Slashdot Mirror
Debian, Past Present & Future
solferino writes "Christoph Lameter, a major guru in the debian project, has put up a very well written talk that he gave earlier this week that addresses debian's past, present and future.
He includes a good background history of the project, some interesting sets of figures and projections (30,000 packages by the end of 2004!), a good discussion of the pros/cons of source based distros and his ideas about a new package manager he is developing (uPM). In all a very good read, whether you are just now considering dipping a toe into the debian well-spring or have been drinking from the source for a long time already."
apt-get install first-post
"It's not the size of your package that matters, it's how many you have."
I imagine this will be similar to the catastrophic Y2K bug. :)
sig.
And 100,000 by 2006!!
I guess this means that sarge will be released around 2028...
---
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Oh come on, by then we'll have Toy Story 11 with a whole bunch of new funky character-names ...
Life sucks.
I like the comparison with source based distribs, as if they were 'the challenger' to Debian. It looks like Gentoo is putting pressure! And the uPM new stuff is aimed to address it as well. Things keep moving fast!
For those who need an incentive to try Debian, the keyword is stability; their QA process is what make the distrib lag behind in terms of latest versions, but the benefit is a rock solid platform.
have you been defaced today?
I've been using Debian for a few years now, after using Red Hat for about 1.5 years. I've really gotten to like it; server updates are easy, and running unstable on my desktop allows me to install many recent things with very little trouble (and no, unstable almost never breaks).
However, I'm not sure that listing absolutely everything should ever be a goal. Having a lot of packages is very good, because it's nice to easily have all of your choices laid out, but it can make it difficult when you're trying to choose software. I can only imagine the horror if they tried to list every CMS or MP3 jukebox (we get _buckets_ of those types of projects submitted to freshmeat, and most are very similar).
On the other hand, people shouldn't necessarily be restricted from putting new packages in Debian just because there are a lot of similar projects, because everyone has different needs. It's a difficult problem, and I'm not sure how/if the project currently deals with it (though most everything I've seen in there seems to be of reasonable quality).
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Debian developers are known to have strong convictions and it is easy to get into some old argument when the buttons of one group or another are pressed.
/. posters were debian developers as well.
heh, I didn't know all
..that in an article about debian there is this big ad for, yes you guessed it, Microsoft.
More seriously though, UPM looks very cool. Hopefully it will be a success. Although I find it hard to believe that debian would adopt it, maybe that's why he seems to be planning another distro.
I've run Debian for years, and I've always felt that other distros were better. After all, those other distros get much more press, they've got glitzy widgets and eye candy, and it's hard to resist that.
So about every 6 months I'll hear about a new version or distro and will give them a shot. I'll install them and make an honest effort to use it, rationalizing my choice just like the distro's marketing people want me to. But I always wind up throwing my hands up in disgust and thinking, "How can people use this crap from day to day?!"
Now, with many distros polluting the ideas of free software and open source -- feeding you a GPL license and then their own proprietary license which prevents you from copying CDs and giving them to all your friends or from installing on multiple computers -- there's more reason than ever to use Debian.
Debian's geek appeal is legendary. But now, with Debian's Desktop and Education sub-groups, the old idea of being proud of a geeky install is disappearing. Debian's beta installer is on par with every other distro's -- a fact that thousands of Debian users are eagerly awaiting.
Everyone's heard of apt-get and Debian's package management system. Yes, it's as slick as you've heard. But fewer people realize the huge scope of software available in Debian. I run all my desktop machines with Debian's "unstable" (think "unstable" as in changing; Debian's "unstable" release might have bugs, but there are certainly no more bugs in unstable than in the commercial release distros!). With that I have a huge selection of software -- over 10,000 packages. All of those packages are done by registered developers whose first job is to do it right.
When I read in Linux Journal or somewhere online about a nifty program XYZ123, I just try to install it -- 9 times out of 10 one of Debian's hundreds of developers has already packaged up XYZ123 for Debian. There's a huge advantage of having a distro that is controlled by geeks who like computers and who do this for the fun of it. Debian's developers are into GNU/Linux, and it shows.
On DebianHELP we call Debian "militantly free software". Yes, that's what it is. That militant attitude permeates Debian and this is Debian's strong point. I like the fact that Debian people worry about little details in the license agreements. I like the fact that Debian segregates non-free software into its own little slum. I like that Debian has a "social contract" and clear guidelines about what it's interested in and what it's not.
