Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Ian Jackson
Figuring you can never get too much Ian Jackson, Trevelyan writes: "Debian Planet has an
interview with the long time Debian maintainer, and a former DPL, a current member of the
technical committee and the author of
dpkg.
Also
announced Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r7 released. In case some of you thought Debian won't be releasing anything this year =)"
I believe what you're looking for is called gentoo.
--
pants ahoy
I would be interested for slashdot to host and interview with Ian. As a user of gentoo linux I have experienced much of the power of a ports based system with its portage package management system, which has close ties to Debian's very own apt-get and dpkg. Debian seems very focused on a stable kernel, even more so than any other distribution I know of. Would it not serve Debian to focus more on the Server side of things and leave the desktop to the propeller heads, Gentoo that is. :)
Go Illini!!!
Amen to that.
I was running debian happily, but then I had terrible trouble upgrading to mozilla 1.0. Debian has it's points, but up-to-dateness isn't one of those.
Now I'm running gentoo, which pretty much solves the problem with binary only distributions (yeah, i know, you can recompile with debian also.).
Its current (stable) distro has the oldest Linux software of any of the major distributions. If they do not release a 3.0 stable soon, they will most likely go the way of other dearly departed Linux Distributions, such as SLS (Steve's Linux System), and Yggdrasil.
Lots of current Debian users have all ready moved on to Gentoo. And while it is a fairly nice setup, I will continue to enjoy my uncrackable OpenBSD install. There's a reason they're going on 5 years without a remote hack.
Debian is always out of date so why dont they add a bsd like ports system.
Just for the record... Last time I tried FreeBSD, I found the ports tree not to be all that stable. Trying to install gdm I found something like 4 or 5 broken dependencies.
You can't get quality in a hurry. (Not that FreeBSD isn't great and stable -- I'm just saying Debian is absolutely more polished)
Anyway -- Debian will have something similar to the ports tree (but better) in Woody+1. (apt-src)
Besides that, Debian has been innovating since ever, and has great features:
- APT (now in Conectiva too)
- update-alternatives (now in Red Hat)
- First to adhere closely to FHS
- Bug reporting tools are the best I've ever seen (try reportbug -- the latest version even warns you about the "usual non-bugs in this package") - Kernel compiling tools are quite sophisticated - Debian has been incorporating more Java packages than any other distribution I know of
- Runs on *lots* of architectures. First to use the Hurd. Will soon work wirh BSD kernels (Free, Net & Open)
- Recently created apt-src program will let you create source trees much better than the BSD ports tree.
That's why it takes time to release a new version of Debian.
Take a look at Gentoo, which provides the best of BSD and Linux worlds: http://www.gentoo.org
I assure you won't be disapointed.
Ever heard of testing? Replace 'stable', 'slink', or (when it's released) 'woody' with 'testing' in /etc/apt/sources.list and update. Then everything's fairly up-to-date, but since it's already gone through 2 weeks of testing by people who run unstable (like me), it's also fairly stable. It's not as stable as 'stable', of course, but it's not horribly outdated, either.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
Don't worry, I'm sure the moderator will get ripped a new one in meta for that.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
-- Terry
I would just say why are they releasing more 2.2 stuff when they should just finalize Woody. Not that it even needs to be finalized, really. I ran it all the time when I had Debian installed, it was stable and neato enough for me.
Grins. That was not exactly my experience. I used to work with him whilst he was doing a summer job before he went to Cambridge. He didn't actually get fired or have to resign; but let's just say that at the time he was rather more interested in security than the system administrators would wish perhaps...
Anyway he matured loads at Cambridge; must have done, cos he's still alive ;-)
Bloody smart guy.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Sorry but Debian isn't out of date. If you like, you can use testing or unstable versin of package and you are more updated that with other distro. But if you want a very stable system maybe it's ok to wait the stable. The difference are in security. Now I run 3 servers, two with RedHat and one with Debian, and difference are important.
I can wait for Debian developer to release the new version with it's ok in quality and security features. If you like more "updates" and more insecure system use Redhat like distro.
I shouldn't feed the various trolls, but I guess I will. For one, someone mentioned OpenBSD's no remote hole in 5 years... Well that has changed now. Debian can compete with OpenBSD directly in the realm of security, because Debian backports EVERYTHING. They audit their code. No, they don't tout this fact like Theo does, but Debian is defintely covering their bases. And, you can be sure they will release a advisory AND a patch in a timely manner. Debian maintainers are some of the most talented guys out there, and highly motivated.
