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."
Release one version with the new contract next year, and one without it sooner? Call it sarge- and sarge+.
Who the hell uses the 2.6 kernel in a production setting? I know I don't. In fact, I vastly prefer to admin servers on debian because finding updated packages is typically EASIER than on Redhat without a support contract. Some server admins prefer the slower moving target of debian releases and the ease of backports.org for packages they NEED upgraded.
Maybe im wrong about how things work over on debian, im a gentoo user, bite me.
Replying to my own post.
I look at the landscape and wonder when a distribution that takes a pragmatic look at Linux stability like Debian does without the associated religious zealotry will come into being.
It is an amazing thing to see the focus on stability and completeness in Debian. I deride the distro in jest, but it is a sign of good thinking that they don't declare a stable release every other weekend like some other distros.
However, the zeal to make Debian a "Free" distro is hampering it, causing the maintainers to shun obviously useful and necessary utilities because of the flavor of its license.
I wonder how long it will take for Debian to fork between the GNU-like religious faction and the pragmatists.
I have been pwned because my
As more and more pieces of hardware will be protected by the ever-intensifying "intellectual property" laws, Debian will get more and more worthless. It's quite simple: In the distant past, manufacturers made specs available to those who asked. Then they stopped doing it, but you could reverse-engineer them. Then a few of them succumbed to commercial pressure (and the desire to look like "nice guys" to geeks who might influence corporate purchasing decisions) and released binary-only, proprietary drivers for the most popular Linux distro(s) (read: Red Hat and, if you're lucky, Mandrake and/or SuSE). Now most companies don't even bother doing that, and there is a growing trend towards the use of wrappers and such around Windows (!!!) DLL-based drivers. Linux's future is one of proprietary drivers and payware wrappers around proprietary Windows drivers.
.DLLs. Mplayer (that favourite of rebellious geeks) uses Windows .DLLs. Am I forgetting any similar projects? And the kernel is full of various drivers (think sound drivers) which ask for proprietary pieces of firmware, right? I suppose the Debian folks are going to rip out support for all of these devices?
... well, and Windows itself. Way to go, guys.
And the Debian people are rejecting this sort of thing because of their morals. That's really great. It's also, unfortunately, a wonderful way to ensure that Debian only has primitive, reverse-engineered, DMCA-illegal, flaky support for newer hardware.
Let's see. nVidia and ATI both have proprietary binary-only drivers for Linux (which of course ONLY work on Linux/x86, not Linux/PPC or Linux/ARM or Linux/SPARC or whateverthehell), right? DriverLoader is required to use a bunch of WiFi chipsets under Linux, using Windows
I LIKE the Debian project's inherent sense of morality. I DON'T like their ridiculous lack of pragmatism. This sort of antic is only going to drive off more moderate users towards the likes of Fedora (bloatbloatbloat), Lindows^WLinspire (Windows wannabe, bloat), and
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I can see why some people think Debian is fading into irrelevance. Even running sid feels like you're "behind the curve" (in terms of what my Gentoo friends are emerging), and sid is already well ahead of sarge and perhaps years ahead of woody.
Nonetheless, instead of complaining about it, why not help a hand. One first project ot look is Debian on the Desktop.
Maybe from there desktop users can pull enough weight to a) get the latest desktop packages into sid (or at least, at worst, experimental); b) utilize existing apt-get source framework to allow for rapid from-source installs of bleeding edge apps, to reduce packaging time; c) further tweak app to prevent the already-rare occurences of dependecy hell (or, more appropriately, must-remove-to-upgrade hell).
But please, don't do what I do. Don't whine. Just try and help. I think Debian needs a community of [young] desktop users to sort of provide a voice alongside the old-timers who care more about stable servers than Gnome 2.6 or whatnot.
After reading this we are now discussing what distro to look at? I don't feel like fighting with management about another distro - Debian was so good that the battle with them was worth it, we just found out we have Suse licenses, so that could be the go - plus we will actually have a big red support button - running 20 servers and I have never had a support button before, that'll be different.
