever though Slashdot would start changing subscription? So many faithful posters were so put off by the insane, demonic ramblings of Rob Malda that a Slashdot blackout was just staged. If something isn't done soon, I fear slashdot will not be around much longer.
Slashdot is dying...
That's beside the point, though. The point is, conversation engineers work in much the same fashion security engineers do. By introducing resistance into the system, the system gets stronger. Much like resistance exercises a muscle. Who do you have to think for the advances in lameness filtering, page widening prevention, and moderation technologies? Your fellow conversation engineers, that's who! Conversation engineers are the best, perhaps the last hope of saving Slashdot.
Thank you for your time. Please think about the contribution we make before you curse us and use the degrading term "troll" again.