Debian Can Now Amend Social Contract, DFSG

This is good news by EmCeeHawking · 2003-10-30 10:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

This move will really help to advance the speed with which debian can move forward, insofar as its "licensing"( if you can call it that ) goals are concerned.

What's really interesting here is that this moves them a little closer to the way the Gentoo people operate. Take a look at Their Social Contract for comparison purposes.

Re:This is good news by PotPieMan · 2003-10-30 10:46 · Score: 1

Only Gentoo does track the licenses for each package. Take, for example, the ebuild for net-im/gaim-0.71-r2:
# Copyright 1999-2003 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-im/gaim/gaim-0.71-r2. ebuild,v 1.2 2003/10/28 13:19:21 mholzer Exp $ IUSE="nls perl spell nas ssl" DESCRIPTION="GTK Instant Messenger client" HOMEPAGE="http://gaim.sourceforge.net/" EV=2.15 SRC_URI="mirror://sourceforge/gaim/${P}.t ar.bz2 ssl? ( mirror://sourceforge/gaim-encryption/gaim-encrypti on-${EV}.tar.gz )" RESTRICT="nomirror" SLOT="0" LICENSE="GPL- 2" KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc ~sparc" ...
Note the LICENSE field. Those are supposed to appear in each ebuild. It's up to the developers to set it correctly, and I'd like to think that they usually get it right. Also note that Portage includes has a copy of each license at /usr/portage/licenses.

If you want to restrict your system to entirely free software, there's nothing preventing you from checking the ebuilds before installing a package. It wouldn't be difficult for someone to extend Portage to allow users to set a policy for what types of licenses they accept. For instance, you could say that you only want to use free software, and Portage would ignore or mask ebuilds that had licenses other than those that are "free".
Re:This is good news by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-10-30 13:03 · Score: 1

Could we stop this Gentoo vs Debian, bullshit. I myself use Gentoo but I don't have to advertise it to everyone. People are quite content with using Debian, and let them. Stop recommending Gentoo to everyone as it's not the best for every job.

Heh... by devphaeton · 2003-10-30 10:03 · Score: 4, Funny

All this licensing stuff is turning into government with constitutions, amendments, and elections.

I wonder if this scratches a subconscious need that was previously fulfilled by the complex gameplay of DnD and RPGs that many geeks did as kids?

I don't want politics, i want software!

(all in jest, of course)

--

do() || do_not(); // try();

good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-30 10:05 · Score: 1, Funny

now maybe they can get together and vote on taking a shower sometime before the next stable release...

Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Debian is huge. It's long past the point that non-free could support its own organization.

When I created the original Debian Social Contract, non-free wouldn't have been self-supporting. But we've had this hypocracy about non-free since then. Non-free is not officially part of Debian, but is maintained as part of Debian, using all of the same facilities and within the same organization. Debian can now afford to be 100% Free Software and no exceptions, and can put non-free somewhere else with people who care about it. APT will handle this very easily, there's no overhead to the user except perhaps to change /etc/apt/sources.list once, which we can do for them with a script.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by GreyWolf3000 · 2003-10-30 10:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

..., which we can do for them with a script.
Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by Jellybob · 2003-10-30 10:40 · Score: 1

Wouldn't the *script* be free, therefore being eligible for the main Debian archives?

If you have a problem with it being a script to allow access to non-free packages, write one that will add any apt source to the list, instead of just one for non-free.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is how I see it working.
Some time before non-free disappears from Debian's mirrors, we'd make some base package require a package containing an installation script that looks to see if the user is presently using the non-free repository. So, everyone who runs an upgrade would get this package, and it's script would run. If the user is using the non-free repository, the user gets a note that it's moving, and is asked if he'd like to reset his apt choices to the new location of non-free or to do without non-free from then on, in which case we'd present the list of packages that would be lost from the system.
Debian isn't about taking choice s away from people. But that doesn't mean that Debian can't make it's own choices and ask people to find what they want elsewhere.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by dbarclay10 · 2003-10-30 10:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?

Compare it to the current situtation, where the same maintainers use the same keyring and the same servers and the same development boxes and the same mailing lists and the same archive maintenance facilities and the same build daemon infrastructure.

In other words, no, nobody would seriously consider users being able to install non-Free software resulting in Debian not being "100% Free Software". That's somewhat akin to saying that Debian isn't "100% Free Software" because our package tools are capable of installing non-Free software, and because our compilers can compile non-Free software.

To understand what the change actually *means*, you need to understand the vast amount of resources that goes into putting Debian together. The non-Free repositories available on some Debian mirrors piggyback on this infrastructure, and what's being proposed is removing that.

--

Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by jon787 · 2003-10-30 11:27 · Score: 1

If the user is using the non-free repository

Sounds like a good use for the VRMS package.

--
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 11:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

By the way, I am holding nonfree.org for this purpose.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by kardar · 2003-10-30 12:25 · Score: 2, Informative

I think it makes sense; I think that's actually something that makes Debian kind of cool; is that you can give your system its own (your) personality by modifying the sources.list file.

I don't think I really understood the possibilites until I discovered apt-get.org. It's a great concept, that you can "tune in" to the types of software that you want/need, and it doesn't all necessarily have to come from the official Debian servers.

This might give Debian users more choices, actually.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by BigFootApe · 2003-10-30 12:54 · Score: 1

I don't think it's a good idea for Debian to totally divest itself of non-free software. The fact remains that non-free software is useful for large numbers of people. It would irritate them if they were too greatly inconvenienced.

I am not, however, disagreeing with this post. I think it would be beneficial for Debian to concentrate exclusively on a core composed of free software. I'm simply stating that any offshoot of Debian dealing with non-free software must cooperate closely with the core project to be successfull, and vice versa.

Here's another thought, and it's essentially costless: lobby upstream developers whose software is non-free to relicense DFSG compliant. The worst they can say is no.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 13:15 · Score: 1

Here's another thought, and it's essentially costless: lobby upstream developers whose software is non-free to relicense DFSG compliant. The worst they can say is no.
Well, of course that's been happening for years. The fact that non-free is a little farther away will only make it easier.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by hankaholic · 2003-10-30 13:47 · Score: 1

Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?
Yes. The script performs a function and allows others to modify that functionality and redistribute their modifications. It requires no non-free software, and can run on a 100% DFSG-compliant system. The other cannot run without non-free software, period.

If the program is DFSG-compliant, and requires no DFSG-compliant software to function, it belongs in main.

If the program is DFSG-complaint, and cannot run without non-free software, it belongs in contrib.

If the program is not DFSG-compliant, it belongs in non-free.

What the program does is not an issue -- a script which parses and modifies a text file may be adapted to many situations. Since users are free to perform and redistribute these modifications, the script has no place in non-free.

--
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by swillden · 2003-10-30 14:22 · Score: 1

I don't think it's a good idea for Debian to totally divest itself of non-free software. The fact remains that non-free software is useful for large numbers of people.
It wouldn't be a big deal. Right now there are several repositories that host .debs of packages that Debian won't carry, even in the non-free tree. Things like MP3 encoders that have potential patent restrictions, or libdvdcss, which may violate provisions of the DMCA.
Most users of Debian want to use those other packages, so they just add the appropriate lines to sources.list and apt-get away. The maintainers of those other packages track and cooperate with the maintainers of the main Debian repositories. The result works very well, and is almost completely transparent to the users.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by gmhowell · 2003-10-30 14:55 · Score: 1

What are you wasting our time for? What could you possibly know about Debian?

BTW, your picture on your site makes you look much more sane than you did in Revolution OS.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by timotten · 2003-10-30 15:35 · Score: 1

As a user, I only expect that sending non-free off to a separate organization would cause quality regression. I don't see an advantage in it.

... put non-free somewhere else with people who care about it ...

Debian has a number of individuals who maintain non-free packages. Aren't the packages already with people who care about them?

... APT will handle this very easily...

APT might, but Debian's quality doesn't come from APT. It comes from Debian -- the organization, the policies, the developers, the large umbrella.

Suppose non-free were the ugly duckling of the open source community. Then a separate Non-Free Organization should have trouble _getting_ facilities. Would a user be well served with fewer mirrors and fewer build hosts (representing fewer architectures) for the non-free portion?

Suppose non-free Debian poses different technical issues from free Debian. Why should I believe that those issues are better dealt with separately? For example: testing and unstable periodically change ABI when they adopt a new gcc or libc. The two organizations would have to coordinate the transition in order to maintain quality. Also: licensing issues and compilation issues (eg hard-coded paths, patch constraints, binary-only releases) may make non-free software harder to integrate with Debian. That difficulty is good: it is a check against open-source's flexibility. A Debian which ignores non-free issues can only become _less_ compatible. That would make it harder for _me_, a supporter of free software principles, to keep Debian at work (we use Oracle and MatLab); it would make it harder to persuade my bosses or my users that free alternatives can satisfy _their_ needs.

Finally (on another note), Debian provides a vetting process for developers and packages. That process may be overburdened or flawed, but I can't imagine that duplicating the effort at Debian and Non-Free Organization would improve it.

Now (*begins stepping off soap box*) I haven't run any large, multinational non-profit software organizations. But I think you need to make a more compelling case. What can a separate, official organization offer that an integrated, unofficial organization cannot? (*actually gets off soap box*)
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by chuckpeters · 2003-10-30 19:24 · Score: 1

It's long past the point that non-free could support its own organization.
My question is why would vendors want such an organization when they can easily host their own apt archives?
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by ajs318 · 2003-10-30 22:07 · Score: 1

Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?
That's a bit like saying vegetarian food isn't actually suitable for vegetarians if the vegetables used to make it were grown on a farm that raises animals; or someone who works in the factory that made it, or the shop assistant who took your money, eats m**t. And there really are people who believe stuff like that. I've even heard of people who won't eat food grown with certain kinds of fertiliser, i.e. animal shit, blood and crushed-up bones; and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that in some little cemetery somewhere are the mortal remains of someone who believed that it was wrong to kill even germs.

The thing is, if you're a realist, you can't be anything else but a realist: realism is by definition incompatible with any other doctrine. RMS and friends have very high ideals, but it's lonely up there. Me being a realist doesn't mean I don't dream of the day when there is no such thing as non-free software. Till then, some of us have to compromise a little, but understand that we all suffer for it.

Actually, the most severe obstacle to anyone writing a really-free PINE clone is that "_inp" {being the end of the acrynym for "... Is Not Pine"} doesn't spell the end of anything related to trees, disinfectant fragrances or suffering for want of someone/thing {which would be necessary to form a pun on "pine"}, and isn't euphonic enough. {For reasons to do with mouth movement, you can't actually pronounce an "n" followed by a "p" - it always comes out as either _ntp_ or _mp_.}

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by scharkalvin · 2003-10-31 01:05 · Score: 1

Well if Debian DOES remove non-free I hope someone will set up a rouge server someplace to hold all non-free debian packages that developers choose to package. There are SOME non free packages that I will run (such as SETI@HOME) because they are usefull, or interresting and I can agree with the providers reasons for not releasing source. And SOME packages are only considered non free because of political bullshit anyway.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization by Suppafly · 2003-11-01 16:19 · Score: 1

couldn't you just set it up so that non-free.debian.org or whatever just pointed to the real non-free site that was run by whatever organization decided to run the non-free stuff. Or would providing a url that worked with existing sources.list's be too much like debian endorsing non free software?

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by cK-Gunslinger · 2003-10-30 10:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Ok, I'll be fair.. I have woody on my laptop.

[SNL] "Tommy, dude, tell me you got that on tape!" [/SNL] =P

Check your apt setup by amck · 2003-10-30 10:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Debian Unstable is not that out of date: Its got
Gnome 2.4, OpenOffice 1.0, Sodipodi 0.32+'

Check your apt-get setup, and update.

If you want a newer stable Debian, help. Debian is a volunteer organisation, after all; you don't
even need to be a DD. Just look at
http://www.debian.org/devel, look at the list of RC bugs, and post fixes to the BTS!

Regards,
Alastair McKinstry

--
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist

Too late, it's already done! by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Uh, I run unstable and it put GNOME 2.4 and OpenOffice 1.1 on my systems a little while ago.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Too late, it's already done! by RickHunter · 2003-10-30 10:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Heck, OpenOffice 1.1 is in testing now.
Re:Too late, it's already done! by Just+Some+Guy · 2003-10-30 10:29 · Score: 1

With due respect, are you sure about that? I just installed unstable on a new machine this week and had to add a non-Debian apt source to get OpenOffice. I can't seem to find anything at packages.debian.org either.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Too late, it's already done! by Feyr · 2003-10-30 10:37 · Score: 1

i am. openoffice 1.1 is in unstable. the package name is openoffice.org
Re:Too late, it's already done! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-30 10:39 · Score: 1, Informative

The package name is 'openoffice.org'. It is currently in 'contrib'.
Link to debian packages
Re:Too late, it's already done! by Espectr0 · 2003-10-30 12:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

How about xfree? Last time i checked, xfree was STILL at 4.2.1

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Re:Too late, it's already done! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-30 13:30 · Score: 1, Informative

You do realize of course it's Debian (specifically Branden) who ports XFree86 to all those archs that Debian supports. The XFree86 people only release working x86 code, Branden then has to port that code and make sure it works over 10 IIRC other archs. Not to mention the fact that usually the XFree86 official releases are often full of critical bugs that have to be fixed. Once the packages are ported and most of the big bugs are gotten rid of THEN and only then Branden makes the official Debian packages available. That doesn't mean you have to wait that long yourself, usually he releases unofficial pre-alpha/beta x86 (and possible a few other arch) binary packages along the way. And there's plenty of unofficial XFree86 packages on www.apt-get.org.
Re:Too late, it's already done! by LadyLucky · 2003-10-31 08:26 · Score: 1

No, that's not irony, it's funny, and I'm not even convinced about that.