Seriously Debian is great, but, this is a ?harsh? reminder that Debian is not developed for users - never has been - it is developed for the developers making Debian.
However, I see a possible bonus here for those commercial distro's using Debian as they will be able to insert the non-free stuff into their own distro's. From what I saw it seems alot of people would start with something like progeny, but end up migrating to Debian proper - maybe this will give those companies a fighting chance to keep their linux users.
Cheers,
Stewart
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.
Now, this is a post I can agree with to some extent. However, when I read the text in question, I agreed with the social contract completely. What I don't agree with is the strict definition of free which requires derivative works to be released under the same license. I personally like attribution licenses and/or public domain grants. You might say that the debian folks want to force everybody to subscribe to their form of freedom, whereas I don't care if somebody wants to yank large bits of my code, slap it in their system, and sell it for $1,000. More power to 'em. I realize this is a controversial view in the open-source community. I'd still like to see a complete OS with apps that all use licenses that aren't picky about what they link to, who's making money, or whether or not Microsoft gets to benefit from open-source innovations... I think software should be software, not a legal quagmire.
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
I'd say the release schedule is quite reliable. "Never" is about as reliable as you can get. Joking aside, I don't see what the big problem is. Does your company actually *need* bleeding edge features provided by many packages? The truth is usually no, and that the unmatched stability and reliability of having older packages with fewer features is a better investment. If the answer is yes, it's very rarely for anything but a few packages, which can be upgraded easily through apt pinning.
The only updates that are absolutely critical are security patches. And thankfully, unlike some Operating Systems and distributions, Debian only provides the security fix for its stable branch, and doesn't require you to update the package to a newer version. This means that less bugs have a chance of being introduced in a security patch, which in turn allows companies to install patches with less worrying about whether or not it will break a current installation. It's still possible, but massively less likely.
In fact, when you get down to it, Sarge is pretty much completely usable as it is. The servers I administer which *do* happen to need those newer features are all running Sarge problem-free.
Really, for all the complaining about Debian, almost none of it is founded on anything rational. Think it's outdated? Run sarge or sid--you lose nothing. Think they're being too pedantic about code and documentation released under non-free licenses? Point apt at the contrib and non-free branches. They're even included into the Debian architecture, including bug reports, mailing lists, and apt entries, so you don't have to go out of your way to do anything special. It's literally no more than changing one word in a configuration file to fix both of these "problems".
No comment.
Our older RedHat systems don't run all the default services. In fact, most of them can only be gotten to (from the outside) on port 80 and or 443, which runs the latest and greatest Apache/Java/Tomcat. Sure, inside we also have ssh access, but with a firewall and intrusion detection between it and the Internet, its a good bet that port 80/443 is all thats open. We have most of nfs, ftp, telnet, smtp, snmp, pop, imap, finger, echo, nis, and any other service turned off. If they are not running, they are not vulnerable.
Running something like Apache 2.0.48 on RH 7.2 isn't necessarily going to be any less secure than running Apache 2.0.48 on RHEL 3.0. Any successful compromise of Apache is likely to be due to Apache, not the underlying OS. Fixing Apache, not upgrading the OS, would be the solution here, assuming you build Apache yourself from source, which I tend to do.
I use Debian and I use:
/apt/sources.conf file. Otherwise it's as easy as it gets and still have a good OS that will be on your computer and constantly updating for the next decade.
I play games like UT2004 on it.
I have firmwear-based drivers and closed source Nvidia drivers for it.
I run Kernel 2.6.5 on it.
I run Gnome 2.6 on it.
A lot of the software I run is more up-to-date then anything Fedora, Suse, or Mandrake uses. Gentoo is the only thing that can beat debian out on the more-bleeding edge part.
When the next numbered upgrades for distros come out (for example Fedora core2) they will be newer and more bleeding edge then Debian unstable, but that's only for a couple months.
It's a hare vs tortuise thing.
And it's dead-stable, too. Except for a couple small bugs in Gnome 2.6 (it's from experimental, so that's to be expected.)
