Slashdot Mirror
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."
In other news... Hell has frozen over, pigs are flying, and the Chicago Cubs have won the World Series.
Can any of the Debian insiders comment on what the future of Debian looks like?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I can't wait 'till Debian releases a stable version of Debian GNU/HURD ;)=
c0w goes moo.
Uhh, we did tell them. In the announcement.
It is official, woody is released.
Please stop trolling. Check out these links if your mom and dad haven't already pulled the plug:
0 02 /debian-devel-announce-200207/msg00011.html: //www.debian.org/News/2002/20020719e bian.org/releases/woody/releasenotes
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2
http
http://www.d
Debian appears to me to be very well thought out in comparison to other distributions. Everything seems to be done in a calm reasonable manner with the exception of my constant kick/banning from #debian on openprojects. Other distributions may throw in candy for the kiddies that is not ready but debian waits and in turn creates quality. Please discuss.. I cant wait for gnome2 to leave experimental and hit sid. Jonathan Taylor
Can't you kids do a proper slashdotting these days? It won't work unless we all pull together!
Carousel is a lie!
I like the balance of distos. Some like Redhat allow you to try the latest and greatest, while Debian goes for the tried and tested. Linux has a distro for everyone!! This is consumer choise, where it proves that you don't need to be upgrading every year to boost MS's profits while subjecting you as a beta tester for a "final release."
OK, this may be a Stupid Question, but, the announcement said that, "As always, Debian GNU/Linux systems can be upgraded painlessly, in place, without any forced downtime."
How do you upgrade the kernel without a reboot?
There are numerous reasons why KDE 3, Xfree86 4.2, Gnome 2, Openoffice, Mplayer, et al are not ready for Debian primetime. They are all outlined in the developer mailing lists, if you bothered to read them, and most stem from the fact that Debian developers do not release software that only builds on i386 or with certain 'golden' compiler releases.
In the meantime, installing from unofficial sources takes no more effort than adding lines to your apt sources.list. This information can be found at http://www.debianplanet.org if you were so inclined to look.
One of the problems is that Debian stable has to run on many different architechtures and XFree 4.2 doesn't yet run on all of them.
(because it's getting Slashdotted like mad)
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.
With the addition of the IA-64 (ia64), HP PA-RISC (hppa), MIPS (mips, mipsel), and S/390 (s390) architectures, Debian GNU/Linux now supports a total of eleven architectures. It now runs on computers ranging from palmtops to supercomputers, and nearly everything in between, including the latest generation of 64 bit machines.
This is the first version of Debian to feature cryptographic software integrated into the main distribution. OpenSSH and GNU Privacy Guard are included in the default installation, and strong encryption is now present in web browsers and web servers, databases, and so forth. Further integration of cryptographic software is planned for future releases.
For the first time, Debian comes with the K Desktop Environment 2.2 (KDE). The GNOME desktop environment is upgraded to version 1.4, and X itself is upgraded to the much improved XFree86 4.1. With the addition of several full-featured free graphical web browsers in the form of Mozilla, Galeon, and Konqueror, Debian's desktop offerings have radically improved.
This version of Debian supports the 2.2 and 2.4 releases of the Linux kernel. Along with better support for a greater variety of new hardware (such as USB) and significant improvements in usability and stability, the 2.4 kernel provides support for the ext3 and reiserfs journaling filesystems.
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 features a more streamlined and polished installation, which is translated into numerous languages. The task system has been revamped and made more flexible. The debconf tool makes configuration of the system easier and more user friendly. Debian GNU/Linux can be installed from CD, or from the network and a few floppies. It can be downloaded now, and will soon be available on CD-ROM from numerous vendors.
Upgrades to Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 from earlier releases are automatically handled by the apt package management tool. As always, Debian GNU/Linux systems can be upgraded painlessly, in place, without any forced downtime. For detailed instructions about installing and upgrading Debian GNU/Linux, please see the release notes.
This is the first release of Debian that is compatible with version 2.2 of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS). Debian GNU/Linux now also supports software developed for the Linux Standard Base (LSB), though it is not yet LSB certified.