--
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on

You mean one of the strong points??? by i_r_sensitive · 2003-10-30 10:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Given, the stuff in the stable tree, and on down is woefully out of date.

However, this is one of the things that has allways appealed to me about Debian. I use Debian for precisely that reason.

I long ago satisfied myself that Debian did at the very least a sufficient job of vetting the programs in their distro. I think of it as delegating that imprtant job. So, to a great degree, I know I can build a Debian/stable and set up a cron job to apt-get update and apt-get upgrade and be reasonably sure I'm up to date.

If Debian were to change this aspect of their opertion I would need to reconsider using that distro for the jobs I do. Principally, I use Debian for machines inside the firewall which just need to work. I don't need bleeding edge software, nor do I need to mop up the resulting pools of blood.

I know a lot of folks who make the similar complaint about Debian, and my response has allways been the same. You have literally dozens of distro's to select from. If Debian isn't giving you what you want, find another distro. Of course this is selfish, Debian does exactly what I want it to do, and I really would hate for that to change.

--
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals /." -

Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by FreakinHippie · 2003-10-30 11:53 · Score: 1

I second that statement. Besides, if you want bleeding edge there are plenty of unofficial apt repositories for most anything you could want.
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by rifter · 2003-10-30 12:34 · Score: 1

I second that statement. Besides, if you want bleeding edge there are plenty of unofficial apt repositories for most anything you could want.

The problem I had in trying debian early on was that the install kernel was 2.2 only and did not support my hardware. I could have built my own install, I suppose, but at the time I had only one computer worthy of such a task and not enough spare hard drives to do it. Even earlier this year when I tried installing debian, again the install kernel was 2.2. All the cutting edge apt repositories in the world will not help you if you cannot get a working operating system.

Another problem with this approach is related in that old versions of software often lack necessary features or just plain won't work under many conditions. In such a case it is actually a better idea to be more up to date. It is also a good plan to be up to date when it comes to plugging security holes in software.
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by Laur · 2003-10-31 01:50 · Score: 1

The problem I had in trying debian early on was that the install kernel was 2.2 only and did not support my hardware.
Yes, stable uses 2.2 by default but you have the option to use 2.4 (I believe the boot command is bf24). Alternatively, you could install with Knoppix and have a great desktop system right off the bat (which is what I did) or you can just apt-get a newer kernel (haven't tried yet).
Another problem with this approach is related in that old versions of software often lack necessary features or just plain won't work under many conditions. In such a case it is actually a better idea to be more up to date. It is also a good plan to be up to date when it comes to plugging security holes in software.
Stable is for servers. Testing or Unstable are for desktops. If you are running stable and absolutely need a later package you can install it from testing or unstable. BTW, all security patches are back ported to stable, if you run apt-get update regularly your stable system should have no known security holes in the software. It's for servers after all, where security and reliability are paramount.

--
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by Ben+Hutchings · 2003-10-31 01:56 · Score: 1

The problem I had in trying debian early on was that the install kernel was 2.2 only and did not support my hardware.

There are multiple builds of the installer and one of them uses a 2.4 kernel. If you're using an official CD you should be able to get that build by entering "bf24" at the multi-boot prompt (where the BIOS prints "boot:"). The installation manual has the details.

It is also a good plan to be up to date when it comes to plugging security holes in software.

Debian back-ports security fixes. You just need to include security.debian.org in your apt sources.
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by Daniel · 2003-10-31 02:00 · Score: 1

Even earlier this year when I tried installing debian, again the install kernel was 2.2.

If you look through the help screens in the installer's boot menu, you'll see that you can boot a 2.4 kernel.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by i_r_sensitive · 2003-10-31 05:15 · Score: 1

...the install kernel was 2.2. All the cutting edge apt repositories in the world will not help you if you cannot get a working operating system.
Umm, so a Linux box with a 2.2 kernel isn't a working operating system? Besides, I _NEVER_ use a stock kernel. I've been playing with Linux for almost 10 years now and the longest a stock kernel has ever run on one of my boxes (workstation or server) is certainly less than a day. For servers stock kernels are generally bloated, for my workstations, they never seem to have the drivers I need available. Lastly, my dev box is also Debian, currently running a 2.6 kernel. You can allways download the source...

--
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals /." -
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by rifter · 2003-10-31 05:38 · Score: 1

...the install kernel was 2.2. All the cutting edge apt repositories in the world will not help you if you cannot get a working operating system.

Umm, so a Linux box with a 2.2 kernel isn't a working operating system? Besides, I _NEVER_ use a stock kernel. I've been playing with Linux for almost 10 years now and the longest a stock kernel has ever run on one of my boxes (workstation or server) is certainly less than a day. For servers stock kernels are generally bloated, for my workstations, they never seem to have the drivers I need available. Lastly, my dev box is also Debian, currently running a 2.6 kernel. You can allways download the source...

A working operating system has to support the hardware on which it runs. It is particularly bad if it does not have the right drivers to talk to the hard drive. That makes it awfully difficult to install and update the operating system.

To use a non-stock kernel, you have to have a computer which has access to the internet and which can access its drives to store the kernel source. Editors and compilers are a plus. This is all very difficult if the kernel on the install cd cannot even write to 3 year old ide controllers.

I don't know why debian users always respond to this problem with "well just compile your own kernel, you loser!" As though I have never compiled a kernel. I would like to see them do that without a computer and access to a hard drive, as you seem to suggest. That is a really neat trick, eh? I guess debian is magical for you.
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by i_r_sensitive · 2003-10-31 11:01 · Score: 1

Dude, please...
First of all, I pointed out, no stock kernel has ever had the drivers for the hardware I use. I haven't even done an install in five years tht didn't involve passing arguments to the install kernel. In several cases I've had to build custom install media to get the job done. This is all documented on the Debian site, and I've used it succesfully.

As a Debian user, I get really tired of people bringing up this problem. It is not a problem, Debian allready supplies install CDs with various kernel images. Debian provides instructions on creating custom install images. Debian provides all the information you need to solve your problem, but it's Debian's fault if you don't use it?

But, I stated that I like Debian primarily for server installs. I haven't deployed many three year old servers this year, so I haven't had the problem which seems to be vexing you. However, I would counsel my clients against installing a three year old box as a new server, particularly in view of the trivial cost of hardware. Debian is perfectly suited for this job.

I also use Debian for one of my home boxes, and no, the install kernel didn't like my primary drive controller either, but I looked around the Debian site and got the information I needed to do the job, and I have a quite nice desktop out of the deal. But, I was willing to do the research and the work. If you aren't willing to do both of these, than you should reconsider which distribution you use.

On behalf of the Debian users who tell you to compile your own kernel, I will suggest perhaps you should be using a different distribution. Ours works just fine thanks, we all seem to get along with it, there are dozens of distributions out there, if the one I choose isn't cookie-cutter enough for you, try another. But please stop criticizing Debian for this, Debian has provided the information and tools to do the job. If you don't like how Debian does it, you have many options, the least welcome of which is crticizing Debian.

--
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals /." -
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by rifter · 2003-11-03 06:18 · Score: 1

But, I stated that I like Debian primarily for server installs. I haven't deployed many three year old servers this year, so I haven't had the problem which seems to be vexing you. However, I would counsel my clients against installing a three year old box as a new server, particularly in view of the trivial cost of hardware. Debian is perfectly suited for this job.

Debian did not have drivers for the new hardware that I bought this year, either.

I also use Debian for one of my home boxes, and no, the install kernel didn't like my primary drive controller either, but I looked around the Debian site and got the information I needed to do the job, and I have a quite nice desktop out of the deal. But, I was willing to do the research and the work. If you aren't willing to do both of these, than you should reconsider which distribution you use.

I did the research and the work, and chose a source-based distribution which, incidentally, included an install kernel with all the drivers I needed. It's really not that hard to do this. A kernel compiled with all the drivers in the world will easily fit on an iso and by the time you are using an iso, you really should not worry about less than a megabyte of extra space.

On behalf of the Debian users who tell you to compile your own kernel, I will suggest perhaps you should be using a different distribution. Ours works just fine thanks, we all seem to get along with it, there are dozens of distributions out there, if the one I choose isn't cookie-cutter enough for you, try another. But please stop criticizing Debian for this, Debian has provided the information and tools to do the job. If you don't like how Debian does it, you have many options, the least welcome of which is crticizing Debian.

If you cannot take criticism on something that is truly wrong, your distribution will never get better. The whole point of this discussion which you seem to fail to understand is that the installation kernels available should be ready to access at least the minimum of common hardware such as common drive controllers and network cards. I am speaking here of via ide chipsets, intell, 3com, and realtek network cards, stuff like that. If the user cannot install the operating system how do you expect them to build a kernel? Again you profess that debian is magical. Astounding what zealotry can do.
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by i_r_sensitive · 2003-11-04 06:44 · Score: 1

No, I never claim Debian is magical, I do assert that rather than trashing Debian for not doing every job, choose the right distro for the job, or be willing to do the work required to make Debian do the job. Asking Debian to support all the newest drivers and features in antitheitcal to the best part of the Debian distro. Nothing is in Stable that hasn't been shown to work reliably. If I diverge from stable, wether in the install kernel or what have you, that's on my own head to handle. This is fine for me, but not for everyone. My essential point all along has been, rather than putting pressure on Debian to do something they have never claimed to do (support all the latest gee whizz stuff) pick a different distro. There are literally hundreds of distros, one of them will suit your particular purpose. So instead of wasting time and breath arguing with Debian, or their zealots, why don't you exercise the power of choice. After all, isn't that at the heart of Free software, freedom of choice. Debian has the freedom to be slow, cautious and methodical, you have the freedom to choose a different distro if that doesn't fulfill your needs. I sincerely hope that Debian doesn't fundamentally change this aspect of the distro. But, if they do, I WILL select a different distro. I WON'T pester Debian, or it's new zealots to change back to the old way. If the decision is made to change this, oh well, I'll have to reconsider my distro. Ultimately this is how it should be, if every distro tries to satisfy everyone all the time, each will fail. So rather than harping on the zealots, or criticizing Debian for what they don't do well, find another distro, it is that simple.

--
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals /." -
Re:You mean one of the strong points??? by rifter · 2003-11-06 10:59 · Score: 1

No, I never claim Debian is magical, I do assert that rather than trashing Debian for not doing every job, choose the right distro for the job, or be willing to do the work required to make Debian do the job. Asking Debian to support all the newest drivers and features in antitheitcal to the best part of the Debian distro. Nothing is in Stable that hasn't been shown to work reliably. If I diverge from stable, wether in the install kernel or what have you, that's on my own head to handle. This is fine for me, but not for everyone. My essential point all along has been, rather than putting pressure on Debian to do something they have never claimed to do (support all the latest gee whizz stuff) pick a different distro. There are literally hundreds of distros, one of them will suit your particular purpose. So instead of wasting time and breath arguing with Debian, or their zealots, why don't you exercise the power of choice. After all, isn't that at the heart of Free software, freedom of choice. Debian has the freedom to be slow, cautious and methodical, you have the freedom to choose a different distro if that doesn't fulfill your needs. I sincerely hope that Debian doesn't fundamentally change this aspect of the distro. But, if they do, I WILL select a different distro. I WON'T pester Debian, or it's new zealots to change back to the old way. If the decision is made to change this, oh well, I'll have to reconsider my distro. Ultimately this is how it should be, if every distro tries to satisfy everyone all the time, each will fail. So rather than harping on the zealots, or criticizing Debian for what they don't do well, find another distro, it is that simple.
Ok, which is it that debian supports and to what purpose does it serve? I said it did not support my three year old hardware and you said it was too old. I said it didn't support new hardware and you said not to expect gee-whiz stuff. By the way I would have to say that Hard Disk Controllers are pretty important things to support, particularly extremely common hard disk controllers. And given that debian seems to suggest installing over the network as the best solution, it should support common network controllers.
Nothing I am suggesting is, as far as I know, an "unstable" package in any way, shape or form including by debian's own definitions and packaging. But they are not available choices on the installation media.
Also, you need to remember perspective, here. Someone was on here touting debian and I pointed out why it did not work for me. I also mentioned several times that I do use a different distro. I am using Linux right now because it is my main OS. I am not using debian because it is essentially useless, and I explained why.
It would be simple for these problems to be fixed and they would not break what debian claims to stand for. However, the response instead is "stop picking on my distro!" or "we know it sucks, but if you don't like it you can shove it." Which is fine, but it is not a way to run anything.
You keep mentioning "doing the work and research." Do you realize that in order to fix this problem I would have had to install a different distribution and build my own installation media? None of that is beyond my capabilities, but why the hell would I do that? If I had to install a different distribution in order to get a working computer and therefore be able to create installation media, why would I choose debian? You do understand what an operating system is for, right? It is the software that makes your computer run and allows you to run applications. Why would I install something that does not fulfill this most basic requirement of an OS?
Heck, while I am at it, making distribution installation cds, why don't I go all-out and make my own distribution? After all, I'm already compiling a custom installation kernel and building new installation media, why not go the rest of the way?
My point is that whereas the debian maintainers are perfectl

politics by HBI · 2003-10-30 10:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

You would wish that some distro would have its social contract be "To produce a great distribution with the latest software that is stable". Succinct, and what it should be all about.