Someone said that Debian was dying because it hasn't made a stable release.. Well, clueless troll you are! Run Unstable. It is _cutting edge_.
I have ran Debian since 1.3, and for most of those years, I have used the unstable branch exclusively. I have been burned by it maybe 3 times. 3 bugs bad enough to affect my life. And every bug was fixed within a day. Let's see m$ or anyone else have that level of dedication.
Debian is very much alive and well, thank you very much, and I will continue to use for years to come, and should they stop maintaining, I will be happy to contribute, just to keep it going. Security, current packages, and reliability. Not bad for free software.
'sup with that session-id? Shouldn't you strip it from the link...
Who founded debian then? I'm confused.
or if you are like me you realize that testing has been frozen for a month now....
*shrugs* Just for the record, the last time I used FreeBSD, I found it to be one of the most stable and fast operating systems that I've ever used. The ports tree is updated quite often and damn, those ports maintainers port software quite quickly. However, I'm pretty impatient, and I want stuff upon release, so I'm using gentoo linux right now. I liked debian, but the updates to the software that I want to use when it's released was painfully slow. I suppose it all comes down to the need relating amount of stability vs. patience you have :)
Yeah, that's a problem with testing, but I'm sure it'll get worked out. In the mean time, it's still more up-to-date than stable.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
What tends to happen is the ports directory lags behind software releases, especially the ports directory that gets installed from cd, and the particular .tar.gz source file that the makefile is trying to fetch isn't hosted on the web anymore.
It's really easy to get cvsup to continually update your ports directory. Just run it once in a while (like once a month or so) to update your ports directory to take into account newer versions of software packages and such. Once you do this, all issues with getting things built will probably never show up.
> First to use the Hurd.
Enough already -- you've convinced me.
A.
I suggest running Debian Unstable (could be renamed to "Debian Current"). If you want source, just apt-get source package name. I don't see what BSD or Gentoo can do that Debian can't.
rpm of course isn't anywhere near as snazzy as dpkg: you basically can't do remote, incremental upgrades without reboot
I always thought that it were the "losers" in de Debian userbase who don't know anything, but it seems that it even counts for project leaders.
Dpkg and rpm can do just about the same.
You can use a frontend for them to handle the dependencies, like apt or urpmi.
With rpm you can do incremental upgrades. I'm running Mandrake Cooker for about one and a half year, and it mostly works (ok, it's a development version of Mandrake).
Rpm can do post-install scripts and all the rest.
And you can upgrade from a gcc-2.96 distro to a gcc-3.1 distro.
It annoys me to hell when I read messages from Debian users on forums or on Usenet like "rpm sucks" and then try to explain why. Now, if even project leaders talk this kind of shit, it explains to me why the Debian userbase sucks.
Well, I can only assume he hasn't seen rpm in 5 years or so.....
That's the only excuse I can think of.
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
Yggdrasil isn't dead. I am running a Ydrassil system that I set up on a 386 DX-33 (8mb of RAM) box about 8 years ago. The great thing about any Linux distribution is that you can upgrade the software manually, thanks to the source being available, including the kernel and libraries. Of course, on the desktop side, the Microsoft Windows series is still King. In the future, expect many game servers to be written for Linux systems, with clients mainly available on Windows and Mac platforms.
Steven Woston
Lead Programmer, J-j-j-julius SoftwareHuh?
Potato was released in 2000, not in 1999, and can be upgraded through apt and security.debian.org (which downloads only security patches). Or, you can get the recently released r7 iso and update from there. You could argue ofcourse that software released in 2000 was written in 1999, so I'll give you half a point here.
Woody, which isn't released yet, can be upgraded from most mirrors by selecting the woody/updates branch, which covers security updates and some general updates. No points here.
Sid, which also isn't released yet, doesn't need anything special. Just following the regular branch will download the most recent packages with security fixes (normally just as fast as the other distro's) Seems like you forgot to mention sid.
You can say that debian sucks, but at least use wholly valid arguments.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
Debian Stable is perfect for servers because it is stable. By definition, a 2.2 kernel is more stable than a 2.4 kernel, and arguably a 2.0.39 kernel would be best if you want to minimize uncertainties and surprises. That would explain the continuing development into 2.0.40 and the 2.2.x tree.
