Social Contract Amendment May Bump Sarge To 2005

Why can't they by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-26 16:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Release one version with the new contract next year, and one without it sooner? Call it sarge- and sarge+.

Re:Why can't they by Openstandards.net · 2004-04-26 17:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's what I was thinking. Why not call it the Social Contract of 2005?
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
Re:Why can't they by Wyzard · 2004-04-26 18:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nobody's saying that your proprietary hardware will cease to work in Debian. The packages will still exist; they'll just be in the "non-free" section, separated out so that people who don't want any non-free software can omit that section from their sources.list file. Non-free packages are technically not part of Debian, but if you have a non-free line in your sources.list, there's no difference whatsoever in how you use them.
Re:Why can't they by Openstandards.net · 2004-04-26 18:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your probably right. However, when I read his description of the impact on the installer, it appeared a bit unprecedented that the firmware for a network card could not be presumed to be in the kernel, and thus creating a new complication.
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
Re:Why can't they by Wyzard · 2004-04-26 18:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I suppose you're right that if your hardware needs non-free firmware then it won't be usable right away in the installer, but it's not that much of a big deal to provide the necessary driver to the installer. But I think long-run maintainability of a system, especially a server, is much more important than ease of getting it installed in the first place, and that's an area where Debian shines. (That's not to say that installation should be difficult, but someone installing an operating system on a mission-critical server should be able to get by without having his hand held the whole way, or he's probably not qualified for the job.)
Re:Why can't they by Openstandards.net · 2004-04-26 19:22 · Score: 2, Informative

You're right, once it's running, everything is great.
What I was kind of imagining, though, when I said, "people need some assurance that things will run smoothly, today and in the foreseeable future," was that if Debian did install successfully and run well (Java is fast, errata is easy to keep up-to-date, etc,...), it might become the chosen OS for successive hardware purchases, which may have different hardware and may receive a newer version of Debian. You want to know that the installation 6 months from now will go as smoothly as today's installation, and knowing that they are changing it in a new way does not help give you that kind of assurance.
If being the best sysadmin was the most critical part of the decision, I'd go Windows all the way. I know that backards and forwards, and inside and out (barring the source code, lol.) However, I also know Nimda and Nimda II a little too well. ;) Discovering that my Kernel was trying to send packets to North Korea didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
So, I'm willing to risk the "unknown" a bit, though RedHat 9 and FreeBSD 4.9, including all the networking and server software I had to configure, have done well to break me in. Heck, I even finally had the ballz to give one of those machines a full static public IP address instead of hiding it behind NAT. Yet, I never did get my D-Link wireless card to work on my laptop, so am typing this in Windows XP right now. :( Thus, I will NEVER claim to be a Linux hardware driver guru. NEVER!!! I need to trust the OS to take care of that.

--

Open Standards Portal
Re:Why can't they by FuegoFuerte · 2004-04-26 19:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Why can't they by Wyzard · 2004-04-26 20:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Standard location? In my mind, the "standard" location for a file is where Debian puts it, and I get confused when it's located somewhere else in another distribution. :-)

I get the sense that you're used to installing things via "configure; make; make install". It's good to have a simple method like that available, but when I talk about maintainability of a system, installing non-packaged software is one of the biggest ways to hurt that maintainability. Files created by a "make install" usually don't have any way to cleanly remove or upgrade them; you can upgrade by installing a new version over the old, but if the old version included any files that were removed in the new version, you still have that cruft sitting around. You get the idea.

I like the fact that Debian has lots of infrastructure. I like to know that when I install a package, it will cleanly integrate with other related packages, and when I remove it, it will cleanly go away. I like the fact that when I'm looking for a package that performs a certain function, I can often guess its name, thanks to fairly consistent naming patterns, and that when I'm looking for a file, I can usually guess where it's located due to a consistent and sensible filesystem hierarchy.