If I wanted politics, i'd ...well, get involved in same.

I suppose I won't ever be using Debian, given my constraints (I tried it once - packages were way too old for my taste) but I wish someone would take the above to heart.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:politics by krmt · 2003-10-30 10:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

You would wish that some distro would have its social contract be "To produce a great distribution with the latest software that is stable". Succinct, and what it should be all about.
Good luck. The latest software isn't stable. It's got lots of hidden bugs. That's what the testing process is for. Different programmers test to different degrees. Obviously the linux kernel is heavily tested, but what about all the little programs that come with Gnome?

And then once the software is in the hands of the distro makers, they have to package it properly. Now, believe it or not, but packaging something well is tough. It's like programming, so you have to shake the bugs out of that too over time.

I guess it comes down to a different definition of stable. If you think all software is stable right out of the gate because it runs, then you've got a different definition of stable than most Debian developers. If you want that stuff, there's a version of Debian you can track: it's called unstable (and you can even sprinkle in experimental, if you really have the faith).

I really don't understand the general Linux user's need to get the latest and greatest at all times. Most of us ran windows for years, and simply waited for Microsoft to say "Ok, it's ready, here you go" every two or more years before upgrading. Debian's release schedule isn't a whole lot different, but you can simply see what's going on behind the scenes, so people tend to get impatient. How quickly we forget.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Re:politics by Jaeger · 2003-10-30 10:34 · Score: 5, Informative

I tried [Debian] once - packages were way too old for my taste

Odds are you'll get flamed by a handful of Debian fanboys and applauded by a handful of Debian haters. I fit squarely in the "Debian fanboy" category, but I'm going to try to stay away from flaming.

Debian's distribution system has three tiers: stable, testing, and unstable. The stable release is the one you complained about having "way too old" packages, which is fully legitimate -- Debian's stable packages are old. The theory is to maintain a consistent, fully-supported system that is Really Stable, while maintaining the ability to provide security updates when necessary. This is especially useful on production servers, where it's a Bad Idea to change *anything* without contemplating it first. It works well for systems that shouldn't need coddling to maintain; if I were building a Debian system for my mother I'd use stable.

Obviously, stable won't work for everyone. For those who like the bleeding edge, there's unstable, which contains the Latest and Greatest Software (much of it prerelease; all of it updated frequently). Unstable might break everything, but when it works, you get Mozilla 1.5 without having to think about it and everything New and Improved!

And then there's testing, which contains all of the New and Improved! packages from unstable after they've had a few weeks to sit and haven't had any bug reports filed against them. Testing is good for those who don't feel compelled to live on the edge but don't want to live in 2001, either.

Debian isn't for everyone, but that's why Linux is free software -- "free" as in "freedom".
Re:politics by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:35 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not just politics. Or, I guess I should say that these politics have an engineering reason behind them. It's really hard to produce a great distribution with the latest software that is available when you don't have the right to freely use, modify, and redistribute that software. Other considerations than engineering ones would tend to dominate your choices of what goes in the software.
I'm the guy who put these policies in writing for Debian. I had the job of building the distribution, and these policies were the ones that would allow us to build it as best we could. If you were to take the time to do the job for a while, you'd probably come to the same conclusions.
Perhaps it's easier to think about when considering the patents and standards situation. We could make excellent standards incorporating all sorts of patents with all sorts of royalties. From an abstract engineering standpoint they'd be the best possible, but from an engineering practicality standpoint they'd be useless.Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:politics by CentrX · 2003-10-30 10:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Depending on what you're doing, check out the "testing" and "unstable" branches of Debian. They have much newer software packages, but are not in a stable release. Many regard these as more stable than, for instance, a Red Hat "stable" release.

--

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Re:politics by TKinias · 2003-10-30 10:56 · Score: 1

scripsit Jaeger:

And then there's testing, which contains all of the New and Improved! packages from unstable after they've had a few weeks to sit and haven't had any bug reports filed against them.

I probably deserve the label of `Debian fanboy' (I won't run nothing else...) but even I'm getting a bit tired of Mozilla 1.0. Testing still has 2:1.0.0-0.woody.1. And it's not apparently getting into Testing any time soon, because it can't build on ARM...

--
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Re:politics by qtp · 2003-10-30 10:56 · Score: 1

Pleasing the unwashed masses is not my task.

Most of the Debian developers would probably read your sig and decide that it's the best possible answer they can find to your criticism.

--
Read, L
Re:politics by MystikPhish · 2003-10-30 11:25 · Score: 1

You could always use this instead

--
"I'm about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminate justice!"
Re:politics by HBI · 2003-10-30 11:37 · Score: 1

Most of the Debian developers would probably read your sig and decide that it's the best possible answer they can find to your criticism.

Good for them. They're welcome to do what they want with their time - that is no business of mine. My point mainly is: why does the motivation for creating distros have to be "Viva Free software" ala Debian or "Viva money" ala Red Hat? Isn't there any motivating factor in "Viva quality"? Is there no geek ethic?

I suspect no, but I wondered if anyone cared to comment along those lines.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:politics by TKinias · 2003-10-30 11:45 · Score: 1

scripsit MystikPhish:

You could always use this [Firebird] instead

I actually normally use Galeon, but its upgrade has been blocked for a long time by Moz's being frozen at 1.0... I'll check out Firebird. I assumed (wrongly apparently) that it depended on an up-to-date Moz like Galeon does...

--
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Re:politics by HBI · 2003-10-30 11:47 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with the lever effect that Debian's policies have. Obviously the intent is to make as much software Free as possible. Great job as far as that goes. The effect is hard to gauge but obviously significant. Too bad certain industry segments (the video hardware manufacturers, for one) aren't getting on board.

I'm a pragmatist, though. I have to run a big server room, and I like to do useful things with my systems at home and the box I have colo'd up at an ISP. I'd like a technically superior distro that didn't care a whit about ideals. That was primarily my point. I understand this detracts from the goals of Debian - I didn't say it should _be_ Debian.

As I replied to someone else - is it possible that something besides Free software advocacy or money could serve as a motivator to produce a distro? I seem to remember a certain geek/hacker/whatever ethic that was the motivator behind a lot of development we did in the pre-Internet dark ages.

The Debian political process seems to have very little to do with that ethic, hence prompting the initial response.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:politics by rgmoore · 2003-10-30 12:01 · Score: 1

I really don't understand the general Linux user's need to get the latest and greatest at all times. Most of us ran windows for years, and simply waited for Microsoft to say "Ok, it's ready, here you go" every two or more years before upgrading.

I can think of two possible reasons for this. One is that part of the reason that people moved to Linux in the first place is because they were so tired of the "wait for the vendor to put out his next version" process. Experiences like Windows ME are bound to do that to people. One of the cool things about Free Software is that you can upgrade when enough new features have come out that you think its worthwhile, not when your vendor decides for you. A system like Debian, where it can be a long time before the cool new stuff percolates down to stable, can be frustrating for people who have moved specifically to get faster access to that cool new stuff.
Another important aspect is the speed with which that cool new stuff actually becomes available. When you look at it, the rate of development in the Windows world is a lot slower than in Linux. Admittedly, some of that is because the Windows software is more mature and there's less room for improvement, but no matter the reason for it, the pace of change is clearly much faster. That means that there's more motivation to update. Two years ago in Windows, I was running the same operating system (Win2000) and almost the same applications software (Office 97->2000) that I am today. In Linux, though, I've moved from Gnome 1.4 to Gnome 2.4, which is a huge upgrade both in the desktop environment and the applications that go with it. That rapid pace of development makes it much more reasonable to care about upgrading frequently.

--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Re:politics by Crazy+Eight · 2003-10-30 12:18 · Score: 1

What's more, for a non-profit organization, Debian does a good job at "value added" service to upstream sources. The gtk2 file selector widget is a good example here. There's more to "stable" than binaries that won't segfault too. There is a rock-solid inevitability about the way packages are integrated with each other. Debian's greatest strength lies in the granularity and flexibility of it's packaging system which places everything within the context of the whole repository. That Debian makes it easy to install Woody and "upgrade" to Sid is remarkable.
Re:politics by Crazy+Eight · 2003-10-30 12:23 · Score: 1

Add unstable to your apt sources, pin everything but mozilla and upgrade.
Re:politics by qtp · 2003-10-30 12:27 · Score: 1

For many at Debian, the attitude is "Viva Free Software", but I'd expect that the majority of developers are more concerned about creating a distribution that "Does Not Suck".

By adhering to clearly defined licensing guidelines, Debian avoids much of the difficulty that preparers of comercial software must deal with. The developers and maintainers can concentrate on providing good, well packaged software, without worrying about contract obligations, delivery dates, or complex licensing concerns.

If the age of the software versions concerns you, then you should upgrade to "testing" which is probably the most up-to-date collection of software that is known to be free of serious bugs for a given number of days (10, 5, and 2 look here for more info on the "testing distribution).

Is there no geek ethic?

So to answer your question, yes, there is geek ethic, but sometimes the pragmatic decisions made in order to adhere to that ethic might look like something else.

--
Read, L
Re:politics by TKinias · 2003-10-30 12:38 · Score: 1

scripsit Crazy Eight:

Add unstable to your apt sources, pin everything but mozilla and upgrade.

I have done this for a variety of packages (running some from woody/updates for security reasons and some from sid), but last time I tried this for Moz there were a lot of deps that couldn't be satisfied on a Sarge box. My desktops need to be available as close to 100% as possible, so I don't mess with Sid...

--
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Re:politics by kardar · 2003-10-30 12:44 · Score: 1

Given time, going about building a technically superior distribution that is built on 100% free software is the best solution. If there is a need to mix and match GPL and other free software with non-free and other proprietary software in order to get a technically superior distribution at this point in time, then of course, there is no reason not to do that.

But over time, if you give it a decade or so, you will be better off having starting those seeds with software the preserves the freedoms that allow that same software to be improved and upgraded as a unit, not coming from different sources, not being dependent on proprietary models to keep your distribution technically superior. It's the tortoise-hare thing. Free software may seem somehow less glamorous, less appealing, less "technologically advanced", but it's a moving target, so given time, it will tend to keep moving.

It's not just about right now, it's about 25 years from now. I could not have imagined a world without Adobe Acrobat several years ago. It was an extremely important piece of software to me, personally, and has been for some time. I just put together a Debian "testing" system, which I am now using as my "daily driver", and I still have not installed Acrobat - I like xpdf better. Again, I can install Acrobat if I really need to, but as of yet, I haven't needed to. I am experiencing the same thing with Java on this system. I don't have it, don't need it... yet. When I do, I will install it... no big deal. But up to that point, I am not going to bother. I know that I can get what I need within 10 minutes if I ever need it.
Re:politics by Jungle+guy · 2003-10-30 13:10 · Score: 1

I know I am opening a can of worms, but I have heard that the problem with Debian is that is sooooo cross-platform that the testing takes longer. I runs on Intel, Power PC, Sparc, Alpha and a lot of strange processors I have never heard. On top of that, it runs not only the Linux kernel, but also on the Hurd and BSD kernels. If it was Intel only, or at least was reduced to two or three platforms, the testing might be faster. After all, if a bug appears only when Linux runs a strange processor and not or "normal" computers, I wonder if it is really a bug and if that should slow down the development of something that, like Debian, will have 90% of its users using a particular platform.
Slackware supporters say their distribution is not behind Debian on estability-wise, but, as they focus on Intel, they can reduce the development time. And, let's face it: with free software, no matter how long you wait for the operating system to debug, the developers of the original free software used on it will always discover new bugs, and Debian stable will have to be patched.
Re:politics by MacJedi · 2003-10-30 13:47 · Score: 1

If Perfect is thy goal, then Good is thy enemy.
/joeyo

--
2^5
Re:politics by bafu · 2003-10-30 14:10 · Score: 1

It's funny that you bring Firebird up since it's really been bugging me that unstable is still at 0.6.*. ;-)
Re:politics by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 14:28 · Score: 1

You can tell if this is true for yourself. Go to bugs.debian.org and look at the critical bugs. See if they are port-related. I frankly doubt it.
My experience has been that ports only help to isolate bugs that might have been more subtle on the i386 architecture and more difficult to find, but would still be there.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:politics by bafu · 2003-10-30 14:47 · Score: 1

I'm a pragmatist, though. I have to run a big server room, and I like to do useful things with my systems at home and the box I have colo'd up at an ISP. I'd like a technically superior distro that didn't care a whit about ideals. That was primarily my point. I understand this detracts from the goals of Debian - I didn't say it should _be_ Debian.

I've been a happy user of Debian since 1997 because I consider it the best distro for what I have used Linux for over the years (initially, just servers, but a year of so later for desktops, as well). The fact that Debian has ideals was not a factor in my choice, and it hasn't seemed to weaken the usefulness of the distro to me. The number of packages available is amazing and, best of all, Deb doesn't seem as eager as some other distros to lock you into admining your system Their Way. The "hold x86 back until it runs on all the platforms" component is bothersome, but more in theory than anything else... I can't say it has really impacted my work or pleasure in any significant way, but YMMV.

As I replied to someone else - is it possible that something besides Free software advocacy or money could serve as a motivator to produce a distro? I seem to remember a certain geek/hacker/whatever ethic that was the motivator behind a lot of development we did in the pre-Internet dark ages.