Current Debian users may be interested to know that this release of Debian supports build dependencies, to aid in building packages from source, and apt pinning, to ease partial upgrades to our testing or unstable branch. This release of Debian features aptitude as an alternative for the venerable dselect program, which will make it easier to select packages. About four thousand new software packages were added to the distribution in Debian GNU/Linux 3.0.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
Add these to your sources.list and be thankful for all the good things Debian _has_ that other distributions _don't_. ;)
deb http://kde3.geniussystems.net/debian ./ ./
deb-src http://kde3.geniussystems.net/debian
niko
I have been working with a variety of distributions out there and have come to the conclusion that, if you want it to work and work well, the Debian is probably the most trusted distribution out there. If you want bells and whistles, then you need to go someplace else.
On thing I have to mention here. If Debian merged with GenTOO, then there would be no stopping them! Optimal package compiles coupled with the best package management system AND the BEST PACKAGE MANAGERS out there. Now that would be cool!
I have to hand it to the Debian folks. They have an excellent policy that puts quality and reliability in front of everything else. I can trust this distribution to work on machines that I can't even access directly.
"Debian GNU/Linux systems can be upgraded painlessly, in place, without any forced downtime." How do you upgrade the kernel without a reboot?
Reboot != downtime. If you're running a high-availability server cluster, you can bring your spare machine up and have it do the job of each server in your rack until you upgrade your cluster to Debian 3. If you're running a workstation, reboot your machine over coffee break, or pull out your Game Boy Advance and play Tetanus On Drugs. Otherwise, I don't think a reboot at 3 A.M. California time is going to affect many users, especially if planned a week in advance.
Will I retire or break 10K?
- Vorbis 1.0
- Perl 5.8.0
...and now Debian 3.0
REPENT, REPENT, THE END IS NIGH!News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
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.
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.
"Honey, I can't. I have to be with Debbie this FRIDAY NIGHT."
:) ... in all honesty, she thinks it's really cool that i use a distribution so closely resembles her name
since my fiance is named debbie, i can get away with this
09
Cygwin is only for architectures that Windows supports, which also happens to be the most common, so of course it isnt a big deal to release early.
Just realize that Debian's XFree86 team does much more than package it and distribute. They are the ones porting it over, not RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Cygwin and FreeBSD.
Sorry if Debian doesn't fit your time frame, its not meant to fit anyones. It's meant to be done when its done, and thats the beauty in it. If you can't deal with that, either use unstable or use another distro.
P.S. - Unstable isn't as dangerous as people make it out to be. My unstable box has been running for over 250 days, and I update every day or two. If that is considered 'very risky' then what does that say about other distro's who claim to be stable? So don't say that we just use unstable as an excuse for slow package releases.
I am running KDE 3.0.2 and X4.2 and running Debian unstable, btw :)
Big thanks goes out to the Debian developer's, congratulations!!!!
-topside
What? You're surprised that Debian developers and users are geeks? What planet did you say you came from again? :)
In any case, note that the Debian developers finished in time to head off to the movies/restaurants/clubs (especially those of us on the left coast). It's the Debian users who are now faced with confronting their true geek natures.
Well today is (Release Manager) aj's mother's birthday, and I'm afraid she has priority over you. Sorry 'bout that.
To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.
finally my woody is stable!
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
"Mandrake" /me runs for cover, skillfully dodging the incoming rotten tomatoes.
"The dead do not shoo-bop-aloo-bah." -- Kai, 'Lexx'
Please don't moderate this troll up further. None of those programs is only buildable on x86. None of those programs needs a "golden" compiler (whatever that is). The parent is simply lying.
Got friends?
Outside the little 'world' called the US, a lot of people probably do.
With Conectiva, you have the benefits of apt-get, with up-to-date packages. Best of both worlds. Better yet, you can ask for support around the internet without having to read endless rants on why it's really GNU/linux and all that shit...
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*!
- undoware.ca
Now I can't joke about Stale Potatos & Frozen Woodys
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
There is no KDE3 in Unstable yet because everyone has been waiting patiently for Woody to be released. Just wait a little bit, and it will start to appear. Along with Gnome 2, I expect.
The end result, with no disrespect intended to the many people who worked in creating the GNU software, is just "Linux", since GNU is an accessory. Indispensable, like tyres are to a car, but accessory nevertheless
If something is indispensable, it's not an accessory. And unlike tires, much of the GNU software is not replacable out of the box. There's no libc that can replace the GNU libc on Linux; libc4 and libc5 are both based on the GNU libc and don't provide all the nessecary functionality for a modern system. Linux compiles only with GCC; besides which, there's no other free C/C++ compiler that can compile most of the complex code that usually comes with Linux. The linker and binutils are in the same boat. Bash cannot be replaced on Debian; too much stuff depends on its features (for better or worse.)
