Slashdot Mirror
Social Contract Amendment May Bump Sarge To 2005
An anonymous reader submits "Debian's Release Manager Anthony Towns announced that after the Grand Resolution to amend the Social Contract has been successful (it does not only apply to software any more), vital parts to modern Linux systems, such as important documentation, firmware needed for proper hardware support will have to be removed from the distribution before the next release. Moreover, the upcoming installer will need to be changed. He goes on to say that he does not expect this to happen by the end of this year which means that Sarge will not be released in 2004."
All I have to say is, good for them for sticking to their standards.
Sarge does not need to be "released" to be relevant. The software still runs on the debian OS. You can still upgrade your kernel. IMO, the best thing about debian is that you can start with a very minimal linux install and add the packages you need as you need them a lot easier than is possible with many other distributions.
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
i use and like debian. but i want new packages to be released, and for it to generally appear to be supported.
if you dont want non-free stuff, fine, release sarge, its almost ready (and long delayed) and make removal of non free packages a goal of the next release.
We have machines at work that are currently running Redhat 7.2. A couple are RedHat 8, 9, and RHEL 2.1. Why are they not all running the latest and greatest RedHat? Because we either can't afford the downtime (not to mention configuration) to upgrade every time that RedHat comes out with its next release, or the bleeding edge releases break things. Unless a newer release provides some feature/function that we need in production and we can't get any other way, we don't upgrade each time a release comes out. We've even downgraded a couple of machines from RHEL 3.0 to 2.1 because getting some Oracle software installed was near imposible (even with Oracle consultants on-site!)
I'd much have a rock solid server that performs its job all the time than have a bleeding edge server that requires 2 or 3 upgrades a year just to stay bleeding edge.
I think that the Debian people are right on this one , however the FSF foundation is partly to blame because of the invariant sections in the FDL . (why glibc wont have documentation)
I think the solution, since non-free is being kept, should be to include the non-free repositories in the default "sources.list" file and allow tasksel to use non-free packages for documentation under a "Non-Free documentation" header, no non-free stuff should needed for the bootstrap installation(although binary kernel module won't be available by default). Thats the best comprimise, IMHO.
Could we stop the Microsoft, Debian, Gentoo and Fedora, and *BSD astroturfing please?
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
Er, no on both counts. Debian's goal is not to be widely used. And neither is it Debian's goal to be the distro of the uber-geek.
Debian's goal is to assemble the best operating system it can that you can freely redistribute to your friends and family. Debian's goal is to assemble the best operating system it can that you can sell to others for profit. Debian's goal is to assemble the best operating system that it can whereby you can modify it to fit your needs. Debian's goal is to respect you, the customer.
How many other operating systems can say that?
Debian is really maginalizing itself. I was a debian user for about 6 months. I had been using Linux for nearly 10 years prior so I wasn't averse to learning a new system, compiling stuff by hand, etc. But debian stable is just so far out of date, the installar is just so hideous and painful to use, and the new stuff seemed so far off I jumped ship to Fedora as soon as I realized that it had the single best feature of debian: apt-get (I use yum actually but the effect is the same). But now that this news has come to light I am very glad I jumped ship when I did. My company could never have put up with such a slow and unreliable release schedule. And removing non-free bits of microcode from the kernel is really going to hurt hardware support. Sure, you will probably be able to download them from non-free during or after install and everyone will so we don't really gain any more freedom and we further complicate the already painful install process. Debian is quickly becoming the dinosaur of Linux distributions and is pulling an RMS and hurting the cause of Free Software by marginalizing itself with extremism such that no serious users or organisations will want to be associated with it.
I run a debian testing system next to my windows system. My windows sys dual-boots to 'drake 10rc3, but drake is crap-
the ethernet is crazy flaky and dont ask about sound.
I've been waiting for the next debian-installer so I could get debian
on my higher-end machine in a stable manner.
I don't have time to wait around while they smoke pipe dreams about their free morals.