Making a whole new distro would seem like a waste of effort, at this point, especially when you can produce packages for existing distros that address whatever personal itch it is that you are implying needs to be scratched. On some of my machines (usu the desktops), my sources.list has a lot more than just the official Debian servers in it. I also usually compile primary services directly from source on "real servers" (for example, the webserver-related progs on a webserver) so I can have complete control over how they are set up, when they are upgraded, and so on. That may not be necessary anymore, but it's how I did it in the pre-Internet dark ages, and old habits are hard to break. ;-) The point is, Debian has worked smoothly with all of those idiocyncracies (right or wrong) of mine. That's pretty impressive.

The Debian political process seems to have very little to do with that ethic, hence prompting the initial response.

I dunno... to me it sounds like you have a bigger problem with the impression that Debian creates rather than the actual distro they produce. I hope that these recent changes don't weaken the usefulness of the distro, but after giving me so many years of value, they've earned some "benefit of the doubt" from me. ;-)
Re:politics by nitehorse · 2003-10-30 15:08 · Score: 1

I'm sure that others have already suggested this to you before, etc etc, but as far as a pragmatically neat distro that is 'Viva quality!' I'd suggest checking out Gentoo.

They maintain a pretty nice set of packages and they aren't completely anal about things that don't matter. For example - if you do an 'emerge qmail' you get a full installation of qmail installed exactly the way that you would if you were to install it following the directions at lifewithqmail.org. If you use Gentoo's kernel packaging system (which is really very easy to do) or - even if you compile your own, all you have to do is symlink your linux source tree to /usr/src/linux - installing the NVidia binary XFree86 drivers is as simple as 'emerge nvidia-kernel nvidia-glx' and it's done.

They do a lot of neat stuff with their distro. There are some small annoyances (building from source if you don't grab the GRP CDs is a pain in the ass sometimes, especially for big packages or packages that have a ton of dependencies) but overall I've been really happy with how well the distro works.
Re:politics by scharkalvin · 2003-10-31 00:58 · Score: 1

I wish that Debian would have some packages of NEWER versions of outdated packages for the current STABLE that I could chose to use WITHOUT having to upgrade the entire distro to TESTING or UNSTABLE. Sometimes I end up downloading the source and building such a version myself.

Well I think I might as well upgrade to Sarge right now, he's close enough to being released anyway so as not to break anything. This worked for me before, I upgraded to Potato and Woody about 6 months or so before they were released, just had to apt-get update / upgrade about once a week to keep up.
Re:politics by bww · 2003-11-08 13:04 · Score: 1

try unstable. upgrade daily. What over dists has the 2.6.0-test9 kernel?

Re:Does this mean? by Mike+Markley · 2003-10-30 10:16 · Score: 1

Umm... that's funny, I picked up Gnome 2.4 on an update to unstable weeks ago, to say nothing of OpenOffice 1.1.

While I'm completely unfamiliar with SodiPodi, it appears that version 0.32 of this is in unstable.

Maybe you actually have a factual statement to make?

Re:Does this mean? by be-fan · 2003-10-30 10:17 · Score: 1

Not anymore. Sid has 0.32 and 1.1 right now.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

Re:Does this mean? by eloki · 2003-10-30 10:18 · Score: 1

Even Unstable is out of date. For example, Gnome 2.2, SodiPodi 0.31, OpenOffice 1.0

I feel like I'm being trolled.. but ok. OpenOffice 1.1 has been in unstable for ages, where have you been? Sodipodi 0.32.uus.20031012 is in unstable.

As for GNOME, they were holding back on 2.4 to make sure that GNOME 2.2 made it all the way into testing, because the next release (sarge) is theoretically being attempted this year. Debian is like everything else; furious development slows down as releases draw near, because people want to make sure particular features/fixes make it into the next release without being broken.

Anyway, they succeeded, GNOME 2.2 entered testing and now 2.4 is in unstable.

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by Telex4 · 2003-10-30 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why should an idea "get old"? Surely the ideals behind Free Software, insofar as their ground assumptions remain true, are timeless? You either agree with them, or you don't.

What you mean to say is that you have grown tired of these ideals.

Personally, I still feel as strongly about the FS ideals as when I first read GNU's philosophy documents. If they didn't stick to these ideals, the whole fabric of the FS community would disintegrate.

I wonder how you can grow tired of them though, especially if you have woody installed. Do you not see that woody is a direct result of these ideals, that facilitate the development of a system that provides such freedoms, not only in the liberal sense, but also in terms of providing new opportunities to those who, in the 'real' world suffer inequal opportunities. If it weren't for the availability of a completely free system based upon open standards that is guaranteed to remain Free, the only way to ensure that digital media remain accessible would be to constantly legislate to make people use open formats, and of course every day we see why FS people are so right when companies implement more proprietary schemes that deny access.

A firm committment to FS ideals, and a management structure carefully scrutinised by a collection of computer scientists, philosophers, psychologists and whoever else looks after Debian is absolutely the best thing a distribution community could hope for.

Um.... what? by krmt · 2003-10-30 10:19 · Score: 4, Informative

What's really interesting here is that this moves them a little closer to the way the Gentoo people operate. Take a look at Their Social Contract for comparison purposes.

No. No, not at all. In fact it moves them farther away from Gentoo. In Gentoo's Social Contract, there is nothing explicitly stated about Documentation, but rather refers explicitly to software as binaries or sources. Debian has been working on productive discussions with the FSF over the GFDL for over two years, and this change is a direct result from those discussions. Most Debian Developers feel that documentation qualifies as software, and should be included under the DFSG as well.

Everything in Gentoo's Social contract is basically directly lifted from Debian's, although they decided not to take it all. The Gentoo people don't operate on nearly the same strict standards of Freedom that Debian does, and the differences in the Social Contracts, including the latest change, demonstrates that. If the Gentoo people decide to move in this direction too, it'll be because of more than two years of hard wrangling on debian-legal.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Um.... what? by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

I agree. The Debian group would probably use this policy change to remove portions of the section that says
Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software. The software in these directories is not part of the Debian system, although it has been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of software packages in these directories and determine if they can distribute that software on their CDs. Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages.
I don't see them using this power to loosen up on their standards for either software or documentation.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Um.... what? by krmt · 2003-10-30 10:49 · Score: 1

Yes, and it's about time too. I'm a little hesitant about the international users issue that kept coming up during the last discussion about removing non-free, but compared to the days of yore when we couldn't contemplate life without netscape, this is a small thing, and will probably fix itself when the need arises. I can almost see it as the project coming to fruition in a way.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re: Screw Debian by the.jedi · 2003-10-30 10:20 · Score: 1

Wow way to publically display your ignorance.
apt-get was originally made for the debian packaging system.
Since then an apt-get for rpm's has also been but the debian apt-get is still doing just fine.

I also like gentoo but I'd like to point out that I'd have to bootstrap a kernel to get gentoo running on my system where as Knoppix (which is debian based) runs just fine.

--
ThunderBird. Nuff said.

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by Nothinman · 2003-10-30 10:20 · Score: 1

The GNU/ part actually makes sense in Debian though because there are things like the Debian GNU/FreeBSD project which is working to get the Debian and GNU userland working with the FreeBSD kernel, so it's a major difference here.

More maintainers is *NOT* the answer by V.+Mole · 2003-10-30 10:21 · Score: 1

Debian has plenty of maintainers. But packaging something like Gnome or OpenOffice, making it work on all the platforms that Debian supports, and dealing with clean upgrades is a non-trivial task.

And MONTHS is a bit of an exageration:

Gnome 2.4 was released September 11th.

OpenOffice.Org 1.1 was released October 1.

SodiPodi 0.31, okay, I'll give you that one.

You want faster releases? Come help, there's nothing stopping you from it.

And did you even *read* the ammendment? It's got nothing to do with getting new developers.

This is good news, Thanks Bruce by tyrione · 2003-10-30 10:22 · Score: 1

I have one question.

Is it possible that when Debian restructures the official hierarchy that it shows a PNG Graphic(assuming one isn't using Lynx) of the hierarchy so that when people get to the graphic they get an immediate visual layout of how Debian is organized? From there you can have Key that references apt sources to add to one's own list for specific non-free software providers of debs.

The image could be updated periodically reflecting the structure and source listings.

It would make for using Google less and keep a nice central reference point.

Just a thought.

Re:This is good news, Thanks Bruce by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:57 · Score: 1

If you want it to happen, do it! Changes in Free Software are written by people who care about those changes.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

I run Debian/Unstable by SHEENmaster · 2003-10-30 10:23 · Score: 1

I have OpenOffice 1.1, SodiPodi 0.32, and Gnome 2.4. Might want to upgrade once every few MONTHS.

(Debian/Sid for PowerPC.)

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:Again? by krmt · 2003-10-30 10:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Because it goes against the very philosophy of Debian, right down to its initial charter if you want to go read it. Branden is one of the few people who actually still give a damn about what the project was originally founded for. He produces quality work (the Debian X packages are top notch, and he basically manages the porting work to other arch's because XFree puts out unportable crap) and he sticks to his ideals in the face of criticism.

He's not stopping you from using qmail, nor is he stopping people from putting up their own apt sources (people do it every day!) that host non-free, he just wants it out of the project so it can be free of this bizarre dichotomy.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Does this mean? by stevey · 2003-10-30 10:25 · Score: 1

Hopefully Debian will get some new maintainers with this amendment.

You don't need to be a maintainer to help Debian, using it and reporting bugs is one kind of help.

Fixing bugs is another; and fixing bugs for Debian will help all distributions with that software in it.

Funny how some people want others to do all the work for them .. Debian is definately a distribution for people that are prepared to help themselves, and each other.

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by nchip · 2003-10-30 10:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Honestly, though, I'm tired of all this "we hate software if it's not free", and "GNU/"-everything cr4p. To each his own, I guess, but it gets kinda old after a while.

As we have seen from the SCO case, being anal about licensing and redistribution terms is unfortunately necessary. Better be safe than sorry.

--
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)

Re:Does this mean? by BurritoJ · 2003-10-30 10:27 · Score: 1

Just a little bit of inaccuracy here...
Open office 1.1
SodiPodi 0.32
gnome 2.4

good news for voting too by bob_jenkins · 2003-10-30 10:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Way to go! These people have been the biggest group on the web for some time seriously debating the mechanics of how to vote. I know they've got the fundamentals right. Their choices and extentions have been well thought out too.

Now that we have a well-defined best known way to vote, perhaps we can get governments to adopt it for city, state, even national elections. I very much want the US to become more democratic.

Re:good news for voting too by FrankoBoy · 2003-10-30 11:08 · Score: 1

Now that we have a well-defined best known way to vote, perhaps we can get governments to adopt it for city, state, even national elections. I very much want the US to become more democratic.

Yeah, and of course the best way for the U.S. to become more democratic is definitely to keep away the tens of millions of Americans that don't have the 'net at home from having the same voice as tech savvy citizens.

Get real man, we're definitely not there yet. I've already advocated for electronic vote to be used in some small scale organizations, and even though I'd like it to work out well someday as much as you do, planning to implement such procedures right now on a national scale is just plainly ludicrous...

--

United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.
Re:good news for voting too by Soong · 2003-10-30 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Like voting? More reasearch (mine) on what the "best" system is.

Condorcet doesn't always make the most people the happiest, but it's nicely impervious to several things that can go wrong with elections.

--
Start Running Better Polls
Re:good news for voting too by CentrX · 2003-10-30 11:26 · Score: 1

I believe he was referring to the Condorcet voting method, which is a method which allows voters to rank candidates in order to more accurately indicate their preferences, and then calculates the winning candidate (pairwise calculation for each possible pair of candidates) in a manner that is not manipulatable by the voter. That Debian developers vote online is not particularly noteworthy.

--

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Re:good news for voting too by /dev/trash · 2003-10-30 12:18 · Score: 1

Just change the Constitution and there ya go.....
Re:good news for voting too by dark-nl · 2003-10-30 13:33 · Score: 1

Which Constitution do you mean? We changed the Debian one yesterday :) If you mean the U.S. Constitution, it's been amended twenty-seven times already. Once more won't hurt.

Oh, that reminds me. Some people have complained about Debian being too slow and bureaucratic. Just LOOK at that twenty-seventh amendment:
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992

Now THAT's slow.
Re:good news for voting too by asuffield · 2003-10-30 20:34 · Score: 1

Voting only works when a substantial portion of the enfranchised citizens are capable of voting responsibly. As such, it will never work for the US.

It works for Debian because you have to be at least minimally competant to join the project. There is no such requirement for US citizens.
Re:good news for voting too by BCoates · 2003-10-31 00:05 · Score: 1

First-past-the-post isn't required by the Constitution. It's a matter of state law.
Re:good news for voting too by Bob+Uhl · 2003-10-31 04:07 · Score: 1

I very much want the US to become more democratic.
I don't--democracy is simply mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. The advantage of a constitutional federal republic is that the people have a voice, but it is hopefully muted significantly, such that the majority cannot oppress the minority. In a true democracy, there are no safeguards: the will of the majority is the law. As Jonah Goldberg once wrote, in a democracy 51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the oter 49%.
I do support instant run-off voting and other methods, because they would go a certain way towards breaking the two-party dichotomy without the nastiness involved in proportional representation.

Re:Again? by rusty0101 · 2003-10-30 10:37 · Score: 1

Trying to make this simple. The philosophy that some of us consider when thinking of Debian is of Free software.

The Contrib portion of Debian is not Free software.

It is the contention that non-free software should not be included in "Debian".

This is not to prevent you from choosing to install contrib or other non-free software. This is to state that that software is not _part of Debian_.

