Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 Released

emissary47 writes "The Debian Project is pleased to announce the release of Debian GNU/Linux version 3.0. Debian GNU/Linux is a free operating system, which now supports a total of eleven processor architectures, includes KDE and GNOME desktop environments, features cryptographic software, is compatible with the FHS v2.2 and supports software developed for the LSB. The Release Notes are available here."

Comments

Believe it or not, releases don't happen instantly

[Cardinal]

Debian 3.0 Woody comes with KDE 2 and XFree86 4.1 while 3 and 4.2 are out respectively. This is a bit sad, seeing that even CygWin and FreeBSD have more up-to-date versions in their releases.

Release processes do take time, and Debian woody's started long before KDE3 or XFree86 4.2 were released. It is not the policy of the Debian team to drop everything mid-release-prep and package the latest version of some package, regardless of how significant it may be. If that was the case, releases would take a great deal more time.

If you want to see the process go faster, feel free to step up and help out.

Re:Debian guys WAKE UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you're posting this sort of troll, you probably already know the truth of things, but in case you don't, I'll fill you in.

Debian GNU/Linux releases for 11 architectures, and aims to stable on all of them. Most distros concentrate on one or two (gentoo is no exception), and those one or two tend to be x86 and if you're lucky PPC. They also tend to cater to people that are in the latest-greatest-p6-123123MHz-gamer crowd.

It's important to realize that with Debian, users of non-standard architectures are not second class citizens like they are on other distros. If I install Debian Stable on a machine that Debian claims to support, I can be relatively sure that the system will run smoothly and without issue. This is much more than any other distro out there can say.

When you say that XF4.2 and KDE3 are stable, you mean they are stable on the intel architecture, something no one debates. But being stable on intel is useless to the Debian release crew if it doesn't compile on Alpha, SPARC, HPPA, and any of the other supported architectures.

Another thing that non-Debian users seem to have a very hard time with is the notion of Stable, Testing, and Unstable. When you use some other linux distro, a release is very important because the lack of a central repository and coordination of packages makes partial upgrades a royal pain in the butt. This is fondly called RPM hell. Actually, it has nothing to do with the RPM package format, which isn't really that much worse than the DEB format, but rather the way APT handles package dependencies and such.

A Debian user can keep his system up to date over a reasonable net connection, and I'd venture that most desktop debian users don't much care when something releases, because they don't track stable. Because stable needs to be stable on 11 architectures, it is nearly always behind -- but it's as stable as a rock. If you run x86 and want the lastest version of everything, stable is not for you. In that case, it doesn't matter when Debian releases.

If you're a newbie, track testing, because it's more stable than unstable but has a lot of pretty new packages. If you're adventurous and want the bleeding edge, track unstable. Despite its name, it's still more stable than say, Mandrake.

Hopefully, you're less ignorant now than you were before. If not, then you're beyond help.

Kernel Sn(u|o)bbery

[Snafoo]

The release notes for x86 indicate that the thing
ships with 2.2.20, with an optional 2.4.x for the bleeding-edgers, with (as explanation) a catty remark about the Debian developers not considering 2.4 a 'stable' branch.

Admittedly, I prefer Debian for the work that I do mainly because of the stability. But really -- 2.4 has been utterly reliable since ~2.4.14. Isn't this just a little paranoid? C'mon, folks, the thing is solid! I mean, the VM subsystem hasn't been completely re-written in *months*! ;)

Now maybe the magazines will get it right

[MBCook]

Ignoring all the obvious "woot" stuff, I'm glad that this will finally get all the magazines in line. Most of the major magazines (non-linux) such as PC World, etc. have been comparing Linux distros lately. They always compare the latest RH, Suse, Mandrake, etc, and version 2.2 of Debian. They always mark it down (because it's so old), but never mention that "Woody" was right around the corner. Now maybe they'll do some fair comparisons.

And as we all know (except for the magazines) the branches of debian are like this compared to other distros:

• Stable - The version 2 versions ago, that all the bugs are out of, and it's rock solid
• Testing - The current version of every other distro. Currest software, current bugs, still great.
• Unstable - The beta version of other distro, it's buggy, bug it rocks.

Now all that's left to say is, I wonder what they'll do when then run out of Toy Story characters to name the releases after? Or if they switch, what they'll switch to?