I move out of the dorms in 3 weeks, and away from a decent internet connection. They say they need 8 months to rewrite debian.
I am sorry, we need Debian 4.0 now not when kernel 2.8 comes out, metaphorically speaking.
They can release 4.1-free eventually, but if the Debian project can't get their butt in motion, they will fade and die,
with Gentoo taking over the position of organic Linux distro.
I like debian, but its release cycle is slower than a dead slug in solid concrete,
and this just excaberates the problem.
/b
|f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
Businesses use Redhat because they offer commerical support, something I don't believe Debian offers, as Debian is not a commercial enterprise.
First, if I am interpreting this correctly, this entire issue revolves around Debian remaining 100% free (under a certain definition of "free"), and not requiring the use of any non-free component. This is in stark contrast to, say, the NetBSD project, which is a bit more lax on which "free"/"open" licenses qualify for inclusion in their software. Their idea is that they do not have infinite time to reproduce every single component under the BSD license, so inclusion of other software benefits the community. This would seem to place Debian at a disadvantage.
But upon further reflection, I reminded myself that free software is all about the freedom to choose. In other words, I can choose to use Debian, or not, and further, if I choose to use Debian, nobody said that I can't install components from other distros, specific developers whose software was not included, or even earlier versions of Debian. Therefore, this becomes a great advantage to the community: A 100% "free" distribution, into which you can add whatever components, free or not, that you wish.
I certainly see your point that for some popular devices (e.g. nVidia cards), the proprietary drivers are much better than the open ones. I also agree that going the moral road will turn away some users.
/etc, /dev, and /proc are set up just right.
However, Debian is imho big enough to pull this sort of thing. If some micro-league, half-assed distro went this route, it would die in obscurity, but a major product like Debian will survive. Furthermore, by rejecting proprietary firmware and documentation, Debian is raising awareness of some important issues (like Fedora not including mp3 support raises awareness of patent encumbered technologies).
Say you get a shiny new pci card with a little tux on the box, and a proprietary driver on the CD. Cool, huh? No. Not cool. The driver will work with your Linux system provided:
-you use kernel 2.4 or maybe 2.6
-you compiled said kernel with gcc 3.2 or 3.3
-you use glibc 2.somethingorother
-your
Years pass. Linux gains 20% desktop market share. Duke Nukem Forever is released for Mac and Lintel. You fish out an old computer from your closet; you want to install a Linux (kernel 3.0; compiled with gcc 3.5; with glibc 2.somethingelse; and a GNU/Darwin directory layout) to turn into a streaming virtual reality server for your apartment. Guess what's the probability of your closed-source driver still working?
Open source drivers might be a hassle to use in the short term, but C source is still the most portable way to distribute software.
With this focus, Debian will never become a more widely-used distro and remain the distro of the uber-geek, but perhaps that's the point after all.
No that's not the point you dildo. (damn retarded troll)
The point of the Debian distro is a completely NO STRINGS ATTATCHED.
Anybody anywere can use Debian for whatever purpose they want. ANY PURPOSE.
Anything from Debian you can modify, sell, share, and make your own startup distros from. No config tools from Suse to mess around with.
No unfree drivers to get in trouble for distributing. No restricted artwork and tradmarks(ala Firefox and Redhat) no nothing.
Do you want to create your own windows-like distro (lindows for example?) you can.
Do you want to use it for a for-profit software company, you can. All of it, and you don't have to get anybody's permission or pay people no attention.
Do you want to use it for School? To run university labs?
No liscencing restricts.
Plus it's to remind people and the developers themselves EXACTLY WHY LINUX WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Debian rocks!
You go ahead and setup debian and learn to use Apt, and you will find that it's probably the most easily maintained distro out there. What you need to know to run Debian is what you need to know to run any Linux distro out their.
The point of debian is to be as non-1337 as possible, so that nobody will ever have to worry about anything ever. It's safe, it's secure. No potential lawsuits and installing any program is as easy as going [b]apt-get install programname[/b], and applying security patches is: [b]apt-get update && apt-get upgrade[/b].