Frankly, the name of the operating system in question is Debian GNU/Linux. While Linux versus GNU/Linux in general can be debated, Debian has taken a position on that matter, and for the name of our OS, that's what matters.
I agree. I dunno why the parent post is at -1, but it's exactly what I experienced. I started using Mandrake about a year ago. I got used to the enviroment a bit, and really started liking it.
.tar.gz from the net. Sadly, I think it is the easiest option for a installing a lot of the software out there. Tracking down endless lists of dependencies on rpmfind, only to be confused over which of the 10 different similairly named RPMs to pick from is simply not that fun.
:(. Needless to say, it was back to Mandrake for me.
:(. I've heard it said that the install is so bad because you only have to go through it once, but failing at the install one time makes the system unusable.
I was used to the pain of RPM dependencies, and after the initial install of Mandrake (which is done internally completely by RPM), I wouldn't use RPMs much by myself. When installing new software, I'd first check the software manager (which has a nice search for non-installed stuff on the Mandrake CDs), and failing that, go directly for a source
I heard about how great apt-get was. So I figured I'd try to install Debian 2.2. Ouch... not a good idea. I did manage to get it installed.. kind of. Running windowmaker (used KDE almost exclusively in Mandrake, and never anything other than KDE and GNOME) at 640x480 with 256 color on a monitor that supports 1280x1024 because my year old GeForce 3 wasn't supported with the old version of X shipped with Debian. It would have been ok if I had an internet connection, I'd installed the Nvidia drivers a couple times, but I couldn't even figure out how to get the net connection working. No netconf..
One can't experience the greatness of apt-get if they can't make it through the install
I'm halfway through a 56k download of woody. damn it. damn it. arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
-
Drill Sarg: Whats your name scumbag?!?!? Private: Sir, private woody, sir! Drill Sarg: BULLSHIT! From now on your name is private STABLE!!! Do you like that name ?!?!?!?! Private: Sir YES Sir!!! Drill Sarg: Well there's one thing you won't like private stable, they don't serve gcc 2.96 and KDE3 on a daily basis in my mess hall!!!!! Private: Sir, yes, sir!!!!
It's not like the Debian people are writing the programs. All they are doing is...
Did I just hear someone volunteer to help with the next Debian release?
The dogcow says "Moof!"
I simply don't buy it.
I frankly don't care what you "buy" or not.
When Debian releases, they release for more platforms than anyone else: x86, Alpha, PowerPC, Sparc, 68K, ia64, etc. etc.
When Debian releases "stable", they have done enough testing that you can really count on it to be stable.
The above items take some time. Stabilizing a new version of XFree86 in particular takes time, since the XFree86 guys only test on x86.
All they are doing is compiling them and packaging them, which doesn't take much time in the grand scheme of things.
Why don't you join the Debian team and show them how it's done? Since you're such an expert and all. After all, I'm sure the Debian guys are all idiots, just wasting time for no reason, and with someone like you on board they can get releases out in no time at all.
By the way, new stuff shows up in Debian's "unstable" branch very quickly, because just compiling and packaging stuff doesn't take all that long in the grand scheme of things. It's Debian's stable branch that is legendary for taking a long time to update.
If you want to see progress check out Gentoo.
I'm glad you like it. But Gentoo and Debian are not the same thing; both have pluses and minuses compared to each other.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Alright... I know about this testing stuff and how long has woody been on but KDE 2.2 ? I mean come on, Redhat 7.3 was released before this one and it came with KDE 3.
This is supposedly a major upgrade (2.2 -> 3.0) you'd think the least one can get things like the latest desktops. Not all of us use Linux as servers only.
However, there can't have been much demand for it, because development ceased back in 2000.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I know one's not supposed to feed the trolls, but bugs DO get fixed in the stable version. But unlike some other distributions, that just toss in a new package, that *might* break some functionality on a server, Debian backports the bug-fix. The version is the same, but the bugs - and ONLY the bugs - are fixed.