It may not matter to many people that these non-free software packages are, or are not included. To call them part of Debian seems to be a misnomer however.

As part of the group of people contributing software to Debian, he wants to know that the standards defining Debian are consistent, and this is (at least in his opinion) an inconsistancy.

That would be my interpretation. I don't think that anyone in the user community is going to miss anything by the changes being proposed. At least not anything that they are already not missing. (Like updates to stable with software that is less than two years old.)

-Rusty

--
You never know...

Re:Exactly what I'm talking about... APPLE RULES by krmt · 2003-10-30 10:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Linux users are debating whether or not some text file is truly "free" when it is in a non-GNU directory or if RMS doesn't pee on it

Troll feeding time. Linux users aren't doing this, it's the developers. The same way Apple developers agonize over the exact shade of blue to use for their buttons (and rightly that they should) Linux developers agonize over this sort of thing. Honestly, it's one of the major strengths of Debian, that the developers spend their time wrangling over this and that detail so their users don't have to. Apple provides the exact same service by making their interface pleasant to look at so you don't have to go hunting for a better theme for your damn desktop. It's time saving, just for people interested in different things.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

This is good for Debian! by agwis · 2003-10-30 10:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Out of all the distros out there I personally like debian the best, and this is another reason why. With all the alternatives available to the open source community you have to hand it to Debian for allowing users easy freedom of choice. If you want only free software then don't add contrib or non-free to your sources.list. If you want stability and security on your computer, use woody. If you want new software and don't care if it meets free software definitions, use sid with contrib and non-free.

I have several computers all running debian and each have different setups depending upon what I'm using it for. Debian makes this very easy to do and IMHO, along with apt, is what makes debian better than the other distros. Ultimately this leads to a better separation of choice and still allows anyone to easily configure debian whatever way they want.

-Pat

a mater of resources, Mr. Fart. by twitter · 2003-10-30 10:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

A smartfart opines:

I'm tired of all this "we hate software if it's not free"

You have it backwards. It's not that anyone hates software, it's that there's so much free software there's no reason to use things with restrictions. Why waste your time fooling around with something that's got strings attached when there are 5 or 6 free packages that do exaclty the same thing? How exactly do you hate software anyway?

What I'm tired of is all they hype of commercial software. I hate hearing loud mouths promise me an email client will make me feel like superman. Someone trying to sell me shit that does not work well and that I don't need, that's something to hate.

Now, Mr. Fart, feel free to pay for the above mentioned sleaze bags all you want. Take it and your stale nonsense back to Mr. Gates where it comes from and belongs.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:a mater of resources, Mr. Fart. by smartfart · 2003-10-30 12:36 · Score: 1

"Take it and your stale nonsense back to Mr. Gates where it comes from and belongs."
You're kidding, right? I own a Linux company. I'm the active leader of a Linux Users Group. I write free software.
Your need to see a doctor about your knee... it jerks too much, don't you think?
I think your post exemplifies my complaints about elitism.

--
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?
Re:a mater of resources, Mr. Fart. by twitter · 2003-10-30 15:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're kidding, right? I own a Linux company. I'm the active leader of a Linux Users Group. I write free software.
So, what are you doing posting drivel about people hating software? Change my view to see pounded posts, oh yes there it is:
Honestly, though, I'm tired of all this "we hate software if it's not free", and "GNU/"-everything cr4p. To each his own, I guess, but it gets kinda old after a while.
Joe, baby, this is a thread about the Debian Social Contract. If you don't want to listen to people talk about putting their resources towards free software instead of promoting non free software, what are you doing in this thread? Did you want to piss people off and call them "elitists" for worrying about such issues? You logged onto a Debian thread and told people to stay away from Debian? What exactly are you trying to contribute to this conversation besides insults?
Have you been drinking? Why the rants about mutt and pine?

--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Seriously... by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:46 · Score: 1, Informative

To make your jest serious: This is the trail that Richard Stallman proceeded down in about 1984. He wanted good software, and felt that the complications of copyright (and the business model that usually came along with copyright) made good software so much more difficult to produce.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Seriously... by devphaeton · 2003-10-30 11:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

And to make my jest even more serious...

There is a lot of noise going on as of late regarding GPL vs. SCO, GPL vs. BSD-license, copylefts, copyrights, patents, etc...

I'll admit that i'm ignorant to a lot of this, maybe blissfully so. Though i can read a lot of posts and reactions of people in debates (i see mainly BSD vs. GPL license wars here and on Usenet, usually from both sides since i use both FreeBSD and Debian) and see that a lot of other people might be as half-cocked clueless as me, i feel like i *should* know and understand it all.

It nags at me, i feel obligated to pursue it, but damn.... I just can't keep myself interested in licensing and stuff long enough to get anywhere.

Am i wrong? Or is it best to be left to those with the abilities for this thing?

--

do() || do_not(); // try();
Re:Seriously... by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 11:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you want to make a contribution, I'd counsel you to work on what excites you the most. If it puts you to sleep, you might be able to do without it and leave it to others.
I have some simple rules for licensing that you can use if you don't want to get in too deep. First, make sure that the copyright holders (that's you and anyone else who contribute) own what they are contributing. They can't have cut and pasted from elsewhere, they have to have written the code.
Then, use the GPL for stuff you do on your free time, and use the BSD license for stuff that someone else pays you for if they don't like the GPL.
The GPL is sharing with rules, the BSD license is a gift with almost no requirements upon the folks who get the code. It makes sense that if you do the work on your own time, people who modify the work should give you the same rights on their changes that you gave them on the original code - and the GPL requires that. But if you get paid to do the code, BSD is fine - because it's not a gift as far as you are concerned.
Thanks
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Seriously... by macshit · 2003-10-30 11:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

But keep in mind that Richard's goal wasn't just good software; he was also mourning the loss of a community that he felt had been caused by software becoming unfree. The community is just as much a goal as the software.

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Seriously... by Telex4 · 2003-10-30 12:03 · Score: 1

For those who find the different licenses confusing, and maybe the whole point of different licenses confusing, I have written a short article explaining some of the basics:

What are all these licenses? (as part of a series of informative articles to accompany 'technical' tutorials)
Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-30 12:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

To make your jest serious: This is the trail that Richard Stallman proceeded down in about 1984. He wanted good software, and felt that the complications of copyright (and the business model that usually came along with copyright) made good software so much more difficult to produce.

Kinda ironic how much time and effort that should be going toward writing software is now consumed by the game of armchair copyright lawyer.

I want good software, and am sick and tired of having to pass on the right solution because it doesn't pass the purity test, or it is infected with a viral license, or it isn't free (or Free (or Phree)) enough, or it is "tainted", or it undermines our whole economic system, or ...

Enough with the licenses already. Personally I prefer the No problem Bugroff license. (mostly because it wastes less space in the source files than the GPL (or even MIT) licenses), but have adopted the following as a general rule:

The more fanatic someone is about software licensing, the more likely that their software isn't worth bothering with.

This applies equally to the BSA jackals and the GNU/Hippies. It turns out to be a pretty reliable guide.
Re:Seriously... by devphaeton · 2003-10-30 13:30 · Score: 1

Actually Bruce, thank you ...

For your work in Debian, your wisdom and levelheadedness in dealing with SCO, and finally for taking the time to answer my post in a kind and useful way. I am humbled by your example. :o)

--

do() || do_not(); // try();
Re:Seriously... by Harry8 · 2003-10-30 15:18 · Score: 1

Cheers Bruce,
Thanks for taking the time to get involved in the disucussion.
Debian rocks. As a complete goose(tm) who doesn't know what he's doing, the people at debian look after my software AND licencing concerns while I'm still playing the massive game of catch up with the learning. Because of this, I can write some code for an OSS project that might well be sitting on your machine.
It's pretty unusual that I hear about these things before they happen. It's even rarer that the outcome looks anything other than positive. Apathy is not a good way to go, granted, it's just there are only so many hours in the day and I've yet to see a reason to not 'just trust Debian' (We'll obviously need to keep an eye on it, but it looks like that is being done nicely.)
What more could I possibly want?
Ten years old. Debian doesn't just rock, it shakes the foundations.
A warm thanks to all concerned.
Re:Seriously... by Brandybuck · 2003-10-30 15:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually I do it the opposite. If someone pays me, then I'll use the GPL. But stuff that I do on my free time on weekends because it's fun, that I give away with as few strings as a possibly can.

If someone doesn't like it, then can always pay me to give them a GPL licensed copy of my stuff...

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Seriously... by greggman · 2003-10-31 00:14 · Score: 1

> It makes sense that if you do the work on your own time, people who modify the work should give you the same rights on their changes that you gave them on the original code

I don't see how that makes sense. If I do it on my own time it makes sense that I can release it how ever I want to.

The gift analogy breaks down because we have been told all our life things like "you don't give a gift expecting to get something back. You give a gift purely to help someone else or make them happy". What kind of friend would you call someone that said "Here's a present but you can only have it if you promise to give me one in return". WTF!

Stuff I give away I BSD because that is actually "giving stuff away". GPL is not "giving stuff away", it's selling stuff with promises and agreements instead of money.
Re:Seriously... by kjd · 2003-10-31 19:45 · Score: 1

What, you haven't heard of the gift that keeps on giving? :)

Re:Again? by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:52 · Score: 1

I've got to agree. The Social Contract I wrote was the best one we could put forward years ago, with far fewer Debian developers. It encompassed some self-contradiction regarding non-free that we don't need any longer.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Again? by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 10:55 · Score: 1

The Contrib portion of Debian is not Free software.

Did you garble? The Contrib portion is Free Software that depends upon some piece of non-free software.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:good news for voting too [OFF-TOPIC] by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 11:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

You mean Condorcet. I guess.

If you want the US to be less plutocratic, I think you need some changes in the media. People vote according to what they are presented with in the news, and the news here is produced for ratings, rather than as a means of cultivating an educated voter. The Internet was supposed to fix that simply by providing more variety in news programming, but it has not, so far, done so.

My current idea would be to require of broadcasters, in exchange for their access to spectrum, that they have much higher standards regarding integrity of news programming, that they not apply ratings to news at all, that they present it when people would see it, and that they broadcast as much news as they do advertising in any 24-hour period. To say that the broadcasters would not like this is an understatement. But they are using a precious spectrum resource for which they presently pay nothing. This would address the "if it bleeds it leads" problem that keep so many of the U.S. people in a state of permanent terror, among other things. And as long as you don't regulate content, you don't get into first ammendment problems.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Again? by rusty0101 · 2003-10-30 11:03 · Score: 1

IE doesn't cost you anything and Microsoft in theory could make the source code for it public domain. (the won't, work with me) Does the fact that it still requires Windows (non-free) to run affect it's "free" status? Some people think it does, others think it does not.

Contrib software (free itself, but requiring non-free software to function) does seem to me to be software that forces contamination to use.

I don't see that as a negative for that software, but I don't think that as a result it should be included in the same catagory, or even distribution as the rest of the software.

At the same time, I don't have any problem with anyone who wants to use it doing so. Likewise I don't have any problem with someone using open source software on Windows.

--
You never know...

Re:Again? by qtp · 2003-10-30 11:06 · Score: 1

If qmail is as reliable as tinydns, then it is inappropriate to call it "filth". The only reason it is in non-free is that he does not allow the redistribution of binary packages (which, IMHO, is not unreasonable).

It should be in non-free, and should not be part of Debian, but that is not to say that people should not use it.

--
Read, L

Re:Again? by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 11:08 · Score: 1

IE does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and thus would not be in Contrib. Contrib software is DFSG-compliant and depends on some non-DFSG-compliant piece.

The idea is that you could replace the non-free component, for example by providing a good free Java VM rather than the VM that some things depend upon, and then that software in Contrib could move into main.

The DFSG says things about the software being available in source and free to use, modify, and redistribute. That's hardly IE. We generally mean Freedom, not Price, when we say "Free".

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Damn by FrankoBoy · 2003-10-30 11:28 · Score: 1

I messed up quite hard on this one. My bad, sorry about that.

--

United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.

Who is the Debian "User"? by claes · 2003-10-30 11:30 · Score: 1

This question is not tightly related to the current topic, but I thought I could grab this opportunity to ask for a clarification. Item 4 in the Social Contract says:

Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software

We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on Debian systems, and we'll allow others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial software, without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use.

What I wonder is, as the Debian user is not more precisly defined, Debian lacks a target group and a common vision for how the Debian OS should work and interact with the user. Different developers may have very different goals and this likely results in a inconsistent or hard to use system. Or, more likely, Debian developers equals themselves with Debian users, and then the system will have a hard time to reach outside of the hacker crowd. Without a common vision for who Debian aims for, how can decisions be made in how the system should work? Do you not see this as a shortcoming of the social contract? Or is it implict that Debian is only for people that are very knowledgable with computers?

Re:Who is the Debian "User"? by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 11:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Debian lacks a target group and a common vision for how the Debian OS should work and interact with the user.
IMO this mission lies with the Debian derivative rather than with Debian. Like Libranet and Knoppix, for example.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Who is the Debian "User"? by SydShamino · 2003-10-30 12:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I see the users of Debian to be the creators of these free and non-free derivative distributions, and the users that are drawn into Linux through them. Bruce mentions two of those distros, but Xandros is the one that specifically comes to my mind.

(Disclaimer: I am a hardware engineer, and don't really mess much with the innards of software. I just want an OS that is clean and works.)