I hang out in #debian on IRC, and I read some of the mailing lists, and I see a lot more discussion on practical matters than on philosophy, and philosophical rants are pretty rare. The system works quite well for those who use it; your comment about "fixing their distribution" just doesn't apply. Remember that Debian is run democratically: if you don't like the way something's being done, you can always register as a Debian Developer and vote to do things your way. If you don't want to do that, or if you get outvoted by people who like things the way they are, you can use another distribution and nobody will hold it against you.
Re:Why can't they by Welsh+Dwarf · 2004-04-26 21:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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)
Re:Why can't they by FuegoFuerte · 2004-04-26 21:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Standard location? In my mind, the "standard" location for a file is where Debian puts it, and I get confused when it's located somewhere else in another distribution. :-)

I tend to think of the "standard" location as being where I can find a file on better than 75% of the *nix systems I've used (Several linux distros, BSDs, HP-UX, Irix, Solaris, etc). But whatever makes a person happy I suppose. For a linux distro, I'd say the standard location should be where the LSB says it is, which from what I've seen Slackware tends to follow a lot closer than Debian.

I get the sense that you're used to installing things via "configure; make; make install". It's good to have a simple method like that available, but when I talk about maintainability of a system, installing non-packaged software is one of the biggest ways to hurt that maintainability. Files created by a "make install" usually don't have any way to cleanly remove or upgrade them; you can upgrade by installing a new version over the old, but if the old version included any files that were removed in the new version, you still have that cruft sitting around. You get the idea.

Actually, I typically install things via "installpkg ---.tgz" and upgrading things via "upgradepkg ---.tgz". When I install from source, I use "configure; make; checkinstall 'make install'". This makes a package out of it that I can easily install, remove, upgrade, whatever I want.

As far as philosophy goes, well, I think you're well on your way to proving my point with your small dissertation on democracy and voting.

To be honest (and here I'll get philosophical), I think the democracy thing may be part of what's (IMO) wrong with Debian... the masses are often wrong, and most of the people in the masses will never known an entire distribution as intimately as, say, Pat knows Slackware. Therefore things take longer to get fixed, the whole process gets bogged down, and the distribution suffers because of it. I have known people using Debian Unstable who have had things like SSH stop working properly upon 'apt-get dist-upgrade' or whatever the command is. Meanwhile, I am almost always running slackware-current (aka the unstable, in-development branch of slack), and have never once had these problems in the several years I've been using slack.
Re:Why can't they by gnu-generation-one · 2004-04-26 23:37 · Score: 2, Funny

"I tend to think of the "standard" location as being where I can find a file on better than 75% of the systems I've used"

#!c:\perl\bin\perl
Re:Why can't they by vk2 · 2004-04-26 23:58 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

No wonder my server ( without dev tools offcourse ) never slows down :-)

--
No Sig for you.!
Re:Why can't they by spotteddog · 2004-04-27 01:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.....
Re:Why can't they by BillKaos · 2004-04-27 01:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Files created by a "make install" usually don't have any way to cleanly remove or upgrade them

You can use GNU Stow
Re:Why can't they by beeblebrox87 · 2004-04-27 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Why can't they by dondelelcaro · 2004-04-27 05:55 · Score: 4, Informative

For a linux distro, I'd say the standard location should be where the LSB says it is, which from what I've seen Slackware tends to follow a lot closer than Debian.
By default, Debian Policy stays in sync with the LSB. However, there are a few places where the LSB is suboptimal, so Debian documents the differences in policy, and does the right thing. Is there a particular set of files that you're talking about that you feel is in the wrong place?

Actually, I typically install things via "installpkg ---.tgz" and upgrading things via "upgradepkg ---.tgz". When I install from source, I use "configure; make; checkinstall 'make install'". This makes a package out of it that I can easily install, remove, upgrade, whatever I want.
And here, I do the following to upgrade or install a package:
dpkg -i foo.deb;
Or:
aptitude update && aptitude upgrade;
Finally, if I need to build and something from source, it's as simple as:

apt-get source foo; apt-get install build-essential fakeroot; apt-get builddep foo; cd foo-*; # Change how ./configure or make or R CMD is called $EDITOR debian/rules; # Build the .deb fakeroot debian/rules binary; # install the .deb dpkg -i ../foo_*.deb
There's nothing magical there at all. The rules file calls make in the build target, and everything else happens automatically. [Now, if you don't know how to modify a make file, perhaps you shouldn't be building stuff from source?]

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re:Why can't they by Wyzard · 2004-04-27 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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. :-)

As far as philosophy goes, well, I think you're well on your way to proving my point with your small dissertation on democracy and voting.

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.
Re:Why can't they by Openstandards.net · 2004-04-27 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

>It hurts no one in that group if people stop downloading Debian.
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

Debian standards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-26 16:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

All I have to say is, good for them for sticking to their standards.