Is that realy that difficult or 1337?
"Now we need a logo for open-source hardware, so people know what to buy. Preferably one designed by a competent icon designer, like Susan Kare."
No, we need the DMCA repealed, so developers within the USA won't be afraid to reverse-engineer some company's hardware. We need companies to release their own source, or to at least provide a high quality binary driver if the development is slow enough (XFree86 as an example) so that people can use Linux on their new cheap machines.
For the longest time there was no decent support for the sound chipset on my motherboard. Fortunately the OEM didn't skimp on the PCI slots, so adding a Sound Blaster with an EMU10K wasn't a big deal, but it would be nice for this stuff to just work. I had an i815 based machine at work that has problems with sound, video, and ethernet. The video stuff came in first, but I had added cards to handle sound and ethernet, and even if they have a solution at this point it's irrevelant to me since I came up with a stable workaround. Most users aren't going to want to do that though, they just want the damn thing to work.
I use Debian on my computers. I like it. It's easy to maintain, stable on the servers, and fairly easy to keep current enough for my tastes with Sid. I install it and I don't think about it anymore, excepting security updates. I have a computer that's been up for the better part of a year (non-public:) and doesn't give me any fits. I could probably automate the apt-get update && apt-get upgrade procedure and still not worry.
Debian is for Slackware admins that got lazy.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Or amend the social contract to promise hardware support and then prioritize the goals to hardware support takes a priority until a "free" option is created or becomes available?
It appears as though Debian is going to take a big step backwards if something isn't done. The goals are clearly good, yet the real world has always required a compromise between the ideal and the real. Don't the Debian developers actually work in IT for a living?
I'm really concerned about this, because I was highly considering Debian for the next OS to try since RH is discontinuing free security updates, and I'm not sure at all how Fedora is supposed to address it. The last thing I need, though, is a hardware problem, particularly with a network card.
Open Standards Portal
Adding to your post, I would like to make the case for Debian unstable.
Unstable in no way means it's really unstable. What it means is that while packages have had some basic testing, the distribution as a whole hasn't been religiously tested, and, consequently, isn't years behind the curve as stable is.
Packages in unstable often provide improvements and bugfixes that the versions in stable didn't yet have.* This means that, while stable is guaranteed to be stable, many people will find unstable more usable (especially people using Gaim, as the IM networks change protocols once in a while, breaking older versions).
The message is, if you want guaranteed stability, use Debian stable. If you want to stay current, but still want to have the benefits of Debian (easy software installation, automatic dependency resolution), use Debian unstable. Don't use testing, unless you really intend to test it - it's almost guaranteed to be broken.
* Note that security fixes are backported to stable. This means that you can keep using the version of the package you have always used, and be sure your configuration keeps working, while still getting security updates that are only available through upgrading for other distros.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If you want stuff up to date, but want to have something that would be considered "stable" by other distros, you run Sarge (or testing).
The Woody distribution is for cases when you want to run a bunch of applications predictably. This means that your production application will run the same on day one as it does on day 100. An update will not break your application. An update will not change the way the application works. That is the point of stable - stable operation for a long period of time.
And yes, you can install 2.4.26 in Woody (from kernel.org). Woody actually has 2.4.x kernels no matter what the trolls are talking about.
I see a lot of annoyance with Debian's stance on this type of thing. It seems to be of a similar type to those who are annoyed at RMS for being idealistic in the face of reality.
I can understand that, but I don't agree with it. If Microsoft/SCO/whoever sends an army of lawyers marching through the open source world, the strict principles of Debian might make them the only one invulnerable to the attack.
RMS and Debian might get on people's nerves, but there are other leaders and distros people can pay attention to for practical stuff. RMS and Debian prepare for the worst case scenario. Remember if things get really bad they may be all that stands between us and complete domination of the commercial software world.