Many times I've often said to myself, "Gee, why are those guys worried about that stupid thing..." (e.g. the old KDE-QT license battles). But time and time again I'm proven wrong as the correct view turns out to be the morally miltant view. Besides turning out a first-rate distro with loads of software, Debian's role as GNU/Linux's moral compass is something we can't afford to lose.
I think this article points out very well the problems with Debian that cause it's extremely slow release cycle.
First is it has way too many packages it tries to support. The articles says 9000 packages for 3.0 Woody. RedHat has something like 1800(I am sure this figure it slightly off) packages in RedHat 8.0 Psyche. So Debian has 5 times has many packages to support. I do think RedHat would do better to support more packages, but not that many more. I might add say abother 200 packages to RedHat which would put them at 2000, still 4.5 times less than Debian.
Second is that Debain tries to support way too many platforms. My personal philisophy is that while it would be nice to have the exact same distribution for every platform it is just impractical. It would help their development greatly if the cut platforms. If they wanted to be logical about it they could probably look at the number of users of each platform and create some minimum number of users to support that platform.
I do think that simplifying package maintaining is a good move, but they are trying to fix the symptom instead of the problem. I applaud them for delaying to make releases extremely stable, but I think some of their maintainers have the wrong idea. One example that comes to mind is the XFree86 maintainer continuing to maintain XFree86 4.1 months after 4.2 had been released.
Another point about Debian has been it's horrible installer. I am hoping the Progency installer does take over and is also improved upon.
I use RedHat and have for years, but I am looking for a new distribution. I am doing so because of bad decesions RedHat has made in my opinion. These include rushing releases to meet a deadline instead of holding back and making it truly stable. They love to talk about their Q/A team, but their touch is very obviously lacking in RedHat 8.0, but at least they aren't as bad as Mandrake Q/A.
Then there is having Havoc Penington as an employee and on top of that having him as a Gnome Developer. He has a philisophy of simplify the user inferace to make it more usable. I agree with this idea, but he takes it way to far. His definition of simplification is dumbing everything down and removing very useful features and settings. Even worse he has convinced many Gnome developers.
I have tried Debian, Sourcer, Mandrake, Gentoo, and even Slackware before RedHat. None were better than RedHat in my opinion. Like when I used Windows, I wish for something better.
Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
Have you tried Lindows ? ;-)
theefer
If you got that reference, I'm really sorry.
Anyway, please read this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debia
Maybe this will clear up a few things. Debian is supporting these architectures because no other Linux distribution does. As the message states, XFree doesn't even support as many architectures as Debian; the Debian project is how users of those architectures get XFree86 at all.
Maybe you feel that they are not important, but I think that the people using them would disagree. Obviously, there are enough people who use each platform to do the work of porting packages to it. What makes you think that they would turn around and do some other, "more important" work instead if support for their architecture was dropped?
[And isn't this why most hardware manufacturers don't release Linux drivers? Because "most people" use Windows?]
Debian exists as it is for many reasons, and there is nothing else like it. It is not going to change into your idea of the perfect distribution. However, there are several distributions which are addressing some of the "problems" _you_ (and others) have with Debian. Most of these amount to pretty graphical installers and a few other things, and are only for x86. Since that seems to be what you want, why don't you try one of them? IOW, don't complain that Mozilla doesn't have an integrated AIM client; use Netscape instead.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Umm.. I'm not sure about this exponential extrapolation thingy. By the same logic, they would be supporting something like 120 architectures by 2006 :-)
... These include rushing releases to meet a deadline instead of holding back and making it truly stable.
And yet in the previous paragraph you complain that in Debian X 4.1 is maintained instead of moving to the latest release. Sorry, you can't have both. Either you put up with Debian's delyaed release cycle, with the end result of a stable and well maintained distribution, or you go with Redhat and all the problems that it has.
But... there's something I'm worried about in debian... it's just too simple to apt-update.
If an user has installed an "unofficial" apt-source (are there any people out there which havn't?), a hack of a popular unofficial-deb FTP site can be disastrous.
This is not inherently debian's problem, but this distro makes it the easiest for people to update...
So debian should even stronger encourage the use of signed packages etc.
The future sure does look bright for debian. The way I see it, debian went through a huge backend change during the potato-woody release. The number of architures soared and the number of package become increadible. Essentially the developers where forced to automate the entire build process across all platforms. This was hugh, and puts debian in a really good postision going forward. From what I can tell, debian is the only distribution where scripts control so much of the backend in building, distributing, and bug tracking the system.