And unstable is as "stable" as anything from any other distro. The "unstable" is unstable because it's constantly changing and updating, not because it crashes all the time. (BTW you are not suppose to run testing by itself, Testing is for developers, normal people should use unstable if stable is to out of date)
The only difficult part is installing Debian and editing the
Nowadays my OSes out last my computer! I've run my current OS thru 3 different major computer upgrades. It's a miracle compared to Windows 98 were I had to reinstall every few months.
Stable isn't, but with a little care and feeding, Sid is. And the care and feeding is educational -- just doing an upgrade every few days with apt-listchanges installed is a great way to learn by osmosis little tidbits about the system's workings.
[b]Joking aside, it's true. Debian means old and stable - seriously. If you're running the latest stuff, it ain't Debian anymore. [/b]
Everything I run, except for the Nvidia/Hauppage drivers and kernel sources (I compiled my kernel using the automated kernel package tools, though, which turn any custom kernel into a debian package) are from official debian servers.
Just not stable. It's unstable/experimental mix. It's bleeding edge, for debian.
The cool stuff is Debian can be made into whatever you want it to be buy learning howto use the Apt package manager. It makes even extreme mods easy, all that functionality is built into the tools.
Debian STABLE is old and completely stable. Debian unstable is what most people end up using. It's just that Stable is a good basis for customization.
For example, if I was to create a campus lab using Debian that and had to deal with 300+ computers on my own, I could do that with Debian Stable easily. Stuff like Gentoo would be a pain in the arse, and Fedora would be between the two in ease of administration.
But for home use were I want the newest stuff the Debian community allows for that too.
Debian is old and stuffy + modern and flexible at the same time, just depends how you want it.
It's a sort of "have it your way" (to steal a term from Burgerking) sort of distro.
Even worse! AFAIK the default kernel is still 2.2!
Check the packages, last time i installed debian there was a 2.4 kernel, but it wasn't the default.
Move Sig. For great justice.
That's it... I'm giving up on Debian. I know they mean well but some users just want a stable system that has had application updates since 1994. I agree with the ideology of their actions, I think the unfree documenation should be removed from the project. But that should be a project goal for the next release, because we were nearly ready for one in the coming months.
It's sad, because the idea of a community driven project is noble, and I hate to see it fail. But this is failure -- they have abandoned their release goals and further postponed an already rediculously overdue rlease. They just aren't serious about maintaining a stable release, and thus I'm not going to take them seriously.
Not that they owe me anything -- I appreciate all the hard work that the Debian Developers do. But this is just the last straw...
501 Not Implemented
I hear what you're saying, I've been more than a little annoyed with Debian as well lately. But...
I don't use the Stable release, outside of sysadmins, I don't think I know anyone else who does.
They have an obligation to release free stuff that has only become stricter in the last few years. What they are saying about proprietary hardware is not, 'Fuck you, you are evil,' but rather, 'We're sorry, but we have no control nor proper information over the hardware you're using and can't really help you, because if we did have that information, we would be constrained by the makers of your hardware not to divulge it to you.'
To take a completely trivial example, the computer I'm typing this on has an NVidia video card, and I run Debian testing on it. I knew I'd have a hard time using Debian-only software on it, so off I went to Google. Within an hour I had everything downloaded and installed.
OK, perhaps not as easy as grabbing Fedora. But I know as a result of this what I have, what Debian can provide, and what they can't. In other words, I've learned something, and I didn't have it done for me.
A lot of times people forget or get confused as to what the Debian project is about. But they tell you this upfront: they aim to make a free computer operating system. Not to make the easiest, or most convenient -- though it would be nice -- or to make the most secure or most complete. Simply to make it free, so that when a new user, a business, an organisation or a government picks it up, they won't have to --ever-- worry about licensing costs or any other shit.