The Xandros distribution was and is very appealing to me because of its ease of use and installation (like Lindows), but it doesn't have as many of the downsides of the other "easy to use" Linux disto (Lindows). It was also very important to me to have the ability to easily expand beyond what the commercial package offered, and apt-get was the program that I felt would provide this.

After considering Xandros for the past year, however, and realizing that I don't truly need Crossover Office at home (I need WineX, but free software already covers my business application needs), I decided to "take the plunge" and start directly with Debian. I built my first Linux machine using Debian last weekend.

So, I guess, I am a Debian "user". I read and agreed to their social contract before I chose their software. I use Linux because of Debian.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Who is the Debian "User"? by DShard · 2003-10-30 14:00 · Score: 1

The beauty of debian is it targets itself. It doesn't have to pander to anyone but itself. It's arguments are both of meritocracy and philosophical. It could care less if _you_ don't get it. It could care less if you want to spend money on it. It only cares about your man hours and intelectual ability. This is democracy at it's finest.

Like democracy, debian is advanced citizenship. You get what you give. Most user communities are not allowed this oppertunity. The social contract sets in stone that you are granted the chance to prove your worth and not just tell others what to do.

Why is debian more exclusive to new users? I agree that debian could take some notes from Gentoo. But that also applies to Redhat, Suse and Slackware. but it is not like gentoo is all that friendly on new users, just that the community is strong. As far as quality is concerned I have found them quite lacking. These are not problems with with who I mentioned before. But the _community_ is important so I do agree with your final comment.
Re:Who is the Debian "User"? by claes · 2003-10-30 22:12 · Score: 1

Well, that is contrary to the social contract. It clearly states that as a user, I am a priority. So it seems you are the one that "don't get it"

It is this conflict between the stated goals in the social contract, and the attitude of developers that confuse me. If the social contract stated what you say above, then fine, ok with me. But it doesn't.

Re:Again? by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 11:37 · Score: 1

You're replying to a troll. But I did switch to Postfix just because of DJB's odd idea of what constitutes a license. I don't see what he's gaining.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Debian needs to get over it. by mindstrm · 2003-10-30 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Look. Debian is good, Debian is great, it IS my favorite linux distribution. Sticking to free software is GOOD.

However...

having packages for non-free stuff is good, and NECESSARY, as well. Yes, anyone can make them.. but it really helps having a central repository. IN the real business world, you can only take the need for freedom so far. I love Debian servers, but at some point there is non-free stuff I *need* to run.

Further... I'm sure everyone has said it before, but Debian really NEEDS to get it's stable releases more often, or at least more current. Stable is WAY behind the curve.. to the point where the benefit of running a common server on stable is almost gone now... I have to build everything manually.

Perhaps paring down the set of core software required to be well put together to call it stable?

"Just use testing, it's stable" is fine and dandy.. except security fixes don't come out in time.... again defeating the purpose.

So.. debian continue sto be awesome, for sure.. but I really, really wish they would focus a bit more and get more stable releases out more often.

I am very, very close to not being able to use debian any more internally because it creates too much work, compared to something sleazy like redhat.

Re:Debian needs to get over it. by krmt · 2003-10-30 14:44 · Score: 1

having packages for non-free stuff is good, and NECESSARY, as well. Yes, anyone can make them.. but it really helps having a central repository. IN the real business world, you can only take the need for freedom so far. I love Debian servers, but at some point there is non-free stuff I *need* to run.
Well, apt-get.org has been acting as a good central routing point for unofficial packages for quite a while, and it works well. One thing that any business can do is use apt-get.org to find non-free stuff, and use those unofficial sources. They can also very easily set up their own private archive with the non-free packages they've downloaded to distribute amongst their own machines. You might not have the BTS, but perhaps that will motivate someone to set up a separate BTS and mailing list for the non-free development. Bruce has already mentioned non-free.org for this sort of thing, and I see no reason why it can't have its own BTS and such.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by smartfart · 2003-10-30 12:30 · Score: 1

I write GPL software (check my projects page if you doubt me). I believe in free software. I don't cotton to RMS-style rants, though. I also refuse to append "GNU/" to anything. I run Linux, and will always claim to run Linux, not "GNU/".

I'm not opposed to the freedom to run only free-as-in-speech software --- I never said that. I am opposed to anyone looking down on me because I run non-Debian distro (SuSE has been my main distro for 4 years now, though I also like NetBSD). I'm not saying every Debian user has an attitude, but I've run into far too many elitists over the years, and quite honestly I don't need elitism, not from Debian users, not from RMS, and not from the BSD crowd.

I'm not alone in my opinion, and everyone here on slashdot has heard both sides of this issue many times. Why am I labelled a troll for speaking up?

I'm willing to admit I'm oversensitive about this issue. I didn't mean to offend anyone by my remarks. I won't back down from my statements regarding elitism, however.

--
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?

On a totally unrelated topic... by alexandre · 2003-10-30 12:37 · Score: 1

I was thinking about the multiplication of debian mirrors lately and the security implication of having a mirror rooted by some evil doers...

How is it actually managed?
I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:

When you first install debian, you do it from a safe source (let's say a CD like OpenBSD or a mirror you _really_ trust). All the packages come with the public key of the maintainer and all package are signed by the package maintainer.
Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a package you'll get a message like SSH would give:

the key for package "bla" doesnt match, do you want to accept the new key?
Therefore you could spot crackers and if the key change was legitimate, you could go to a list of mirrors where you could verify that the maintainer really did change.. (like debian.org/package/pub.key whatever, and verify the key signature)...

So, does anyone have any idea about how it works and how it should work? :)

Re:On a totally unrelated topic... by swillden · 2003-10-30 14:17 · Score: 1

I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:
Not crazy; in progress. The debian-keyring package contains all the maintainers' public keys, packages are already signed, and I believe dpkg has already been modified to have the ability to verify the signatures. The whole thing will be turned on Real Soon Now; I think it's supposed to be in place for the release of Sarge.
Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a package you'll get a message like SSH would give: the key for package "bla" doesnt match, do you want to accept the new key?
I think the way it will work is that if the signature isn't right, dpkg will just refuse to install the package. If a maintainer key changes, an update to the debian-keyring package will be made so that all users will get the new key when they upgrade.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:On a totally unrelated topic... by alexandre · 2003-11-02 04:01 · Score: 1

:-)

But how will the keyring package be signed/verified?
Re:On a totally unrelated topic... by swillden · 2003-11-02 13:02 · Score: 1

The keyring package has a maintainer, who signs it with his key, whose public half is in the keyring. Bootstrapping the whole system is a bit of an issue for the security-paranoid, but once you get past that, it should work fine.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:Just in case you actually were serious (Doubtfu by smartfart · 2003-10-30 12:39 · Score: 1

Please see my other responses in this thread.

Thanks.

--
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by Telex4 · 2003-10-30 12:45 · Score: 1

I don't think you're trolling, I just disagree with you :-)

I think you're conflating different kinds of people in your second post. There are those who will persistently pester you for saying "Linux" not "GNU/Linux", who will look down on you for not using a 100% Free distribution, and any manner of other things.

On the other hand, there are those of us who will maintain that Free Software is necessarily the best choice, and that those who disagree are wrong. This is not elitism, any more than it is elitist to believe that your country, party, politician or particular political belief is 'better' than anyone else's. It is simply a statement of belief; not a personal attack, but if people today cannot accept somebody telling them that they think they're wrong, they need to opt out of intelligent society.

So when I say "I wonder how you can grow tired of [Free Software ideals]", I don't mean to demean you, but to state that I believe that it is contradictory to endorse prprietary software whilst using Free Software. In the end, the principles of Free Software are vastly more important than minute separations in degrees of usability, especially if those separations are of no great nuisance to you. When people don't see this, I think it is because they do not reflect enough on the many case studies that come up on Slashdot where public and private organisations and individiuals find important new freedoms that proprietary software cannot offer. If I didn't think this, then I really couldn't believe in and agree with the Free Software movement, could I?

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by smartfart · 2003-10-30 13:03 · Score: 1

"...but to state that I believe that it is contradictory to endorse prprietary software whilst using Free Software."

Where did I do that? Ok, fine, if you dig around on my scratchpad (it's on my site), you'll find I gave a positive reference to Pegasus Mail, which is apparently closed-source, but it's free, and it's the best mail client I've ever used, bar none.

However, in my first post I has pine in mind, which is not free-as-in-beer, but is included in every distro that I've ever loaded, except Debian, and also NetBSD. Pine is free-as-in-speech AFAIK, it's what I've always used for shell mail, and when I put up a box I always install it.

The way I parsed the story headlines made me wonder if, since it's possible that pine would no longer be required in future releases of Debian (yes, I know you have to specify your acceptance of non-free licenses when you try to install pine and like-burdened apps, so technically pine isn't bundled with Debian), and therefore also conceivable that I would have to jump through hoops to get it to install or compile. I know this is reaching, but it's possible that something like that could happen, down the road. What if things forked to the extent that pine couldn't even compile on a Debian box? Or some other app that's non-free?

It may not be much of a big deal for you or other die-hard Debian users, but if I'm going to put up a boxr, I'm going to have to read root mail, and I really don't want to migrate to mutt. If it came down to this scenario, I would find some other distro to run.

Ok, I guess I should have explained more of my reasoning in my first post. Sorry.

--
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?

Well, but... by GQuon · 2003-10-30 13:13 · Score: 1

Well, but please don't try to unify it with the *nix evolution tree. Then you'll need three screens to make sense of it. At least.

--
Irene KHAAAAAAN!

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by Telex4 · 2003-10-30 13:15 · Score: 1

Ah, so you're not talking about proprietary software, OK. With Pine, AFAIK, the reason that Debian cannot include it is because its license stipulates that modified binaries cannot be distributed. That seems like a fairly unambiguous contravention of a user's freedoms, and one that Debian obviously can't accept.

Since, as you say, plenty of alternatives exist, Debian must either make exceptions to allow for users' habits, or it must simply say: learn something else, install Pine yourself, or find another distribution and be clear about your thoughts on Free Software.

It may seem petty, but the alternative would open a pandora's box of problems for the community and the project.

We've been doing that for ages. by dark-nl · 2003-10-30 13:21 · Score: 1

The packages remaining in the non-free archive are mostly from people who said "no".

contrib by yerricde · 2003-10-30 13:56 · Score: 1

The "contrib" section consists of free programs that depend on non-free programs. What non-free package does OOo's major functionality depend on?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:contrib by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 14:22 · Score: 1

All of the help text is nonfree. Want to write some?
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Mplayer by katz · 2003-10-30 14:11 · Score: 1

Does this increase the chance that Mplayer will be included in a future Debian release?

Re:Mplayer by krmt · 2003-10-30 14:47 · Score: 1

Not really. The mplayer situation has been progressing, especially because some of the flames have calmed down, and the mplayer developers have been a bit nicer on the Debian mailing lists. There are still major hurdles to clear, mainly social ones. Many Debian developers, including those that administer the ftp archive, don't trust the mplayer developers yet. Hopefully it'll get in at some point though.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Re:Mplayer by bafu · 2003-10-30 15:04 · Score: 1

IIRC, the mplayer folks would rather that you compile it yourself so you can get tailor it specifically to your hardware for the best performance. If you really want packages, you can add, for example... deb http://marillat.free.fr/ unstable main ...to sources.list (there's also stable and testing).

Re:Just one more reason to stay away from Debian.. by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 14:25 · Score: 1

Remember KA9Q NET? Phil Karn, the author, was on the Geek Cruise. Phil says his biggest mistake was not making it free when Alan Cox, myself, and Russ Nelson asked. Because that software is dead, dead, dead now. Were it free, it would probably have been integrated into the Linux kernel.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

not likely to see many changes then, are we? by anothy · 2003-10-30 14:32 · Score: 1

// as long as the developers agree with a 3:1 majority.

well, if they have to have three times as many developers as they have, we're not likely to see very many changes made, are we?

unless some people are more equal than others...

(yes, i'm kidding)

--

i speak for myself and those who like what i say.

Re:Again? by Bruce+Perens · 2003-10-30 14:41 · Score: 1

I think that Rusty was trying to say that MS could make IE DFSG-compliant here

You're right. I read him wrong. And you know what? It would be in main then, because it would probably run on wine :-) But if it didn't, it would still belong in Contrib, and we'd look once in a while and see if Wine could support it now.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

OpenOffice.org documentation by yerricde · 2003-10-30 14:47 · Score: 1

I did a little research with Google, and it appears that what makes the Sun PDL non-free is primarily the choice of law provision. Has anybody considered negotiating this with Sun? Or am I missing some point of the PDL, given that a version of Python with choice of law in its license had been in main?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Debian's obligation to end users by Ilan+Volow · 2003-10-30 15:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

Bruce, you people (debian) have ignored usability issues for years. Debian has literally been the poster boy for Free Software arrogance and indifference towards the end-user's need for usable, consistant software that let's them get stuff done with a minimum of fuss. 7 years later, Debian still doesn't have a graphical installer. Does software created with those kinds of values really need to be forced on schoolchildren in Extrademura?

If Debian followers lobby politicians to replace Windows with their software, then they have earned an obligation to make that software work for the people who will be forced to use it. IMO if Debian proper passes the buck on usability, it doesn't deserve a place on the desktop, derivitive or otherwise.

I believe in the concept of Open Source, but I will not stand idly by while those in the FOSS community deprive end users of the Freedom of Usability. In my opinion, a public license that protects this freedom is long overdue and any restriction it enacts against those who would rob end-users of that freedom to be morally justified.