:P )
Now that this change has been accomplished there is alot of "low hanging fuit" for debian to pick.
The installer has been reworked and is currently in early beta testing. the whole thing is now modular to allow for easy porting to different architures, and to to allow for a very flexable install. Most debian developers want to be able to pop in a cd, have it detect most of the hardware, then automatically install baisc packages. The new installer allows for this, while retaining the power to customize or trouble shoot installations.
Also there is the new PGI installer. Version 1.0 is out now. This is as simple as redhat/mandrake installers. It has great hardware detection and set up and gnome desktop.
If you want to try thy hardware detection routines in debian (package discover) then try popping in knoppix 3.0. This is a debian system on a live cd. Pop it in to most PC and the network, x, sound, and usb are all configured.
The desktop is coming to debian. Both gnome2 and kde3 are about to move from experimental to unstable. They should be in sarge for the next stable release. gnome2 will enter this weekend, and kde3 is awaiting the completion of the transition to gcc-3.2, but its ready to roll.
There are now many subprojects that will help puch debian onto the desktop: eg the desktop , the education and the music (demundi) sub projects are all starting to take off.
Debian been my primary desktop for 2.5yrs, since I gave up on redhat. I keep trying other distro, but they are just to inflexable for my needs, and to difficult to maintain. I want something to get my work done, not to continuely tweak the operating system.
AC-DC
PhD elec. eng.
PS for those who think that lindows software warehouse or ximian redcarpet are cool, try kpackage with it confgure to use apt. This is the default in the debian's kde. This combo of kpackage and apt-get is the most powerful and user friendly package installation i''ve ever seen. ( Of couse I personally still use apt from a terminal.
I
In terms of packages, I just installed a new gentoo system today and there were a total of just over 20k packages to choose from.
Liberty.
If you look at that nifty chart provided at the beginning of the paper, you can easily see that the release time for stable is stretching out further and further as more packages and architectures are added to the fold. At 9,000 packages and 11 architectures, it took 2 YEARS to ship a stable release. If they are right, and 2004 will bring 30,000 packages (and probably another arch or two), how long is the release cycle going to stretch out to? And will people tolerate that long between stables? Look at the grumbling and outcry about the delay in getting Woody out the door.
I find it very interesting that the article would point out several times how difficult it is to maintain all of those packages and the diffs as they are updated, then point out how using a source-based distribution makes that kind of thing much easier. And yet, the author seems to suggest that source-based distros are somehow not as feasible as binary-based distros. He even goes on to call source-based distros "immature". Perhaps in the Linux world, but how long has FreeBSD been around? It's okay to borrow ideas from other groups when those ideas seem to be working. I think that the Gentoo project has done a great job in taking the idea of a "ports" system, addressing the shortcomings, and putting a workable source distribution system on the Linux platform.
In my mind, if Debian is going to continue scaling to 5-digit package listings, the project might want to look into the possible benefits of switching to a source-based distribution system. Look at what Gentoo has done, address any shortcomings, and develop a better source distribution system. Doing it the current way with 30,000 packages to maintain, we might not see Debian 4.0 until 2010. And there are probably a lot of people who can't or won't wait that long.
I can see how it, from a x86 user's perspective, would seem reasonable to drop support for most architectures. 95% of all computers are x86:s, right? But when you're one of those people who use more architectures, it's wonderful to be able to use the same distro on several systems.
I run debian on my TiBook and on my P-III at work (as does everyone there, except for management). It really is a blessing to have the same environment everywhere and that everything works (almost) the same way, whatever computer you're using. Not that I use the more exotic archs, but I definately can understand why it is desirable to support other platforms as long as people are using them.
It definately would be nice if the university (that I go to) would replace their aging Solaris 2.6 installation on their sparcs with woody. But that probably won't happen...
-- Free speech is only free if your time is worth nothing.
No, I haven't tried Lindows. From what I have heard it doesn't sound like the type of distribution for me, but I might give it a try one of these days.
Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
Hmm... i think there has to be a happy medium... not every RedHat release hits that, *cough 7.0*, but they have had fantastic releases that are still in production in our server farm, 6.2.
I have found 8.0 to be a fantastic release, and have had 0 problems thus far.