One can't experience the greatness of apt-get if they can't make it through the install
The first time I tried debian (I think this was Debian 1.3?), I got hopelessly confused by the installation and went back to redhat 4.2 and was much happier.
When 2.0 came out, I decided to give it another try, and struggled through the installation, and finally ended up with a nice system. But great as apt-get was, I felt it wasn't worth the pain.
Then I figured out the painless way to install debian: go through the installation and install the bare minimum that you absolutely need (this means no X!). Then once you've got that running, which is quick and easy, use apt for everything else you use. This has the side benefit that there's no wasted space on your drive.
That depends on how you define "is" and "replaceable" and "out of the box". It's true that libc and gcc are indispensable to Linux as it is now, but they are, definitely, replaceable and other libraries or compilers could be used.
My point was that Linux is totally independent from GNU; it needs libraries and compilers, true, but these could come from Borland, Microsoft, Watcom, Symantec, etc, etc. In the same way, GNU does not depend on Linux. Before Linux existed, I used GNU under MS-DOS, with DJGPP. But I didn't call it "MS-DOS/GNU".
I believe in free software, and I think we should care about "advocacy", that is, presenting to the world the best things free software can do for us. And, frankly, this constant bickering on why it should be really "GNU/Linux" shows the worst of free-software users: childish ranting, always ready for a flame war. It's worse than Microsoft marketing, they, at least, have something to gain by their exagerations and distortions.
Doesn't Lee-nus or did he Americanise his pronunciation?
Debian 3.0 Woody comes with KDE 2 and XFree86 4.1 while 3 and 4.2 are out respectively.
Big deal. Pretty soon, both the XFree86 and the KDE 3 situations will be rectified. So we've had to wait a bit longer. It's well worth it in my opinion since Debian makes installation and upgrade of all this software incredibly easy compared to ANY other operating system. If you want to go out and use something inferior, that's your own business. Eventually Debian gets current and once it leaps these major release hurdles, they stay current.
This is a bit sad, seeing that even CygWin and FreeBSD have more up-to-date versions in their releases. Just think of how much effort it took Cygwin to port the packages to Windows before packaging them, for example -- yet despite this their releases are far more timely.
The *BSD ports system is basically a nice way of organizing sources for programs. Very little effort is needed to add something to the system (this includes figuring out deps). So, it's not that big of a deal to see Debian lag behind BSD. Try again.
As for Cygwin, I'm trying to imagine how hard it is. Well, it just isn't. In the past few days, I've installed a lot of programs from source on Cygwin at work. None of them ever complained about not being in a real "unix" environment. Your statement clearly indicates that you've missed the whole point of Cygwin. Cygwin is designed such that it is not supposed to be hard to make packages of "unix" software for it. Duh.
The Debian packagers claim that there is a lot of intricacy involved in the packaging, and i'm sure there is, but I don't buy that people should have to use older software with known bugs, several months after the upstream authors have released their software.
Yes, it is infact intricate. Debian supports 11 platforms. Some are little endian, other big. Some are CISC, others MIPS. Some software (serpent cipher for example) only work on machines with certain endianness. As a result, this makes a dependency nightmare for the package maintainers. I'd like to see anyone else take on the job the Debian people have assumed and do 10% the quality of work.
As for using older software... well, fine, don't buy it then. It's well known in the IT world that you stick with the tried and true until the bleeding edge stops bleeding. A lot of shops know better than to jump right onto the latest version bandwagon because doing so destroys a potential resource of great value: watching other people fail in doing so. Knowing what your problems are when using software is better than using software and not knowing what problems you'll have. Again, duh.
Why bother.
It's true that libc and gcc are indispensable to Linux as it is now, but they are, definitely, replaceable and other libraries or compilers could be used.
Linux can be replaced with a BSD kernel (using Linux compatibility mode) in far less time than any libc or C/C++ compiler could be changed to do the job that GNU libc and GCC does.
Linux is totally independent from GNU
The only compiler that can compile Linux is GCC. That's a pretty strong dependency there.
this constant bickering on why it should be really "GNU/Linux"
There was no bickering here until you brought it up. If Debian wants to call their operating system Debian GNU/Linux, I hardly see how it's any buisness of yours.
Release of Debian 3.0 is great news.
But those of us who have been regularly checking their web site in anticipation will be surprised, because the number of release-critical bugs has increased lately, and stands at 186 as I type.