Limiting the GNU stuff to exclude FDL documentation is, I agree, a total pain in the ass. Granted, disk space is no problem for users these days. But what would be the alternative be? Gloss over the very real difference in opinion as to the modification of texts as just a side issue? It creates problems because the GNU project says 'You have to accept this part and parcel of the original package even if you don't agree with any of it nor does it have any real use'.
And no, this is not a flame, it's an honest question -- if this is really a problem, why aren't you using a FreeBSD system instead? They have ports. They have lots of free stuff. They have a large userbase, they have lots of online support and are pragmatic. What's the holdup?
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
How is this wrong? It is what would be considered stable by other distributions. If you don't mind having feature updates for software and packages added to the tree, you might as well use Sarge. What, then, is the difference between that and releases by other distributions?
Yeah, that's not its "official" purpose, but that doesn't negate the reality of the situation.
No comment.
Yes, it does need to be released to be relevant - not to the hobby user, but the the server farm.
Woody is relevant because it has no upgrades to packages (meaning, no scripts/sql/... break because of version upgrades), it has almost instant security updates (in the form of *backports* to released software - very important!), and it's a "known good distro".
Sarge has almost daily upgrades (not updates, but upgrades - version numbers (and therefore feature-set) change!) - I am sure this is fine for the hobbyist, but it's not good enough in the server farm (if your farm is more than a handful of servers at least).
Sure, I can compile my own packages. Heck, if that's what it's all about, I could re-write most of them from scratch to get the exact features that I wanted. But this is not the issue; what I need in my server farm in order to be "effective", in order to not waste my time on things I do not need to waste my time on, I need to have instant and easy access to the required updates and I need to have a minimal (preferably zero) number of upgrades. This is what Woody has, because Woody is released. And this is what Sarge does not have, because Sarge is not released. This is why Sarge is irrelevant, as long as Sarge is not released.
I would so wish, that Debian would release Sarge within the next four to six months (as would be realistic since the only major part they need is a finished installer) - and that they would then attempt to solve these purely political issues in whatever-will-be-after-Sarge.
I always thought Debian was essentially the linux implementation of the FSF/GNU ideals. Most other distros make compromises for usability, but debian never compromises on freedom. This is just the latest example of that. And more power too them for it.
The amazing thing here is this: In reaffiming their commitment to freedom, they are finding that they have to exclude some GNU documentation because it is considered non-free. In other words, Debian now seems to value free software more than the Free Software Foundation.
Thats disappointing, but at least Debian is sticking to their ideals without compromise. Too bad the FSF can't say the same.
> > Writing docs is a vital chore which nobody likes and which gets little recognition.
> Sorry, but this is completely bogus. We went through this argument a few years ago: "people won't write nice GUIs for fun", "people won't write open-source databases", "people won't release open source kernels for big iron".
As an active Open Source documentation volunteer, I can vouch that the parent is 100% correct. Documentation volunteers aren't given the same peer recognition and respect as programmers... If you don't submit code patches to a project, you're the invisible man!
Here's an exercise: Think of famous Open Source programmers, how many names come to mind? Now think of famous Open Source documentation writers (who aren't also famous programmers), how many names come to mind?
I submit that Open Source development for databases and Big Iron is done mostly by companies like MySQL and IBM. Some would argue that companies will fund Open Source documentation too. But I think documentation will continue like many localization efforts, lots of thankless hard work by volunteers with little corporate interest.
Could we stop the Microsoft, Debian, Gentoo and Fedora, and *BSD astroturfing please?
Debian (and Linux in general) does not exist in a vaccuum. In a discussion on the merits of following the "free" philosophy to an irrational conclusion (seemingly, what Debian has chosen to do with Sarge), you need to mention other Linux distros (Fedora), other 'nix-like OSs (*BSD), and other popular OSs (Windows).
Philosophically, I agree with the idea of Debian. I consider it a truly wonderful goal. In the current IP climate among hardware manufacturers, however, a move like this all but dooms Debian.
I don't like using binary-only NVidia drivers any more than the rest of you. But I like it a hell of a lot better than using X in 640x480 stdVGA mode on my shiny new $150 video card. Get the idea?