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by Rura+Penthe · 2004-04-26 16:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by dilvie · 2004-04-26 16:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by mastergoon · 2004-04-26 16:41 · Score: 2, Informative

My company has been using 2.6.x on production servers since January, and there hasnt been a single problem. We have 24 servers running it.

2.6 is marked stable, because its stable.

up to date? by linuxbert · 2004-04-26 16:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:up to date? by filledwithloathing · 2004-04-26 18:10 · Score: 2, Informative

RMS was recommending GNU/LinEx as the only totally free distro.
RMS: When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations. Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, (Update from RMS: GNU/LinEx is non-free), the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software.
Article But then he found out it wansn't:
1 RMS provided us with this update on GNU/LinEx: The developers told me that GNU/LinEx included only free software, but after this interview was published, people from GNU Spain and others have checked it and found non-free programs in it. I therefore cannot recommend GNU/LinEx at present. I hope that this problem will be corrected. Meanwhile, once again there is no installable GNU/Linux distribution that we can endorse; all of them include or recommend non-free software.
Footnotes

--
Are you a VF grad? Check out the VFMA Alumni Forums VFMA Alumni Forum

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by ObviousGuy · 2004-04-26 16:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 /. password was too easy to guess.

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by AstrumPreliator · 2004-04-26 16:45 · Score: 3, Informative

I think there's a point you missed though. Even though Debian is well supported and is infact a good linux distro, it's still aged. There is a definite trend towards open source operating systems right now and I think Debian is going to miss out on this to sa large extent. People (and by people I don't mean individual computer enthusiasts) are going for the more main stream and updated distros such as Fedora. Once you install a distro on a box you tend not to just replace it with a different distro on a whim. I know people who use Red Hat 7.3 for servers still and as long as the hard drive is alive and assuming they don't kill the OS, it will be running for a long time to come.

In that respect I do think distros such as Debian and Gentoo will fade away to a large extent. They will always be around, but not widely used.

Of course thats just my opinion.

Rock solid stability by rufey · 2004-04-26 16:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Although I am disappointed that Sarge will take a bit longer, for my two servers at home, Woody has been rock solid. Sure I grabbed, compiled, configured, and am running 2.6.4 on one of them, but its still Woody under the hood. If I need something newer than what Woody has, I grab the source and build it myself (OSS is great because of this). I like machines that just run and don't need to be upgraded every other month. The bleeding edge releases of other vendors simply doesn't offer anything I need for a web, mySql, Sendmail/Postfix , and DNS server.

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.

Re:Rock solid stability by matlhDam · 2004-04-26 17:24 · Score: 3, Informative

The good people at Fedora Legacy are providing updated RPMs for RH 7.2, 7.3, and 8.0, and will be providing support for 9.0 when it's EOLed in a few days. They've been a bit sluggish getting update RPMs out recently due to download server problems, but the support's still there.
Re:Rock solid stability by rufey · 2004-04-26 17:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

While I agree that having older operating systems can pose a security risk, with proper administration, you can reduce that greatly.
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.

Re:"Grand Resolution" ? by The+Musician · 2004-04-26 16:49 · Score: 5, Informative

The slashdot summary that says "Grand Resolution" in wrong. The proper expansion of GR is "General Resolution".

See http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, in particular sections #4 and A.

Great. Just great. by JessLeah · 2004-04-26 16:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

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 .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?

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 ... well, and Windows itself. Way to go, guys.

--
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin

Re:Great. Just great. by Phleg · 2004-04-26 17:02 · Score: 4, Informative

This is what contrib and non-free are for. Debian's new social contract simply says that it will not depend upon non-free goods of any sort--not that it won't be provided.

--
No comment.
Re:Great. Just great. by Wyzard · 2004-04-26 17:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Most likely, the non-free stuff will not be completely removed, but rather, moved to the non-free section of the distribution. (Strictly speaking, non-free isn't part of the distribution, so things moved there have been removed from Debian, but the packages are available from the same servers, and interoperate with the free stuff.)

The NVidia drivers, for example, work just fine in Debian. Not only is the nvidia-kernel-source package available via apt-get, but it works with Debian's kernel-package build system to produce .deb packages of the built modules. The fact that the drivers are non-free don't affect me in the least; I use them the same way I use any other third-party module package.