Perhaps this is only an issue for the next major release, and thus not critical today. I don't know. The reality is, though, that people have to make decisions and don't have all the time in the world to investigate every possible scenario and become Debian gurus before they've ever even installed it for the first time. People need some assurance that things will run smoothly, today and in the foreseeable future.
In IT, perception is 9/10ths of reality. Thanks for helping to ease my perception. ;)
Open Standards Portal
No, but that doesn't matter. Zealots are annoying. The problem is that they keep repeating the same thing. They are generally going to do more harm than good for their cause. I won't try Gentoo and I won't get a Mac. I have nothing against the people that have put together Gentoo I have a few issues with Apple, but nothing that would prvent me from buying a Mac. The zealots have simply driven me away from them.
At some point everyone just needs to stop giving a fuck what some bearded hippie thinks (not that being a bearded hippie is a BAD thing) and just get the fuck on with it. Look, I respect RMS and the FSF as much as anyone else that uses Linux but I seriously don't give a flying fuck what RMS does and doesn't like. It makes no difference to me, and it shouldn't make a difference to anyone else. RMS is NOT divine. He's just a guy. His opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
As with any group of over 1000 individuals, your statement is a vast generalisation.
How can you call us "rude and confrontational" when all you are basing that on are some mailing list posts, primarily in a mailing list which is renowned for that behaviour.
Personally, as a Debian Developer, I try to assist people and fix bugs in my packages, as my way of contributing back to a phenomenal set of software. Debian has over 5000 packages in the distribution, and while those are mostly not written by DDs, they are packaged, and made to play together nicely and install, upgrade and uninstall cleanly, and the whole damn thing just works.
Yes, of course Debian Developers are principled people who care passionately about things other than software, and if you stick a thousand of them in a mailing list together there is bound to be fire! And hell, some of us are geeks without social skill. Cry me a river.
I really wish they would make up their minds. Are they trying to provide the most stable distro out there, or are they trying to be an unofficial organ of the FSF? Both perhaps? If this last is the case, then they ought to have been more balanced about this decision. Why push back the release cycle by a whole year just to make the GNU zealots happy? Why not wait until the next release for these change and bring Sarge out on time? At least the message there would have been that "we agree with FSF/GNU ideals in principal, but we have other goals which are as important as far as this release goes."
Instead, the message they are sending is that "Debian is for GNU zealots only. We don't give a damn about anyone else. If you have a need for any closed-source program or proprietary hardware, you are evil." I am sick of this attitude, frankly.
Don't get me wrong, I respect what RMS and FSF/GNU have done for the cause of free/OSS software, but I simply can't agree with the notion that closed-source is evil. I prefer Linus' approach which is essentially to say that we think free/OSS is a better idea, but that authors have a right to go closed-source if they want. Personally, I tend to think that the BSD license is often, maybe even generally, superior to the GPL. I use Linux because it ofers more choices than BSD, not because I dislike BSD or its license. I had thought that Debian was distancing itself from GNU, but I guess they've done a 180.
I have used Debian for over three years, because I like the package system. I am not a GNU zealot. Over the last two years, I have become increasingly annoyed with holdups in the release cycle, but promises of a quick Sarge release went a long way to apease me. This is the last straw. There are other distros (Gentoo for one) with as good or better package/ports systems, and that at least pretend to care about real-world users. Goodbye Debian.
P.S. Before anyone flames me, keep in mind that in part I am blowing off steam out of utter frustration. If I spoke overly harshly, I apologize to anyone I offended.
That is just dumb.
I am sorry, but that is about as stupid as RMS firing the Lead HURD mantainer because he wanted a more free doc license than RMS.
>"yes, I'll accept the condition of only running the
>software you let me, if you'll let me pay $200 for
>Halo 4! That game's so cool I don't need freedom!"
I don't understand why people continue to make references like this. As much as I love OSS for the rights it grants me to do what I want with it, using a proprietary system does not mean a person has less freedom. In fact, I would say that the persons *ability* to choose is the essence of freedom. The person has the ability to *choose* what software they will use, whether or not that software grants them specific rights.