Check for yourself - up from a low point of under 100 a month ago.
Back to the release notes: we understand Debian likes to be eccentric, but isn't it silly to provide the release notes in Catalan? The total number of speakers of Catalan, worldwide, is far less than the number of native Chinese speakers in New York (or even in Queens). And less than the number of native German speakers in Paraguay. The release notes are not provided in either Chinese or German.
And as we all know (except for the magazines) the branches of debian are like this compared to other distros:
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?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
When Debian releases, they release for more platforms than anyone else: x86, Alpha, PowerPC, Sparc, 68K, ia64, etc. etc.
It's nice and all, but what's the point ?
90% of the userbase is on x86 (guesstimate), not recognizing that is stupid and arrogant.
They could have released 3.0 on x86 first, and on all other platforms later.
If Linux had the same anal policies as Debian, we'd still be at 1.0.
By the way, new stuff shows up in Debian's "unstable" branch very quickly
*cough*...Xfree 4.2...*cough*...kde 3...*ok I feel better now*
I admire the ideals of the Debian people, but if they didn't have extremly practical tools like apt-get, most users wouldn't give a crap about this dist.
Please. I use Mozilla on two platforms - Solaris and Linux. It crashes on me on average about once every other day. This represents a *vast* improvement over Netscape, which was virtually unusable except that there was no viable alternative. It is certainly a monument to poor programming the sheer number of ways netscape/mozilla are able to crash.
So far as lynx, use links - it is as much better than lynx as Mozilla is over Netscape.
Most Debian users have been running almost exactly this for ages, as "woody" or "testing" --- It works rather nicely.
:-)
That's the point with Debian, you get to choose when to abandon rock solid reliability in favour of shiney new features, and most of the time it doesn't even degrade your reliability.
People seem to miss the point that Debian stable is meant to be STABLE. If you want to install a box in the middle of the desert, 100s of miles from anywhere, then you want it stable, and you don't give a damn about which version of KDE you use. If you want the latest KDE, just grab it out of unstable, or of off the KDE Debian package maintainer's bleeding edge archive --- It's your chouce. If it kills your machine, you get to press the reset button, but generally it won't, and if it does, it's what you decided you wanted, and you get the joy of filing a bug report, and helping to fix the problem.
Would I recomend a switch? Well, if you're happy with SuSE, and you don't care about Software Freedom, then SuSE is a fine distribution, unfortunately YaST is non-free software, so I'll never use it, and SuSE doesn't have apt-get, which makes any other feature they might have pale into insignificance in my opinion. Obviously, I am biased though
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Perhaps not any business of mine, but "Linux" is a registered trademark, and it's not owned by any "Debian" (whatever that might be). And, since Mr. Linus Torvalds, the owner of the Linux trademark, has gracefully let the free software community use his trademark, I don't think it correct that this "Debian" bunch of talibans kidnap the good Linux name by attaching to it other signatures.
What would you say if someone claimed it should really be "MICROSOFT/Debian", and started posting obnoxious spam everywhere insisting it should be called so?
3.5 is a thowback to the 2.2 release notes, at which time apt-get was still experimental (although it was rock solid back then too to be honest)
Just use the 3.3 procedure, or if you're worried, wait until someone gets round to fixing it (later today I expect)
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Weigh that against the inordinate amount of time it takes to compile hundreds of friggin programs, for most of which it doesn't really matter if they're 2% faster.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Er, correction to that.
I've just been informed that apt-get dist-upgrade is in fact not recomended, because if you don't know exactly what you're doing it has a tendency to remove half the packages on your system, and not bother upgrading. So you are left with a perfectly valid, but somewhat emaciated instalation at the end.
dselect on the other hand makes smarter decissions about things like "replaces" and "suggests" package interdependancies, and lets you resolve conflicts before going for the upgrade, so that is the recomended route, unles you happen to know better.
Of course, I didn't know that, because I know how to avoid getting bitten by apt-get, so don't tend to notice its teeth.
Sorry about the previous mis-information, please igore it (feel free to mod it into oblivion)
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Want newer Gnome stuff? Grab it from the testing branch.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Wow! So cutting edge! Suse 8 had KDE 3 ages ago, now Slackware 8.1 is out and has it, and we should be excited that Debian has finally come out with support for a now quite obsolete version of KDE.