I'm not particularly bothered by this change. I'm slightly bothered by the delay of the Sarge release, but since I run Sid on my desktop, and my servers do fine with Woody plus an occasional backport, it's not that big a deal. And it does pretty much answer the question of whether GNOME 2.6 will make it into Sarge. :-)
Re:Great. Just great. by dondelelcaro · 2004-04-26 18:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Debian's new social contract simply says that it will not depend upon non-free goods of any sort--not that it won't be provided.

Debian's Social Contract has always said that it won't depend upon non-free software. Unless you're one of the people who think that software != data, nothing has really changed at all.

In fact, the only possible new class of works that this covers is documentation and things like images, not firmware or anything else. Those have always been (rather non-controversially) covered by the Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines.

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re:Great. Just great. by njdj · 2004-04-26 21:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Linux's future is one of proprietary drivers and payware wrappers around proprietary Windows drivers.

And the Debian people are rejecting this sort of thing because of their morals. That's ... a wonderful way to ensure that Debian only has primitive, reverse-engineered, DMCA-illegal, flaky support for newer hardware.

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.

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by nuclear305 · 2004-04-26 16:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Oh yea?

Sometimes I wonder if all the distro zealots have stopped to realize this one simple fact:

Every distro is using OSS. Yes, it may be tweaked and patched here and there..but beneath all the branding and logos...it's STILL the same software.

[Of course, I'll throw in my 2 cents as well. I've used both Debian and Gentoo. Honestly, Gentoo is my path to take...I now run it on 3 servers [1 is production] and a firewall and once they're set up..they just run. Not to mention extremely easy to update. ]

Rather than whine, help by Morganth · 2004-04-26 16:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

It's a shame by stootles · 2004-04-26 16:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:It's a shame by stootles · 2004-04-26 17:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

We have quite an extensive agreement with Novell (not something I use myself, but it is used here) and part of that agreement was amended to include Suse licenses for servers (not desktop), so for a $0 we can use Suse, while we will look at it first if it does not meet our expectations, we will look at RedHat next I guess.

Thats servers sort of covered - gotta fugure out what to do with my desktop now....maybe a boiled carrot and some post it notes ;)

This just in... by Enucite · 2004-04-26 16:57 · Score: 2, Informative

News Flash: Debian isn't in it for the money! 8-o
That means they could care less about market-share.

It also means doing whatever it takes to produce a damn fine distro.
There is a reason so many distros are based on Debian.

Interesting by aws4y · 2004-04-26 17:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Interesting by mbanck · 2004-04-26 22:13 · Score: 2, Informative

GNU won't endorse Debian if the installer mentions the existence of non-free. Therefore, removing it was important for sarge.
GNU won't endore Debian anyway, as long as non-free is distributed via ftp.debian.org. Removing the question whether the non-free component of the archive should be added to the list of APT sources has been removed because the Debian Project Leader asked the base-config maintainer to do so. It has nothing to do with the relation between the Debian and the GNU project.
Michael
Re:Interesting by pla · 2004-04-27 04:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

A good push-back by Animats · 2004-04-26 17:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is a good thing. Debian is pushing back against increasingly proprietary hardware.

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.

Re:A good push-back by TWX · 2004-04-26 17:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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.
Re:A good push-back by elhedran · 2004-04-26 18:33 · Score: 2, Informative

I just want to say this is a good idea. Hardware makers seem to like to put 100's of icons on their packaging. This will to a lot to make people aware of what OS means (not just us, other people who buy hardware) and certainly will make it much easier to vote with our money. If the icon was backed up by the FSF or some other suitable organisation then I know I will be using it as a decision factor when buying hardware.

Re:This will help? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-26 17:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

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?

Perspective by The+Musician · 2004-04-26 17:04 · Score: 5, Informative

A few disclaimers, from someone who reads debian-* lists regularly, but isn't part of the project...

(1) Much of what is proposed is about moving pieces of the OS from the "main" archive to the "non-free" archive; "main" is what you get on the Debian CDs, "non-free" is available via ftp. So it is probably less convenient to obtain, but not totally expunged from debian.

Of course, components that affect your initial installation are more sensitive to the method of distribution, but other projects are welcome to build mixed installer tools that combine the default debian installer with the non-free firmware.