...since figures have been done in M$ Excel... ;)
No, I believe there is middle ground. I was complaining about redhat rushing releases for deadline, which is a certain problem. Then I complained about Debian using old versions, not necessarily becuase they are more stable, but for their own reasons, that is another problem. I think redhat could easily delay each X.0 release another 2-3 months and get the stability they need. Debian takes an extra year or more.
Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
Yeah, I meant to have Debian's release cycle is too slow as the title, but when I got writing it became broader so I redid the title.
Yes, Debian is volunteer driven, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be managed much better.
Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
I'm pretty sure FreeBSD offers a set of binaries alongside the ports tree. Gentoo offers only the binaries required to compile the base system and then proceeds to compile it, and everything else, from scratch. Everything is optimized and whatnot, and it's probably easier to maintain the distro since there's no need for the developers to compile the binaries. The downside is it's slow to install/upgrade pkgs, especially if you've compiled glibc 3 times because it's been updated quickly. Also, occasinally I'll find things that fail to compile in the tree.
When all freedom is outlawed only the outlaws have freedom
Yes, this is from a x86 user perspective. Yes, I know it can be great to have it on every system. I also know what it is like to be in that small percentage that does things differently. Mostly I was ranting, but overall I am was trying to point out Debian could probably be a Wonderful x86 linux distribution that everyone would flock to give the managed the project better. Maybe this could be done while supporting all the current platforms. That would still leave dumping over half the packages which I am sure would improve release speed.
Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
These are really related:
/. many times before, including the practicalities of building from C source, the relevance of Mono, standardization of the C Sharp language and the ownership of Java technologies.
The problem is the combinatorial explosion of testing effort dictated by the support of a large number of packages on a large number of platforms.
To this there's no easy answer. However, I do not believe that the 'competition' will really come from source-based distributions such as Gentoo mentioned above - ultimately the amount of testing to be done is the same, by getting you to compile things yourself, Gentoo makes it no more likely that a combination will actually work.
Ultimately the threat to Linux as a platform is the Dotnet virtual machine - a software platform comprehensive and abstract enough to reduce the n*m testing needed for Linux and Windows today back towards the 'n' of a single platform. Once Dotnet gets established, the relative cost of writing cross-(hardware)-platform applications will plummet and Linux will be unable to catch up.
The only genuinely equivalent technology available to Linux is Java. Therefore the only viable strategy for a group such as Debian, meaning a group that is serious about having broad hardware support and comprehensive package support and some assurance of quality and comptibility, is to embrace Java, encouraging the development of Java applications and supporting the Java VM as comprehensively as possible.
These issues have of course been discussed on
To date, the only real counter-arguments that have stood up are those of simple denial, that is, putting off the day where cross-(hardware)-platform compatibility has to be addressed so far into the future that it is likely that Linux will already have become an irrelevance by the time convergence takes place, or the reckless and naive assumption that the open-source community can clone, and will be allowed to clone, the the Dotnet platform in its entirety.
It will be interesting to watch how key development streams such as Debian, KDE, StarOffice etc. attempt to reconcile these conflicting demands. From the perspective of Java developers like me, it's becoming hard to resist the rather depressing conclusion that at least some of these difficulties are self-imposed.
Anyway, please read this:d ebian-d evel-200204/msg01343.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/
A quote from this message sums up exactly in one sentence why debian is worthy of the support and admiration of the community:
"I refuse to treat non-i386 users like second-class citizens."
As a linux-using powerbook owner, I thank you. I can't count how many times I have been told that I am not worthy of consideration because my niche is too small. Thank you debian for extending the useful lifespan of my computer several years while everyone else snorts derisively and tells me to buy a new Mac.
In a sense we are both spliting hairs. I could live with a text installer and debian could make a graphical installer. Yes, me living with the text installer is easier, but when everyone else has managed to get a graphical installer year ago, I wonder. As for the comment about install once and upgrade forever, I question how well that works. When I have tried upgrading with apt-get before I had problems with upgrading everything, relating to too many dependecies. From what I have heard this is a known problem and people suggest you just incremental upgrade you way the whole way.
Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
Its a really handy tool ported from debian. See http://apt.freshrpms.net
Now if only Red Hat would adopt it instead of up2date...
-- Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold.
*shrug*
I like how he makes utterly false claims about his data based on his misleading graphs.
Look at his debian growth graph. He conveniently skips the year 2001, making it look like the growth in recent years is something other than linear. He even states "Note that the number of packages seems to be growing exponentially."