That said, I hate Microsoft and I hate their product. However, I don't hope they are completely run out of business. Why? Becuase they provide another option. People can *choose* to run Microsoft products OR they can *choose* to run Linux OR they can *choose* to run something else. That, to me, denotes a lot more freedom than there would be with having only one "Free" operating system with no other possible options.
It's going to be hard to say this without people getting their panties in a knot, but I absolutely hate trying to 1) get debian systems running how I want and 2) keep them running how I want.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like if some of the Debian folk spent as much time fixing their distribution as they do ranting about the philosophy behind their system, it could just about literally jump into my computer, read my mind, and magically do everything I wanted without me touching a keyboard. As it is though, I'm forever saying to myself "now where the hell did they put THAT file, since it's not in its standard location..." and "what version is this package really? It looks like version 3.1 from 2 years ago.... no wait, that's 3.1-15... wtf is the -15? It has features that weren't released until 3.9? Huh?!??" and similar.
I once made the mistake of trying to figure out what flags were being used to compile a Debian package... after jumping around through about 7 different intertwined and slightly obfuscated shell scripts for about an hour, I gave up.
Unfortunately, I'm still stuck using Debian on one server (the owner doesn't want to change OSs), but I've gone to Slackware on all my systems. Much simpler system to deal with overall, IMNSHO.
Don't get me wrong, I love Debian, and use it myself, but the installer is downright crappy, typically requiring a bunch of manual editing of kernel module configurations and whatnot to get a system to install (usually with the aid of some HOWTOs). Knoppix is Debian-based and Just Works, auto-detecting everything fine---and it's Free Software. Why doesn't Debian just borrow their installer or something?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You have just pointed out the #1 reason why sysadmins who compile from source on production servers need a beating with a clue stick. I'm not going to get all superior, because I know that at one time, I did the same thing. The point is, to put something new on a production machine (like samba with acl support for debian) you: -Compile it on a development box with prefix=/tmp/what_you_want -Make a package of it -test the package on a second test box to make sure it works -install the package on your server This provides several advantages besides the one you stated: Firstly, you never have to have dev tools on your production server (and a lot of rootkits depend on these being present). Secondly, you are sure that when you deploy, it's quick and painless, and you won't brake your server with a botched compile. Thirdly, you can deploy then on multiple servers quickly and efficiently.
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
Linux's future is one of proprietary drivers and payware wrappers around proprietary Windows drivers.
... a wonderful way to ensure that Debian only has primitive, reverse-engineered, DMCA-illegal, flaky support for newer hardware.
And the Debian people are rejecting this sort of thing because of their morals. That's
I never buy hardware that isn't supported by free (as in freedom) software. As Linux use grows, there is a good chance that market forces will favor those companies which publish specs for their hardware. We have a choice. We can help to bring about the good outcome, by buying only devices that free software can support, or we can buy the stuff that makes the latest cool game look slicker (or whatever) while rewarding the bastards who want to take away our freedom. You seem to have made your choice, and I despise you for it. Neither of us knows how this will end.
Lack of good documentation is a major problem for free software. Debian just made a major problem worse.
I was reading on this email post and it's really discouraging.
The single biggest problem that I've seen in getting people to adopt Linux, and Debian in particular, is the function of hardware connected to the computer. If my widget doesn't work with Linux then what's the point of using Linux?I've grown accustomed to the practice of due diligence on researching any hardware support for a product X before I buy it. But if I have to start doing this, and then perform another search just for Debian, it's making Debian very unattractive.
I am really doubtful that this is a smart move on their part. I am a HUGE fan of Debian and very supportive of their work. But the implications of this are not good from where I sit. Their ideologies are making their product non-useful to the community which they attempt to serve.
They are creating an overly complex architecture at a time when Linux does not have the support necessary from the commercial entities controlling the market (hardware and software). This will tend to isolate Debian from the rest of the Linux community and may give them the label of "Oh... Those guys over there in the orange sheets."