Ergonomica Auctorita Illico

--
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!

Re:Debian's obligation to end users by wfrp01 · 2003-10-30 16:37 · Score: 1

It's been said a million times before, but people like you just don't hear it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Some people who develop free software care about useability. Others don't. That's their perogative. It's their time, it's their energy, it's their project, and it's not for you to dictate terms that they should abide by.

If you want to make the world a better place, contribute something yourself; instead of maligning people who contribute millions of hours worth of work for you to use as you see fit. It's a real act of hubris for you to accuse these charatible contributers of being arrogant.

You will not stand idly by, you say? I say you will. I say you will sit on your ass, bitch, and do nothing. Other than to take advantage of the free software you're complaining about, of course.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by krmt · 2003-10-30 17:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree, that Debian has some problems with usability. While there are some things it does very well usability-wise, including the menu system, the alternatives system, the stock kernels, the kernel-package and patch system, and conffiles, it does lack cohesiveness in other ways. A big part of this is that the project is so damn big, it's basically impossible to wrangle anything so complex and difficult as usability guidelines (although I've considered trying to write some myself, but have no idea where to start).

On the other hand, Debian does provide options to do some things rather well. You can install discover and have hardware autodetection if you want it. You could have used PGI in the past to get yourself that graphical installer with no real fuss. The problem is the plethora of choices and sorting through them, not ignoring the users. I would very much like to see the usability of Debian extended (the new installer does have a gtk frontend, by the way) but the problem is, as usual, both related to politics and manpower.

Ultimately, I'd love to hear suggestions on ways that Debian could improve usability. I personally think it's a power user's dream come true in terms of usability. How would you improve it, beyond a graphical installer? Hardware autodetection is also, I believe, a standard component of the new installer, so don't list that please.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by WWWWolf · 2003-10-30 21:18 · Score: 1

7 years later, Debian still doesn't have a graphical installer.

Installer? Oh, you mean the program I ran once in, like, 1997 or something? My God, has it really been that long already since I installed this thing? I've changed hard drives four times and the whole machine once, but it's still the same system... =)
I've had to do two other installations since, I have to say things have changed for better. Debian's installer may not be graphical, but to say it hasn't improved at all over time is a lie.
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by yakovlev · 2003-10-31 06:03 · Score: 1

But this is the first I've heard of discover, so it's unlikely that I (or anyone else like me) would have installed it.

Something as basic as hardware auto-detection should really be available (at least as an option) in the default install. I'm glad to hear that this is getting fixed.
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by Ilan+Volow · 2003-10-31 10:10 · Score: 1

People like me have heard it a million times. And we tolerated it for some extent when Debian only seeked to be a stable server distro and a geek favorite. The second Debian started going after Aunt Tillie or Miss Jenny the Secretary or Juan the Schoolboy, we decided to shut our ears and start boxing yours.

One of debian's leaders, Bruce Perens, claims linux is perfectly ready for the desktop while for the last 7-8 years his distribution hasn't lifted a finger to make the experience more humane for your regular end user. Sounds like arrogance and hubris to me.

Sorry dude, but Debian earned the obligation the instant it started targeting non-geek populations. If they will not fulfill this obligation of usability, then that is their decision to make. But in that case Debian needs to go back to the to server closets and geek workstations where it came from and spain needs to switch back to Windows.

Debian can either be a volunteer OS where geeks have perogatives, or it can be an OS that deserves the end-user desktop and has earned the right to replace Windows. Can't be both.

I agree totally that bitching never solved anything. Creating software that has an unprecedented level of usability, creating public licenses that lock out projects apathetic towards user experience issues (like Debian), and proceeding to beat those projects to a bloody pulp would probably solve far more problems than bitching.

Cheers.

--
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by wfrp01 · 2003-10-31 17:38 · Score: 1

Debian can either be a volunteer OS where geeks have perogatives, or it can be an OS that deserves the end-user desktop and has earned the right to replace Windows. Can't be both.

Of course it can. Because some people do care about useability. If enough of those people, of their own volition, decide to contribute their efforts to the Debian project, then it's useability will improve. No? There's nothing inherent to this process to prohibit it from producing useable software, as you suggest.

The main point is that it would be absolutely contrary to every principle Debian stands for to compell developers to develop software a certain way. Your error is to assume that only the top down managerial style that encourages marketroids and money managers to brow beat programmers into complying with their lowest common denomitor vision of greatness will result in useable software. Most of the people I know didn't use much software at all these past few months because they've been too swamped stomping out all the problems caused by this model. It's old school. It's not dead yet, but it will be.

Please do create a public licence that demands developers create useable software. Then define useable. Then convince developers to license their software this way. I won't hold my breath, but I'm certainly in favor of you being able to excercise your own initiative.

If you really do care about making the world a better place, though, perhaps you might begin by refraining from suggesting we should beat projects you don't like to a bloody pulp.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by jjgm · 2003-10-31 21:15 · Score: 1

I couldn't give a damn about end users. Debian is the perfect industrial distribution for serviceprovider people who run loads of servers e.g. me (>250 debian servers internationally).

The moment it starts getting all touchy-feely with some bullshit graphical install and bootloader a la RedHat is the moment I fork it.

The rest of you can follow the market and find the Linux you want. There's plenty of end-user-friendly linux distros. Please stop trying to corrupt the only Linux that really appeals to ISP people. Or we'll have to fork it. Or go back to FreeBSD.

- J
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by You're+All+Wrong · 2003-11-03 13:34 · Score: 1

I care very much about usability.
After slackware 4.0, I dabbled with RedHat 5.0, 6.0, SuSE 6.2, and finally decided that the /most/ usable system was Debian, which I've been with for 3 years now. I'm with Debian because of usability, not for any other reason.

Usability's in the eye of the beholder. The most recent "improvements" in Debian's installer have made it _less_ usable to me. (I took longer to install my X-th debian system than I did any of the previous X-1 of them all those years ago.)

YAW.

--
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by Crazy+Eight · 2003-11-03 17:34 · Score: 1

You should also check out synaptic.
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by AigariusDebian · 2003-11-04 11:15 · Score: 1

I would say that synaptic is a lot less usable then aptitude or even plain old apt-get/apt-cache.

You must use grafical sytems where you really need them - WYSIWYG editing, Web, Graphics design, whatever.
But where the functionality is a must - text mode UI is at its best!
Re:Debian's obligation to end users by Crazy+Eight · 2003-11-13 09:42 · Score: 1

I would say that synaptic is a lot less usable then aptitude or even plain old apt-get/apt-cache.
It depends on which version of synaptic one uses (to me). The version in stable sucks. I still use the cli package management tools all the time, but being able to browse the entire repository "at a glance" with everything classified each way to Sunday is downright fun.

The practicability of non-free.org in doubt by Quietti · 2003-10-30 16:01 · Score: 1

Bruce,

Your idea is a very noble one, but I have to ask you a few questions:

Right now, I can use 'reportbug' to report problems related to:
- main
- contrib
- non-free
- non-US/main
- non-US/contrib
- non-US/non-free
How would that tool keep on working, if contrib and non-free (not to mention the non-US stuff) would be handled by a completely separate team? Hint: it won't. Bugzilla already fails to work on Gnome products, because upstream regularly ignores reports from Debian users, claiming that they don't have time to deal with "distribution-specific bugs". I cannot imagine things turning otherwise, with an eventual excommunication of contrib and non-free out of the Debian Project.
What about using the same 'reportbug' to interact with debianized software offered by third-parties? Hint: this already fails; one has to subscribe to the upstream package's mailing list temporarily, states their problem and hope that someone will get it.
How would people be assured of the QA processes used by a non-Debian produced contrib and non-free repository? Hint: they would not. There is already absolutely zero guarantee that third-party packages will work with dependencies produced by the Debian Project.
How would package GPG signing remain consistant? Right now, there is a package providing GPG keys of all registered developers and several packaging tools rely upon those "official developers' keys" to vouch for the QA's trustability. How would you ensure that trust coming from an entiry outside the Debian Project?
The Debian Project already has a long backlog of people wanting to join in as a developer, but being discouraged because of the increasingly complicated applicaiton process. How would non-free.org be any different? Would it make it any easier to join in or would it be as anally retentive as the Debian Project's application procedure? How would you approve, for instance, an application from Opera Software to submit binary-only packages to non-free?

The separation of contrib and non-free (and integration of third-party deb's) is much more complicated than adding a few lines to sources.list, but this is something that nobody has addressed so far. I'd like to hear your answers on that.

I suppose that an eventual non-free.org could adopt a model similar to Red Hat's Fedora (which started as an independant team packaging thrid-party software meeting strict QA standards), but even then, it leaves the issue of integrating with Debian development and user feedback tools very much unresolved.

--
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber

Re:The practicability of non-free.org in doubt by stevey · 2003-10-30 22:35 · Score: 1

1.Right now, I can use 'reportbug' to report problems related to:
When a package is installed it may include a file /usr/share/reportbug/$package, and that will be used as the text.

This allows non-free packages to have their bugs reported in an integrated fashion.
3.How would people be assured of the QA processes used by a non-Debian produced contrib and non-free repository?
Agreed this couldn't be handled. However I don't see a problem with this. How are people assured of the quality of random sourceforge project? Or random RPM's downloaded from the net?
4. How would package GPG signing remain consistant?
If there was a cohesive whole project/group dedicated to the non-free package maintainence as looks like is being suggested then there's no reason why there couldn't bee "keyring-non-free-maintainers".

Yes I'm ignoring the joining question. I believe the checks are rigerous as necessary. Sure people wait too long, but the checks and things they must do are worthwhile and I passed in a few months...

hmmm nice but by Grizzlysmit · 2003-10-30 16:16 · Score: 1

there's just one thing keeping me from using Debian, I've found it a bit clunky to get up a nice gui workstation system, I'll look at that new annacconda thing soon though, if it does it cool, also they need more support for more uptodate/bleeding edge systems, who wants to use all the old stuff in a workstation.

--
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
Francis Smit

rants. by twitter · 2003-10-30 16:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't cotton to RMS-style rants

Have you ever actually met the man and heard him rant? Most of his printed work is far from rant material. It's factual, positive and forward looking. Generally they are more positive than telling people in a Debian thread that you personally won't use Debian anymore.

Why am I labelled a troll for speaking up?

I don't know why. I would have moderated your post as flame bait. Wading into someone else's conversation about a social contract to tell them they are a bunch of elitists for thinking of pine as different from mutt due to likensing issues, crapping on a well respected member of their community and all that is simply infamatory.

You don't need to back down about elitism, you need to save it for the proper place. You might think long and hard about it first though. Consider what those supposed elitists are advocating, software freedom. Is that something you want to thwart? Very few actual linux users actually act the way you presume they do. I get tired of Bible thumpers on Burbon Street, but I always smile for them and pay some respect. They are out there doing things and might do some good. What good does it do to call them names?

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:rants. by smartfart · 2003-10-31 02:19 · Score: 1

'You don't need to back down about elitism, you need to save it for the proper place. "
Point taken.
"I get tired of Bible thumpers on Burbon Street, but I always smile for them and pay some respect. They are out there doing things and might do some good. What good does it do to call them names?"
Touche.

--
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?

Debian: Too old or too bleeding-edge for desktops by dwheeler · 2003-10-30 17:17 · Score: 1

I'm not currently a Debian user, but I am an admirer. There's much, much, much to like about Debian. The difficulty of the initial install was a turn-off for me (well, at least for older Debians - that may not be a problem), but in theory, that's only a problem once for each machine.

The biggest problem for me, however, is that in many cases none of the three release types (stable, unstable, testing) are what I want. Stable isn't just stable - it's a synonym for obsolete. For a server install an old install may in fact be a good idea - often rock-solid reliability is by far the most important criteria. But for a desktop, running "stable" means that my desktop applications can't read/write the document formats that more modern versions can, my application choices are fewer, they fail to provide critical functions to me, and so on. In short, "stable" is hopeless on a desktop. But my alternatives are testing and unstable, which get insufficient testing and are excessively risky; I certainly don't feel comfortable using them. Compare this to Red Hat / Fedora, SuSE, Mandrake, and some others; they have a timeline (say 6 - 12 months), test a combination far more than Debian's testing version gets, and then ship. For a desktop, this tends to produce a better results, because desktop users do want reliability (more than "testing" provides) but also need stronger functionality than old versions of OSS/FS programs than what "stable" provides. And desktop users have less trouble with more rapid updates, as long as they don't cost anything.

Am I free to use some other distribution? Yes! And I do.

But frankly, I wish Debian would create some level between stable and testing, that was frozen and tested on say a six-month increment and released. I'm interested in using Debian, but its current lack of something between "stable" and "testing" is keeping me from using it routinely. And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one; I don't see the success of Red Hat (for example) as being an accident. I don't see any fundamental licensing issue with an intermediate level - is there any possibility that one might be supported in the future? If it had that level, I think there'd be even more Debian users.

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Anybody wondering... by ninejaguar · 2003-10-30 17:56 · Score: 4, Informative

...what a Condorcet is? Here's another explanation.

"Condorcet's method is one of several pairwise methods, which are great methods for electing people in single-seat elections (president, governor, mayor, etc.). Condorcet's method is named after the 18th century election theorist who invented it. Unlike most methods which make you choose the lesser of two evils, Condorcet's method and other pairwise methods let you rank the candidates in the order in which you would see them elected. The way the votes are tallied is by computing the results of separate pairwise elections between all of the candidates, and the winner is the one that wins a majority in all of the pairwise elections.

