Slashdot Mirror
Debian: A Brief Retrospective
IanMurdock writes "This weekend, Debian turned 10. To mark the occasion, I've written a retrospective, published at LinuxPlanet. There's also a very nice piece, based in part on my early writings about Debian as well as the retrospective, at internetnews.com."
I'm nowhere being a linux guru, and I'm sure there will be the usual Debian trolls, but after getting through the initial Debian installation as a new Linux user, it has been one of the most satisfying computing experiences I have had in a long time.
It still boggles my mind that my Thinkpad has been running the same initial installation for the last 2 years, without so much as a hiccup.
Everyday I appreciate all the hard (volunteer no less) that has gone into this hodgepodge of kernels and free software that I can use as I see fit.
My thanks to all the persons that make Debian what it is.
Debian a Decade Ago
Ian Murdock
Ten years ago, I posted a message announcing a new Linux project:
From: Ian A Murdock (imurdock@shell.portal.com)
Date: August 16, 1993 6:09:59 PST
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: New release under development; suggestions requested
Fellow Linuxers,
This is just to announce the imminent completion of a brand-new Linux release,
which I'm calling the Debian Linux Release. This is a release that I have put
together basically from scratch; in other words, I didn't simply make some
changes to SLS and call it a new release. I was inspired to put together this
release after running SLS and generally being dissatisfied with much of it,
and after much altering of SLS I decided that it would be easier to start
from scratch. The base system is now virtually complete (though I'm still
looking around to make sure that I grabbed the most recent sources for
everything), and I'd like to get some feedback before I add the "fancy" stuff.
[...]
(Full post available here.)
When I posted this message a decade ago, Linux was in use by maybe a few tens of thousands of people around the world, and most of those people were either running their own homebrew Linux system or Peter MacDonald's SLS, the Softlanding Linux System. Red Hat Software was but a twinkle in Marc Ewing's eye.
I had been using Linux for several months, since January of 1993. Not long after, I was hooked. Like most other early Linux enthusiasts, what hooked me was not Linux itself, but rather the community that had formed around it.
It's difficult to remember, because open source and open development projects are commonplace now, but in 1993, what I saw happening seemed completely illogical. How could people without any master plan, from different parts of the world, speaking different languages and not getting paid, come together to build something as complex as an operating system? The fascinating thing was that it worked.
The software coming from the GNU project was well-known and similar in many ways. It was also free and it lived on the Internet. But GNU software was developed the old fashioned way, with small, closely-knit teams behind closed doors (as Eric Raymond famously noted years later in his essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"). Linux was developed in a strikingly different and seemingly haphazard manner.
After a few weeks of dipping the proverbial toe in the water, I was swept away by all that was happening, and the power of what I had stumbled across quickly became clear. Invariably, a college kid such as myself would run across Linux (often in search of a way to run UNIX at home to save winter treks to the computer lab), take a look, register astonishment at what was happening, and then give it a try. Often, that was all it took.
The instinct to give back, to contribute to the community that didn't know you but that had already given you so much, was palpable. In mid-1993, I found my niche: I saw a need for a nicely packaged Linux "distribution," although from my initial post on August 16, 1993, it appears that this term wasn't in widespread use yet.
As briefly mentioned earlier, in those days people generally bootstrapped their own Linux systems from the ground up or used the SLS distribution. A few other distributions were available, notably MCC Interim from the Manchester Computing Centre and TAMU from Texas A&M University, but these efforts were mostly dormant by the time I found Linux. In early 1993, SLS was king.
I had harsh words for it at the time, but I cannot emphasize this enough: SLS was a breakthrough achievement, because it represented the first time Linux had been packaged for an audience broader than its own developers. Previous distributions tended to stop at the kernel, the basic utilities, and the development toolchain. SLS included a window system, document formatting tools, games, and other tools that a broader user community could appr
It reminded me of many of the reasons I chose Debian as my first Linux distribution (I'm with Red Hat now but that's more a matter of convenience than philosophy)
Debian still stands out as the distro most reflective of the GNU philosophy. Its packaging system is possibly one of the best uses of the GNU development toolchain I've seen, and its division of software between 'free' and 'non-free' in dselect is yet another example that this is the GNU distro.
I must admit, the project seems to be languishing a bit right now in terms of usage; some of this I blame on the lack of availability of the latest unstable packages (Debian seems to be quite conservative as far as this goes, going so far as to use the 2.2 kernel as its default install option). I also wonder whether the success of more commercial distros has to do with the inclusion of non-free software (especially in the form of drivers) and tools that are contrary to the GNU philosphy, yet more in tune with the needs of business users.
Regardless of the fact that I am no longer using Debian, it will always hold a special place in my heart. Thanks for all your hard work.