The truth is, he's crammed two years of growth into a one year slot on the graph, making it appear to be accellerating. In actuality, if you imagine that growth spread over two years (as it actually is) it looks damn linear.
I guess even volunteers without corporate agendas are subject to fradulent data analysis.
Erik
The 9000 packages are one of the main reasons I use debian. Whatever open source program you need, you can be quite sure that it is in debian. Installing the program with all of its dependencies is a zillion times more convenient with apt-get than to hunt around the net for the packages (and possibly compile them).
But undoubtedly you are right, this huge number of packages slows down the release cycle. I don't know how this could be solved. Perhaps some kind of splitting into many sub-distributions, eg. debian-core debian-desktop, debian-server etc., would help somewhat. But then things get complicated when you inevitably get dependencies between the different sub-distros, and you have to integrate them for the release. And debian-core, which the other sub-distros would be built on, would inevitably be a bit older than the rest of the stuff.
Another thing is that everything in debian seems to be happening slow-motion. If you read the mailing-lists, there are endless nitpicking arguments about everything concievable. Democracy isn't about everybody taking part in every single decision. You elect leaders so they can make decision quickly, without everyone having to bother about it, as that doesn't scale. What would happen in society in general if we were to have referendums about every single thing the government decides?
There is an article in the german Linux Magazinthat gives some explanation about new 'version mixing', 'downgrading' possibilities in the new apt software under 'woody' (sorry only german language). So you can keep your base system stable and add some additional software from 'testing' or 'unstable', or you can try the 'testing/unstable' release, and if those releases are too buggy, you can downgrade to 'woody' again.
- Yasa
The plots in chapter 2, The Past, are somewhat misleading in that they suggest a steeper growth rate lately that is actually true:
:-), while the year 2001 is missing (making the latest growth seem exponential).
The time scale (x axis) is nonlinear!
The year 1996 is listed twice (thus making 1996 a particulary long year
Debian does grow rapidly, but not *that* rapidly.
--- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
They havn't used some of the new characters from toystory 2 (though some of the names might not work). How about
a release called Stinky Pete? Why not Andy? What's wrong with Jesse? Zorg? (I forgot the name of Woody's horse).
The Debian package format was introduced in 1995. The RPM package format was introduced in... 1995.
In terms of age they are pretty well matched. Red Hat was a growth of several other earlier package managers (RPP, PMS, PM) which may have made the transition a bit easier.
Probably the biggest thing Red Hat had going for it is that Caldera providing some of the funding for the initial development. In other words, it was multi-distribution from the start, whereas Debian for a long time was proprietary to their distribution (yes, I realize there are now several Debian based distributions out there).
Matt
And, in chapter four, the show this image which has the correct scaling. Guess what. It looks exponential to me.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Hmm. From 1999 to 2002 it looks linear to me. There's a difference between asymptotic and exponential.
Fraud is probably a stronger word than I should have used. Hasty and unsubstatiated are better words.
Erik
If you mean technical advantages, there's a couple, notably ghost files, triggers, and a more verification system which provides more information about exactly how a file has changed.
.deb format, apart from the LSB's rubber stamp?
/etc/init.d and /usr/share/doc have over /sbin/init.d, /etc/rc.d/init.d and /usr/doc apart from the LSBs rubber stamp?
Practically, both can have policy, its the matter of the distribution to produce and stick to good policy. Some areas are handled better by some distros (eg, all the packages are signed, or they have standard naming conventions) but that's a higher level issue and neither RPM nor Dpkg based distros excel in that area.
and what advantages does RPM have over the
I'll be evil and answer with a question, thanks Alex.
What advantages does
What advantages do IMAP4, ical, and vcard have over MAPI, apart from the IETF's rubber stamp?
The lack of standardization amongst Linux distributions and compromises that result (like labelling alien an aceptable implementation or RPM) have a greater negative effect on Linux adoption than a few minor technicaladvantages that various formats have over the other. More Linux adoption means hardware works, upstream providers can support your operating system, and a bunch of other stuff.
There are already CD images of Sarge about (pre-release of course, and at the moment they are not bootable - waiting on the new installer).
.jigdo files for debian at http://www.debian.org/CD/jigdo-cd/.
Something else of note to look at Re: Debian is Jigdo.