The best result of this is that if there is Candidate A on one extreme who pulls 40% of the vote, Candidate B in the middle who only pulls 20% of the vote, and Candidate C on the other extreme who pulls 40% of the vote, Candidate B will get elected as a compromise. Why? Because in a two-way contest between A and B, B would win with 60% of the vote, and in a two-way contest between B and C, B would also win with 60% of the vote. (Note that if B is a looney billionaire, he might not be able to win separate pairwise elections against anyone, and this would be reflected with Condorcet's method.)

Condorcet's method lets voters mark their sincere wishes for who they would like to win the election, without having to consider strategy ("I'd vote for Candidate B, but I'm afraid of wasting my vote."). It's really just a logical extension of majority rule when more than two choices are involved."

= 9J =

Re:xfree 4.3 packages by krmt · 2003-10-30 19:38 · Score: 2, Informative

It's available in experimental. It probably hasn't hit the general user populace (and really hasn't hit those outside of the Debian userbase) but experimental is slated to take on certain roles once held by unstable. Any sort of -snapshot packages (basically cvs pulls that are pre-release) now go in to experimental rather than unstable. Unstable is for packages that the maintainer considers release quality but hasn't tested widely. Experimental is for when you're still working on the thing, but would like to allow testing anyway.

At least, that's the plan. It's pretty new but it seems to be working so far. Hopefully it'll lead to faster releases.

Anyhow, the xfree 4.3 packages are in experimental. The TODO list for those packages is posted in the subversion archive where the Debian packaging development is done (you can get to it from the Debian X Strikeforce webpage) so you can see how much is left before the packages migrate to unstable. As it is though, the 4.3 packages are there if you want them.

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Debian: Too old or too bleeding-edge for deskto by gnuru.org · 2003-10-30 20:38 · Score: 1

Stable isn't just stable - it's a synonym for obsolete. For a server install an old install may in fact be a good idea - often rock-solid reliability is by far the most important criteria. But for a desktop, running "stable" means that my desktop applications can't read/write the document formats that more modern versions

So run testing on a desktop. Testing is fine for most desktop production uses. On my testing/unstable box, I've had no problems.

Re:Ban private campaign financing by BCoates · 2003-10-30 23:59 · Score: 1

No, everyone who wants to run for office should get a statutory allowance, funded through tax dollars. A limited a mount of local TV time, radio play, etc. -- for each and every candidate -- should be required, by statute, of broadcasters as a condition of operating on the public airwaves. (Cable operators and the like might be able to opt out by agreeing not to run any campaign ads whatsoever).

This would have been extremely problematic in California's recent election... Even the lesser amount of equal-time required (I'm unclear on the details; I got the impression everyone was) was already creating confusion, with radio stations afraid to give interviews for fear of having to give 10 minutes to all 135 candidates.

And I don't see how not running any campaign ads whatsoever is going to improve democracy--sounds like a bigger advantage for incumbents and the independently famous than there already is.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:Exactly what I'm talking about... APPLE RULES by dwighteb · 2003-10-31 00:47 · Score: 1

gotta feed the trolls: Where I won't have QuickTime popping up urging me to "go PRO for $29.99" when I've just spent my kidney, my arm and my leg on a new cool PowerMac G5.

Quicktime does come with the Mac OS (both classic and OS X based) install CD's. But guess what - you do not have to run them. You can turn off the plugins within whatever browser you're using.

Where the default DVD player won't allow me to play videos fullscreen without kludges.

Umm - granted, I've only used the DVD player for OS X 10.2 and 10.3, so I cannot comment on previous versions, but - mine seems to do full screen DVD's by default. I honestly don't know where you came up with this information.

Where there's only one half-baked limited shareware program that provides multiple workspaces.

I cannot comment on this, as I never felt an overwhelming need to use multiple desktops. Also, with 10.3, Expose has pretty much removed any lingering desires for multiple desktops (yeah yeah, $129). But, if multiple desktops are fully needed, use that kludge, or read on.

Where I have no choice of turning off the glittery bells & whistles interface.

Actually, you can do just that - you can have Mac OSX 10.1 - 10.2 (and likely 10.3 also, but I haven't seen this confirmed) boot up with just a frame buffered console, or you can load XFree86 (not the one supplied with Apple, since that one only runs rootless - you will have to roll your own), turn off Apple's interface, roll your own Gnome, KDE, fvwm, whatever desktop, and have that presented as your interface. I know that very few people would do this, but I just take issues with your saying "no choice". Oh - and both Gnome and KDE are, as I'm sure you are fully aware, able to do multiple desktops.

Where I won't have to buy a $129 OS upgrade every year.

Nobody is forcing anyone to pay $129 on the OS upgrade. 10.2 did not become obsolete overnight - it still works the same as it did a year ago, with the exception of patches and updates since then. If one is happy with 10.2, they can certainly stick with it.

Re:Exactly what I'm talking about... APPLE RULES by linux_author · 2003-10-31 01:42 · Score: 1

- 10.2??? heck, i'm still using 10.1.4, net upgraded from 10.1

- works fine for me...

- but i wonder how long the updates will be available... i shudder to think what might happen if i have to do a reinstall and bring the system back up to snuff...

Probably won't happen by psgalbraith · 2003-10-31 03:15 · Score: 1

they are going to remove "non-free" documentation from debian ... so, you can install debian but you won't have documentation for gcc, textutils, fileutils &c. good idea.

It probably won't happen because the FSF will hopefully change the GFDL to make it a free software license. And you'd have Debian to thank for that for being the only guys to care about the issue.

If the FSF don't, then someone will package the docs outside of Debian and you'll get them via apt-get like you did before. Since you don't care about freedom why would you care where you get the package from?

Ask yourself why the FSF is documenting GPL'ed applications under a license that is non GPL compatible? That makes it impossible for anyone but them to cut & paste doc strings between an application and it's documentation, inhibiting forks.

Re:Probably won't happen by looie · 2003-10-31 07:28 · Score: 1

Ask yourself why the FSF is documenting GPL'ed applications under a license that is non GPL compatible? That makes it impossible for anyone but them to cut & paste doc strings between an application and it's documentation, inhibiting forks.
why don't you ask them? they've answered the question, you just stopped up your ears. you read a bunch of propaganda by some debianites & accepted it uncritically. perhaps, you should consider asking yourself, what is the agenda of those complainers?
some of them, i believe, from having read their posts to debian mail lists, are motivated by personal dislike of rms. if he said the sun was yellow, they'd immediately get up a vote to declare it blue.
worst of all, you propagate a probably widely spread misconception. you can cut & paste all you want, you just can't alter or remove the invariant sections. none of which, as far as i have seen, are actually product documentation, they are things like the manifesto. if you're offended by the fact that you can't remove the manifesto from the emacs documentation, don't use emacs. i think you're silly.
i intend to keep using emacs, keep supporting the FSF and keep installing software that has the documentation included with it. the latter item, apparently, precludes anything from debian.
mp

--
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
Re:Probably won't happen by psgalbraith · 2003-10-31 14:29 · Score: 1

why don't you ask them? they've answered the question, you just stopped up your ears.

I have asked. The answer is that even the previous documentation was incompatible with teh GPL. That doesn't mean it's not a problem.

you read a bunch of propaganda by some debianites & accepted it uncritically

No, I've participated in it.

perhaps, you should consider asking yourself, what is the agenda of those complainers?

Freeness in documentation on equal footing to software. Nothing short of it.

some of them, i believe, from having read their posts to debian mail lists, are motivated by personal dislike of rms. if he said the sun was yellow, they'd immediately get up a vote to declare it blue.

You are free to believe that but it doesn't make it true.

worst of all, you propagate a probably widely spread misconception. you can cut & paste all you want

No you can't! The licenses are not compatible. I have already stated that.

if you're offended by the fact that you can't remove the manifesto from the emacs documentation, don't use emacs. i think you're silly.

Of course I am offended by that. As much as I wouldn't call software with invariant parts free.

i intend to keep using emacs

Me too. I even contribute code to Emacs. Do you?

keep supporting the FSF and keep installing software that has the documentation included with it.

And I'll keep pushing them to make their documentation free software, which is currently isn't.

the latter item, apparently, precludes anything from debian.

As I said earlier, I doubt that will happen.
Re:Probably won't happen by psgalbraith · 2003-11-02 07:10 · Score: 1

that applies to you, too.

I'm not the one making wild accusations about Debian developers.

I even contribute code to Emacs. Do you?

no. do you have a point?

Sure. You do a whole lot of complaining for someone who doesn't contribute.

it will happen because the people leading this circus don't care if anyone besides themselves uses debian. they care only about being "pure."

Not only, but yes, it's the most important bit to begin as a base to build on.

I'll skip over most of your rants because they are not worth arguing over.

the sad fact is, the debian group had the opportunity to "spread the gospel" of free software by making a distribution which would highlight its advantages. instead, it chose to concentrate its energies on divisive and largely irrelevant political and religious issues like the GNU documentation license.

First, I didn't know we lost our chances by spending some hours discussing the GFDL and how it applies to our distribution. If you really think the time we spent on that issue has prevented us from releasing sarge, you are really off-base.

You are free to call the discussion irrelevant, but it's not to us.

it seems apparent that you, at least, have not considered the outcome, should the FSF refuse to change the license to meet your demands.

No, I have. It might get to that and I'm all for moving those docs to non-free if it does. I just don't think it will.

my own belief is that you are not the FSF

We're not. It's not something that you have to believe or not.

and that you have an agenda which is not necessarily compatible with the agenda of the FSF.

Apparently that's true. The FSF currently cares about free software and somewhat-free documentation. They are willing to sacrifice freedom in documentation to promote free software. We're not. We put them both on equal footing.
I'm hoping we can convince them to also put them on an equal footing before it's too late.

i would prefer that outside organizations, like debian, not dictate the agenda of the FSF

We don't. They are free to license their stuff as they want. We are free to distribute or not.

I won't be responding to you again in this subject. You have used up your allowance of unfounded attacks.

What's your situation? by autechre · 2003-10-31 05:08 · Score: 1

First of all, is the release schedule of Debian really that vexing to your business requirements? I can see you having issues if a new major software revision comes out that supports a feature which would make things much easier for you, but does that really happen so often? I prefer the peace of mind that things will continue to function correctly.

There are also options available. I have one machine that acts as a server for streaming MP3 and Webcam images, so it runs stable. However, it also acts as a playlist entry machine for the DJs, and Mozilla 1.0 has annoying bugs. I simply told APT that I wanted the Mozilla package from testing, and kept the rest of the system stable. A few other libraries also had to be upgraded, but if an important security problem came out for one of the "testing" packages, I could make a decision on what to do (install the new one from unstable, apt-get -b source my own package, etc.). I could have also used "apt-get -b source" in the first place to avoid upgrading libraries, which is what I do with GAIM.

I can't say I rely on the non-free archives so much. The only thing I use from non-free is daemontools, but I compile this myself, and of course it has never had any security problems :) I have also recently discovered a clone, runit, which is under a Free license and very tiny. I will be looking into this soon.

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.

"Testing" isn't what I want. by dwheeler · 2003-10-31 06:34 · Score: 1

I could run "testing" on a desktop, but it gets relatively little testing. As I understand it, that really indicates that the "programs are in testing, and nothing obviously broke after a few weeks." What I want is testing for say a month or two, not just a "deadline passed without complaint, must be okay".

I'm glad you've had good experiences with it - but it just isn't what I want.

What I want is a fourth category between "testing" and "stable"; call it "ready" (as in "ready for use"). Take "testing" and put it through a month of testing specific functions (what's new, common errors, general pounding). NOT just a deadline that's passed - make sure the apps were run.

I can get that by using the for-profit distros, so I use them as my primary distros. If there were some category that fit my needs, I'd give Debian another try.

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Re:Ban private campaign financing by bob_jenkins · 2003-10-31 10:04 · Score: 1

I liked California's recent election. I think the same person won by first-past-the-post as would have won by any version of Condorcet, or by approval. There were more than two plausible candidates, and they weren't purely chosen by political parties.

The 1992 and 2000 national elections, though, would have come out rather differently if the US had used something other than first-past-the-post.

Re:xfree 4.3 packages by jjgm · 2003-10-31 21:18 · Score: 1

At my office, which manages over 250 debian servers internationally, we call the debian sources by different names.

Stale, Flaky and Broken.

According to their official policy, natch.

Usability requirements have no place in a license by Snowdrake · 2003-11-02 06:58 · Score: 1

What I see here is that a license that demands a minimum level of usability is a license that no one will use, because it creates (or should create) the same obligation in the developer of the software so licensed. One of the major parts of the problem is that what may appear perfectly intuitive and usable to the developer is all too frequently opaque and intractable to another user, even an experienced one. Who, then, becomes the arbiter of what interface complies with the license?

The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
-- Bruce Ediger (out-of-date email removed), on X interfaces

This is not to say there's no place for usability guidelines in the overall structure, but I believe that Bruce has the right idea: the place for these decisions is in creating distributions, not in licensing. Sure, you've still got the same question of who decides, but at least you've got a much greater chance of maintaining consistency.

Re:They voted in a change that lets them change? by fizbin · 2003-11-03 03:43 · Score: 1

If any sane business had an arduous process like this to decide to change something in order to allow an arduous process to allow them to change something, they'd be out of business.

You've never worked in a business of more than 20 people, have you?

Slashdot Mirror

Debian Can Now Amend Social Contract, DFSG

182 of 280 comments (clear)