The day that Suse or Slackware provides working binaries for 10,000 packages on 11 architectures it might actually be relevent to make comparisons like this.
Not to mention that the point of this statement was that KDE is being included in Debian for the first time, since last time Debian made a release it was illegal to distributed KDE linked with QT. Not that any other distros gave a shit about what was legal, and even more amusing was that everyone accused Debian of being biased against KDE, a claim that was dispelled by Debian's instant willingness to include KDE once the license on QT changed...
Americanizing it would make it Lye-nucks, and he sure didn't say it like that in the audio clip I heard.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Hope this isn't modded as flamebait.
If I had modpoints, it probably would be.
Why? Because I feel confident that you know about stable/testing/woody, and therefore you probably know that getting Debian with the latest-and-greatest software is as easy as making a few modifications to the sources.list and running an apt-get dist-upgrade. You don't even really have to know what to put in your sources.list, there are hundreds of them floating around online. You can just pick and choose the parts you want.
Heaven forbid Debian's "default" release be meticulously stable. Shouldn't they include more cutting-edge software as opposed to the tried-and-true stuff? Wait, that doesn't make any sense. That's like arguing that distributions should ship with every desireable service enabled. Personally, I'm glad Debian doesn't ship with "iffy" software. If I want to take that risk, I'll spend two minutes adjusting my system to suit me.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
You hear me! Use the beta version of the PGI ISO, the graphical user-friendly autohardware detecting installer for Woody. Check out the website here, and the ISOs are at the first link (only 100MB download for the entire ISO).
Debian truely is the one true Linux distro. Its non-commercial, and developed by an open free internet community. Not only that, but Debian is superior to every other Linux distro. It is stable, easy to maintain, and it runs on any useful piece of computer hardware - no matter what platform that hardware is. Support Debian by simply spending the time to install and use it for your main Linux installation.
I'm not unhappy because XFree86 4.2 is not in Debian stable. I'm not even unhappy because it is not in testing. I'm unhappy because XFree86 4.2, after 6 months, is not even in unstable. That's just bogus.
4.2.99.1? Forget about it.
Anyway, my post did point out the obvious. The obvious, however, is something most slashdotters are often unaware of.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
But the stable distribution attempts to eliminate even the 0.01% of cases you have allotted due to bugs in all packages across all platforms.
:) Debian has a slow release cycle. This is because they want to document and/or fix all bugs before they release things. This takes a long time. They have a slow release cycle.
:)
I once asked a question in #Debian.
I asked, "Why do bugs in packages which are obviously due to the program itself [menu options crashing the program, false advertising within the documentation, totally broken config parsing, etc], get reported to the Debian package maintainers? Don't package maintainers just package stuff up and put it in the tree?"
The response was, "A bug in a Debian package is a bug in the distribution."
Debian stable attempts to have _all_ bugs ironed out or documented. I'm serious. This is different than RedHat [latest version] which contains an attempt to iron out a lot of bugs, but is spurred mostly by neat developments in the software they distribute. It's not good or bad either way, just different.
You've heard it a million times, but maybe it will register one day.
Debian unstable plus "unofficial" sources is newer than RedHat [latest version]. apt-get resolves a FUCKING SHITLOAD of dependency problems that develop using rpm.
It's simple, really. It's nice. It makes you happy. People like Debian because it makes them feel good to just type in "apt-get install ", twiddle their thumbs for the download period, and then use it. And it almost always just works. The times that it doesn't work, it usually means that there is no such package or you spelled it wrong, and more often than not you got the name wrong.
When this is the worst thing your distribution does, you're doing well.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
so, you want to recompile package foo, well first you need some source
../foo-1.2.3*deb
apt-get source foo
or maybe some newer source
apt-get source foo/unstable
or maybe you need the source that became available 5 minutes ago, in which case you do one of the above, drop the new tarball in the current directory, go into the old Debian source directory, and run uupdate and maybe fix some patching problems in the new directory that got created for you.
Next, you need to build this stuff, so let's get in the source directory:
cd foo-1.2.3
oh, but we might need some other development libraries to build this, so lets grab what we need
apt-get build-dep foo
that's better, now we can tweak some source or options maybe, and make ourselves a package
debuild
right, so now we have a new package, so we install it
sudo dpkg -i
and it gets installed (or maybe it has some dependencies, if you got this far, you can work it out yourself) just like it was an official Debian package, which means you get to remove it cleanly, etc. if the need arrises.