Jigdo basically downloads all the individual files from Debian mirrors, and "makes" the CD image. Jigdo can be used on mirrors to avoid having to transfer the whole CD image (and if you run a mirror, you'll probably have all the *.deb's on hand anyway), while still being available for use by end users. As the *.deb's are more likely to be cached, wether in a proxy or via a mirror, this can result in a speed-up for downloading an image. It also supports upgrading only the files that have changed (eg: for keeping up-to-date images of stable), without downloading the whole CD image. Much better than trying to do something silly like rsync against the old image.
You can find jigdo at http://home.in.tum.de/~atterer/jigdo/, and the pointers for
PS: I don't believe that Jigdo is limited to use with Debian, but like apt, it's another tool that was produced to address a specific need within the Debian community.
dpkg has it's own technical advantages too, such as suggests and recommends, and diversions. It also, as far as I know, integrates more closely with apt, allowing you to put packages on hold and handle systems which mix packages from a variety of sources (eg: base system from latest stable, latest version of package foo from unstable or testing).
Ignoring for the moment that IMAP4, ical, vcard and MAPI are all very different things, there's a fatal flaw in your analogy - you're equating things are are established, open standards to something that is comparitively closed. A more appropriate analogy would be to compare IMAP with POP3 - they're both open, established standards that solve the same problem in different ways, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Trying to force everyone currently using POP3, or some other method they've come up with themselves, to use IMAP instead would cause chaos - IMAP would have to be expanded to handle functionality that currently only exists in POP3, and the changeover would be a nightmare for all concerned.
This is why the LSB states that here that "The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its own packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for installing the LSB-conformant packages.". To me, alien sounds like a fine way of installing LSB-conformant RPM packages. The LSB have realised that trying to force all distributions to switch to the RPM format internally would be a fatal mistake - the toll on the Debian project would be enormous (volunteers really don't have time to repackage 8000+ packages to suit the desires of a committee), and it would destroy the usefulness of innovative new distributions like Gentoo.
Maybe I'm missing your point slightly, but I really don't see what switching Debian to the RPM format would achieve apart from causing an entire upheaval of Debian's entire package archive and development process, not to mention all of the Debian servers out there which can currently be so easily upgraded to the latest stable Debian version without so much as a reboot. You seem to say that it'd be for the greater good of Linux, but I personally think that keeping Debian around as a viable free alternative to the commercial distributions is a far more important thing to the future of Linux than some piddling squabbles over a file format.
dpkg has it's own technical advantages too, such as suggests and recommends
/sbin/init.d, /etc/rc.d/init.d, /usr/doc and other nonstandard file formats that aren't wrong (it may be more logical from acertain point of view to put intiscripts in sbin). You haven't responded to this.
I know that. You know I know that. But you asked about Red Hat advantages so that's what I gave you. I'm well aware dpkg has advantages over RPM in many ways and I've indicated such in my discussion of the topic. I've never alleged RPM wass a better all round solution, in fact, I've done the opposite - state that there's more to the argument than technical considerations.
Ignoring for the moment that IMAP4, ical, vcard and MAPI are all very different things,
MAPI or IMAP can be used as tranbsports for a variety information stored in a variety of formats, such as mbox, ical, vcard, or the Exchange message store.
I was aware that someone might misunderstand that analogy, so I added another -
As I said, the LSB does indeed accept compromises - there's no need to tell me this. As I've also said, that doesn't mean those compromises are OK.
To me, alien sounds like a fine way of installing LSB-conformant RPM packages.
They're not packages once alien is finished with them. `Package Management',as I see it, is based on relationships between packages which are destroyed once alien has been used on them.
The LSB have realised that trying to force all distributions to switch to the RPM format internally would be a fatal mistake
The LSB couldn't force anyone to do anything - it's an optional standard. Gentoo can exist, so can Slackware, so can LFS - they see advantages in not being LSB compliant and choose not to participate. More power to them. There's no practical way could `destroy the usefulness of innovative new distributions like Gentoo' by specifying a complete rpm implementation anymore than they stopped Slackware from existing by specifying SysV init.
However, for those who seek to use Linux in a larger scale environment or for something they consider important, some kind of structure is desired. Currently that structure is provided by a particular Linux distribution. People write and certify (closed source) apps for distros. People learn skills only applicable to distros. People write apps only applicable to distros. People compile and package applicable to distros. Use a less popular distro, and you'll either have to do a lot more work or miss out entirely.