Althogh I know of people running idle "servers" that have money to burn for bragging rights, most serious server administrators actually have a budget. Hobby or professional, that means that 1000bT and RAID aren't usually purchased until the previous component is actually a bottleneck. Does SAN really exist outside of the enterprise? How many home servers are on SMP capable motherboards (including the infamously unstable BP6)?
Perhaps your 120GB of data really is crap, which could explain why instead of being properly partitioned, it is existing on a filesystem almost certainly an order of magnitude larger than it should be (according to any Unix administration rule of thumb). If this is the case, then maybe you won't care about your files falling corrupt when your journalling FS sacrifices them for the sake of metadata cohesion. I'm certain that a home server has no feasible means of backup for such a filesystem, so if the data weren't crap, the filesystem should be at least as stable as ext2 with asynch writes disabled.
Again, the point of Debian Stable, in case you didn't catch it, is that it is stable. Many servers are values more for their robustness, which is a typical byproduct of maintained stability. Flaws are addressed by backporting fixes without new features exposing new flaws. The latest featured advances in Linux based systems are definitely useful, but contradictory to the goal of stability. Rather than mad haphazard patching, Debian suggests tracking their Stable tree, which maintains well tested patches that don't add features. If this is a public system, then security takes a justifiable front seat to stability, and so follow that tree as well.
As for your parting shots, Debian Stable is indeed suitable for large systems, especially when it is hard for physical RAM to reach "large" in personal class servers. RAM too large to autodetect in less-than-recent kernels is easily accessible by passing the value to the kernel during boot.
Multiprocessor systems are definitely useable, the latest advances in 2.5 don't negate the previously available SMP functionality of 2.2. If you are maxxing out your SMP hardware, maybe less stability would be a valuable tradeoff for improved SMP utilization. Is your home server stressing the locking schemes? Remeber, Seti@home won't benefit from improved SMP - you still have to run multiple instances of the client.
If you use "PC" in the Intel-x86 sense, then you couldn't be further from the mark. Debian Stable supports a wider range of platforms than any competing GNU distribution's latest release. Higher Debian releases support even more architectures. I don't think SGI or IBM servers could really fall within the scope of semi-pro or personal without aiming half a decade into the past.
As for attached storage, propose a home or semi-pro serving situation where there will be heavy writing activity which may benefit from a journaling FS so that I know where you are coming from. Most serving implies reading, not writing of files, and serving from a read-only filesystem might even be prudent. (Notice my previous comment about partitions.)
As for your pissant serving tasks, wouldn't stability still be top priority? To promote further discussion, please point out which distros handle routing and firewalling better then Debian, and just how so. Which features are better than stability?
Honestly, I don't think any distro yet available will stop you from shooting yourself in the foot if you insist on running a "server" without following standard administrative guidelines... what does your fstab look like? Does your primary serving task involve MPEG2 rips of LotR, Shindlers List and Dances with Wolves? Please, choose between personal, semi-pro, or enterprise class serving. (SAN? give me a break.)
"Sure, Linux 2.2 is old, but it's heavily tested, and stable as hell". Fair enough, when when you start upgrading to a later brank of the kernel, you aren't running that "heavily tested stable as hell" kernel any more.... same level of testing and abuse...
stable but 3 years out of date.... yada yada.
If your hardware is brand new and only supported by unstable Linux, then it isn't considered stable hardware. If your Linux is brand new and only supported by unstable GNU then it isn't considered a stable kernel. If your server had more than one client, then you sould have been foolish to do all the hard of of upgrading, patching, etc etc yourself to the latest unstable Stable Linux. Much better to track a distribution's less volatile path towards your desired featureset even if it isn't "up to date." Most distributions of GNU have proven over time their priorities regarding stability versus featuritis. Choose one that reflects your comfort level.
The point of Debian is that you don't have to do the hard work of upgrading and patching yourself. When pointing at an appropriate APT repository, you type "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade". While Debian Potato isn't considered Stable (offically sanctioned by the Debian Project) with Linux 2.4, that doesn't mean that it isn't stable. As for the hard work of DIY, Google for "Debian Potato 2.4" and feel the pain of typing "apt-get dist-upgrade".