/joeyo
2^5
I think you're thinking of something else. Seriously, I've been on the debian-users mailing list for a long time, and it's made up almost exclusively of nice, outgoing, helpful people. I've never seen a newbie with a legitimate question get an RTFM from the regulars. Sometimes you'll see stupid questions like "y isn't debyan as cool as red hat?" get flamed, but you'll see that anywhere.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Apt also exists for RPM (http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/). When you install it package handling with RadHat or SuSE is as convenient as with Debian.
Now, that question could've been answered from Google. He also could've read the documentation that shipped with the bittorrent package. In other words, he didn't do much research before asking.
And his first answer was dead-on correct, polite, and non-patronizing.
Yeah, those Debian people are some hard-core elitists.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
there isn't a consensus among a majority of the Linux users? Woah. You're obviously blind.
Linux users expect everything to be free and in general dislike things they have to pay for. They make up silly things in their head to justify their descision that "pay-for software" is bad.
Linux is a community and can be spoken for (as Slashdot can). Just because there are a *few* outspoken critics of the majority (check any post that goes against the Slashdot norm and I can guarantee you 100% that it's been modded up and down MANY-A-TIME).
Don't troll.
I forgot to mention that Debian is the basis of Knoppix. People have been doing some really neat things with Knoppix and derivatives. I've given it out as a demo CD to a few people, and now they want me to install Linux to their hard drives.
Having Debian around as a base system for others to build on is really turning out to be a great thing for the community.
unstable always seems to have package problems which leads you back to dependency hell
I'm not trolling here, but by definition, unstable in Debian speak refers to the package management of the package is not thoroughly tested. Unstable does not necessarily have anything to do with the software within the package.
How many times does it have to be said that RPM is not comparable to apt?
RPM is the package format, like dpkg (.deb). You should compare apt on Debian to up2date, Red Carpet, YaST, URPMI or even apt for RPM.
I am tired or Debian or (help us) Gentoo users raving about "RPM hell" out of ignorance. Debian with apt has some nice things going for it, including the amount of software available in "testing" and "unstable" (as compared to what is offered by RedHat through up2date or Ximian through Red Carpet). The same is true of Gentoo and portage. But please, people, give up this tired "RPM hell" argument.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
"[...] were surprised that there was a substantial group of users who actually wanted to compile Open Source rather than just install binaries."
/etc/apt/sources.list. Then check the "apt-get" manpage for "source" and "build-dep".
;)
Yes, there are also people on workstations who spend all of their time in X, and for some reason still want to boot into a virtual console and execute "startx". I hardly think we need to discuss the usual reasons for this, nor that it would be particularly flattering. If you are building on your own system all or even most of your packages from source, you are almost certainly wasting your time (which is, of course, yours to waste).
Myself, the existing Debian build system has proven adequate for the few cases in which I have needed to build an official package from source (to change compile options).
Of course you know that Debian GNU/Linux system allows you to build packages yourself, and provides a dependency resolving system for building packages from source.
Since you are complaining, I assume that you have actually used this system under Debian and found it to have limitations or other shortcomings such that it was inadequate for your needs.
For those not in the know, it is a fairly straightforward process to build a single package. Add a deb-src repository to your
It should be more than satisfactory for the generally very few cases in which there is some worthwhile advantage to be had in building from source (usu.
If not, there is always apt-build 0.8.5, which, once mature, should so far as I can see, satisfy every objection that these Gentoo users go on and on about; except of course the Debian Social Contract, which is not a "problem" I would ever want to see solved.
Go ahead, put apt-build on a non-production system and build your packages with your optimizing gcc flags to your heart's content.
I'm not going to try "apt-build world" yet, but it is there
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
From your post, you seem to be interested in using Debian, right now, as an advanced personal/business user. Is that an accurate assessment?
There is a great wealth of quality documentation and reference information available in electronic form. I know that you would like a dead-tree book, but as a volunteer, non-profit distribution, I don't know that this is the Debian way.
As you say that you have already had a successful install, there's no need to go over that.
First, you will want to read the APT HOWTO.
This is a very informative HOWTO. It describes apt, which is the basis for managing and maintaining your Debian system. Keep a link to it; when you first read through it you may not understand how or when certain scenarios arise, but depending upon your use, you will find these scenarios useful in the future.
Second, you will want to read Securing Debian Manual.
As an experienced user, you shouldn't generally have any problems determining what in this document is applicable and what is not.
For any other system related questions, start by checking Debian Reference.
Should you run a testing/unstable system? Depending upon your use, it might be best to stay with stable. It might also be acceptable to use unofficial apt repositories for backports to woody (current Debian stable release) of software such as GNOME 2.2 and Mozilla Firebird, or even to just go ahead and include testing/unstable apt repositories.
It depends upon your use, as Debian can satisfy a great range of needs.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in