The LSB is about writing apps for Linux. There's going to be
the toll on the Debian project would be enormous
The toll on packagers from the current situation is already enormous. Enhancing RPM to have a superset of current Linuxpakcage management features would and migrating the this RPM implementation would involve alot of short term work for a lot of long term gain when maintaining packages in future. Hell, if every (common) Linux distribution standardized on a package format you might even see people writing more apps that package nicely rather than using custom build jobs you have to play with in sed to install to the correct location.
As I've said, its no skin off my nose. If you've never been pissed off that a particular company hasn't packaged their proprietary app for your distro, then I suppose my point has no basis.
But chances are you have been, and it does.
It's a valid point, but the cost in switching from one to the other is very, very small compared to the cost of an entire upheaval of the Debian project to convert it to RPM.
Its nice to see the discussion has moved from `Dpkg has advantages over RPM and RPM has none' to different arguments abotu the amoutn of effort required and the cleanliness of the RPM source code. Not that anyone has acknowledged I have a point on those matters, they've just changed topic for Mysterious Reasons.
Do you honestly think that the work of the Debian maintainers would be reduced if the world adopted RPM as the one and only package format?
Did I say the world? As I said, I'm talking about Linux distributions used in large scale environments. Hobbyists should use whatever OS they want. Businesses and Universities Government departments often have stricter needs.
Who says they're not? Have you ever actually used alien?
That's really fucking rude. Of course I have, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about it. Have you? If you have, then you'd know that, as I said, alien strips dependency information. Without dependencies there's not much management happening now is there?
Gentoo's package management system makes an interesting change from binary package-based systems like RPM and dpkg, and think Gentoo should be applauded for pushing Linux in a new direction. However, under your view of what you seem to think the LSB should become, they would be forever denied the opportunity to become LSB compliant due to an arbitrary constraint on internal implementation details, and that's just wrong.
Indeed, that's a useful idea. But why is it necessary to break a standard to do this? Why not implement a frontend installs software and resolves dependencies by downloading and rebuilding source packages rather than binaries? It wouldn't be particularly hard to do. Better yet, everyone can benefit, because its compatible with the existing system. Setting higher standards encourages this kind of behavior. Encouraging people to take advantage of a good idea without breaking an existing system is very, very right.
It's a standard than can be adopted by all of the Linux community, not just the subsection of it that happens to use RPM
Hehe. By most estimates, your `subsection' means `most installed systems'. Standards don't stifly innovation, but the standard generally does lag behind the bleedign edge. That's a good thing. Nobodies provided a reason why source based dependency resolution could work within RPM, nor suggests / recommends.
The LSB is designed to encourage innovation and diversity in distributions
No. Its primary goal is to standardize that platform.
and not to force a view that "any distro is LSB compliant as long as it looks and smells like Red Hat".
Did I say that? I don't think I did. Red Hat has very little to do with the LSB, mainly because RH's people were wary that their involvement and size in the early stages would discourage smaller distros.
Debian 3.0 with PGI would be nice if Debian 3.0 was as up to date with software as others.
The Debian "testing" branch is exactly the right distance from the bleeding edge for my taste, much more so than the "stable" branch (currently 3.0/woody). Of course, the point of using the PGI installer for x86 Debian is not to mindlessly remain with exactly what remains at the conclusion of the installer, but rather to start tracking one of the Debian branches using apt-get.
Only someone stubbornly ignorant about how Debian works would not ignore the testing branch to promote the obsolete misconception you've cited.
With Xandros I don't see where you can freely download anything. Their ftp site again doesn't accept anonymous ftp. How are they following GPL?
(1) Why are you asking me? Presumably, they follow the GPL by providing access to matching source via one of the mechanisms specified in clauses 3a or 3b to those who have lawfully received GPL-covered binaries Xandros redistributed. (2) Does your question mean that you're one of those tiresome people who wave the GPL around without actually reading it?
Libranet has serious issues with me in that they charge for the second cd which has all the real differences between Debian and Libranet on it. Their ftp site doesn't accept anonymous ftp. Are they even following GPL?
(1) You're entitled to have all the "serious issues" you want. Doesn't change the fact that they've made their installer available gratis. (2) Why are you asking me? Presumably, they follow the GPL by providing access to matching source via one of the mechanisms specified in clauses 3a or 3b to those who have lawfully received GPL-covered binaries Libra Computer Systems Ltd. redistributed. (3) Does your question mean that you're one of those tiresome people who wave the GPL around without actually reading it?
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com