Who ever said source was difficult to play with in Debian? Debian is by developers, for developers -- we like source. That's why we're into Free Software.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Fine. Just use "apt-get source" instead of "apt-get install". You'll get a source tree which you can read, tweak and build to your little heart's content. And it will build clean as a whistle, every time (modulo syntax errors introduced by your tweaking, of course).
Did you really believe that Debian didn't distribute source? Get a clue...
My original point was that whoever complained about not being able to get apps that would build against Gnome 1.4 has never used Debian. Debian packages so much stuff that you rarely need to build anything if you don't want to. Obviously, you've never used it either, else you'd know that getting and building source is simplicity itself.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Hi Guys,
;)
I own a Sun Blade 100, which I guess is a real basic entry level Sun box in that it has an IDE harddrive, and onboard ATI graphics. I have upgraded the HDD to a 40GB IBM Deskstar and it currently has 256MB RAM. Would Debian run ok on this? I have wanted to try out debian for ages but never really got around to downloading it - seeing as they do it for Sparc, my Sun Blade would be an ideal donor as Solaris drives me up the wall
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Plus the fact that testing has a serious security problem (security updates won't show up until about two weeks after they are packaged since they have to go through unstable first).
No, the package maintainer can assign a priority to a package. Default priority uploads will move to testing after a couple of weeks in unstable, but security uploads are normally assigned the highest priority, and should appear within a day or two. Just enough time to make sure it won't actually eat your system.
"For the first time, Debian comes with the K Desktop Environment 2.2 (KDE). The GNOME desktop environment is upgraded to version 1.4, and X itself is upgraded to the much improved XFree86 4.1. With the addition of several full-featured free graphical web browsers in the form of Mozilla, Galeon, and Konqueror, Debian's desktop offerings have radically improved."
Why does Debian always come with such old stuff? Fine, maybe KDE 2.2 is more stable than 3 but still...
The only thing keeping me from not using Debian is the oldish software... I'm talking about my workstation, for servers Debian is great.
My point was that Linux is totally independent from GNU
That might be an interesting point if Debian looked anything like a bare Linux kernel.
Cheers,
Daniel
(yes, IHBT..)
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I've been known to put a bit of work into X myself, so calling me an "asshole" is probably not productive.
OTOH, perhaps I misunderstand the Debian software distribution model. The way I always thought it was supposed to work, the downstream maintainer dumps things into unstable ASAP so that folks can start using them. Then they work on getting them ready for inclusion in testing.
I've never heard of "experimental" as a standard part of the Debian distribution process for an incorporated package. Indeed, I note that Branden has had to put together his own set of mirrors to distribute his experimental XFree86 release. IMHO his acknowledgedly valuable time and energy would have been better spent by letting the standard Deb mirroring process take care of this, by making 4.2 the unstable build at that point. But again, perhaps there is something I am missing about the process.
I understand that building X for Deb is a lot of work. And "bogus" was a poorly chosen word for the frustration I'm feeling: my apologies. But I am, to choose a better word, frustrated.
I install Debian on others' boxes frequently (a few times a week lately). For a substantial fraction of those installs over the last 6 months, I have had to build X from XFree86.org source to get folks' video cards working properly. And for 5 of those months, I didn't even have the option of trying an experimental 4.2 build out of Branden's home directory.
For my own home boxes, I long ago put holds on most of the x-related packages and just build XFree86 from CVS when it seems like I need to. That's part of my frustration: I know that Branden's work is helping XFree86 to work a lot better for folks on non-x86 platforms and with unusual problems. But I am not (and I think many others are not) in this situation, and I've generally had awfully good luck with XFree86 top-of-tree. I wish someone would Deb that regularly: I wish I had time to do it, or that I could find someone willing whom I could help.
So yes, I apologize for the pejorative tone of "bogus". But no, I'm not willing to drink "a nice cup of shut the f*** up" at this point. I and others have real problems; it is increasingly difficult for us to support other Debian users and our own X-related work.
anthony towns has posted a fairly detailed `retrospective' on th release of woody and an `introspecitve' on th future release of sarge here