I hope I'm wrong, but I think Debian really screwed this up in a big way. The fact that they have just incurred an entire year of delays to their release cycle at a time when they were months away and years behind the rest really doesn't help them in the least.
I really don't understand their motives with this one.
Sure, the firmware isn't Free, but neither is the firmware actually loaded in your motherboard's EEPROM chips. You don't see people raising a ruckus about how they refuse to purchase motherboards on which the firmware is not Free Software, so why are they worried about this? This firmware is pretty tightly coupled to the hardware in a similar way as the EEPROM firmware is.
Now maybe if people were going to an 100% Free system in which every single piece of their computer was Free, then I'd see the point, but if you're not going to do that anyway, I don't really see the advantage of causing a huge hassle over this relatively minor issue.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Don't the Debian developers actually work in IT for a living?
Many of us do. Many do not. Many are students. Debian is very diverse.
Some of us who "actually work in IT" view our Debian work as a way to fix what we view as broken in the "mainstream (MS dominated)" IT world. One of those broken things is the lack of accountability, stability, and reliability in all facets of "mainstream/modern" mass produced IT systems.
I compromise my "idealism" with respect to computing systems at the job I get paid for (because I'm not the "big boss"). I am not willing to do so in my volunteer work.
The Debian project will release "when it is ready." It is ready when the software, and all the other bits meet the creiteria set forth in the Debian Social Contract (and the release manager give it their blessing).
NOTE: The opinions expressed are my one and do not necessarily represent those Debian project. I am a Debian Developer.
. there used to be a sig here.....
Perhaps what might have been a better idea would have been to state that the Social Contract Ammendment goes into play after Sarge becomes Stable.
"True to the Spirit Of Free" or not, making a change which forces a release to be put back on political issues rather than technical issues just doesn't seem fair on their Users who may have been waiting patiently for the next Stable release.
Personally, I don't use Debian, but I was considering looking at it. I was just waiting for Stable to catch up to the more recent innovations.
TiggsThat ain't gonna happen any time soon, but it's a real shame.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
They really should institute some sort of "semi-free" section for those of us who agreed with the old social contract, and therefore don't want to use contrib or non-free, but find the new one too broad, and therefore have no objection to installing things like GFDL documentation. Moving all binary firmware and GFDL docs out to non-free will just force almost everybody to use non-free, which defeats the point.
It's not really "the masses" who run Debian... it's Debian Developers. Anyone can be a DD, but you have to get a PGP key signed by another DD and go through an application process, so there's a sort of self-screening that keeps out people who don't really have that much of an interest in the project. There are lots of DDs, and it's true that most probably don't have a deep knowledge of the workings of all the software in the distribution, but they're not exactly "unwashed masses" as you portray. :-)
Dissertation? All I'm saying is that the Debian project does what its members think best, and if you were a part of the project, you'd have a say in how things are done. That's hardly a philosophical rant.
The SSH problem you mentioned happened a few days ago, due to a mistake while tightening permissions on /dev/tty*. Prior to that, the last problem I remember was about a month and a half ago, when GConf broke for a day or two. Bugs do pop up on occasion, but that's a natural consequence of using the "unstable" branch, the front line for packages that haven't been tested yet. I find it pretty hard to believe that no Slackware package has had a bug in several years.
Not true at all. The developers are motivated to be part of something bigger than themselves. If Debian dwindles and disappears, let's see if your theory holds true.
When developers leave Debian, then what are you going to say? It hurts no one when developers disappear. What about when you are down to one guy working alone 10 years from now on what was once Debian? Was no one hurt?
The developers who like to build something great and successful get hurt if the project loses its interested parties. They might be the cause, ironically. We are our own worst enemies. But being the cause doesn't mean you won't get hurt.
Leaving a project that is dwindling is depressing. You can't tell me that some contributors won't feel like they lost something.
I'm not saying this will happen to Debian. I'm simply saying that's its innacurate to say it hurts no one.
Open Standards Portal