(2) This was only announced about 24 hours ago. Things are still in a state of flux, so don't take the "all this is happening and sarge is now year(s) away" too literally.

(3) Don't read into the summary that this solely a personal decision by Anthony Towns, or that he is necessarily in favor of the proposed changes.

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by dilvie · 2004-04-26 17:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by Grail · 2004-04-26 17:09 · Score: 5, Informative

You mistake the Debian maintainers' pragmatic licencing approach for religious zealotry.

They are approaching the Debian GNU/Linux as a Free Software project, not a feature rich distribution project. Once you yourself can understand what the philosophy of the Debian project, you might understand that they are being incredibly pragmatic.

Regardless of how long Copyright is extended for (eg: Disney's current goal of forever - 1 day), no matter how tight the DMCA becomes, you will always be allowed to run the complete Debian GNU/Linux operating system.

Licencing and legal restrictions on your hardware may prevent you running Debian on your specific hardware (thanks to "Trustworthy Computing" taking over from "binary only"), but there will be no licence or legal restrictions to your using Debian on any hardware that it does work on.

You have to be a special type of person to be a Debian developer - these are people who want to dedicate their time to having an operating system they can safely give to their friends and family without risking a gaol term. People who aren't Debian developers (or fanatical users) are the ones who'd hand over their soul for the next cool gimmick ("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!").

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by ian+mills · 2004-04-26 17:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do people continually compare Debian Stable to bleeding edge Linux distros? If you want bleeding edge use Debian Unstable, that's what it's there for. In anycase 2.4 is not "years behind." There is nothing stopping you from using bleeding edge software and proprietary software with Debian, I do it all the time, they just seperate out the nonfree stuff for the people who care about that. It really is a "feature" not a "bug."

Businesses use Redhat because they offer commerical support, something I don't believe Debian offers, as Debian is not a commercial enterprise.

If you can do better... by ron_ivi · 2004-04-26 17:19 · Score: 2, Informative

... why don't you fork it and make your own successful distro. (serious advice - the knoppix guy did just this - and included components not found in standard Debian distros)

Personally, I very much approve of the stability of Debian Stable for environments where I get up-to-date security patches, but no frivolous cutsie upgrades that break stuff. I don't believe there's a more stable Linux distro out there.

(do doubt everyone else'll point out you can use Testing or Unstable if you enjoy that kind of stuff, so I won't repeat that part)

This is actually an advantage. by rice_burners_suck · 2004-04-26 17:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think my first reaction at reading this announcement was one of disappointment. This seems a lot like a step backwards, especially when many important components are affected. However, after a bit of thought on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that this is a good idea anyway.

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.

Just great? Could be awesome. by green_crocadilian · 2004-04-26 17:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

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 /etc, /dev, and /proc are set up just right.

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.

Re:Debian has shot itself in the foot by The+Musician · 2004-04-26 17:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is true that the "apt" part of debian -- a modular packaging system with dependencies that are carefully expressed and automatically installed -- is a beautiful thing, and that other distros have similar tools.

However, even just looking at the practical (rather that philosophical) side, apt is not the best part of Debian.

The best part of Debian is a set of packaging conventions (the Debian Policy Manual), and a set of tools and a QA system to support that system, with the result that the software you use from Debian is consistently well-integrated, even though it is crafted by a distributed group of volunteers.

The social norms and continual build-up and exposition of best practices, expressed in part by the Debian Policy Manual, is really the best practical characteristic of Debian.

The freedom thing (and corresponding attention to software licensing) is nice, too.

Re:want sarge now? by nkuttler · 2004-04-26 17:27 · Score: 2, Informative

oh come on, please RTFM and don't give bad advice. That will completely break your system. do apt-get -u dist-upgrade instead.

upgrade: "upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently installed"

dist-upgrade: "dist-upgrade in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages;" -> resolves all dependencies.

Of course in the past, dselect has been the official choice to upgrade to testing. And don't even thin about putting testing on a server

You know what this means. by Visceral+Monkey · 2004-04-26 17:27 · Score: 4, Funny

It's obviously the result of a grand conspiracy involving the masons, jews and gentoo users. Those dirty, dirty Gentoo users..

--
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*

Re:You know what this means. by Nasarius · 2004-04-26 18:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Those dirty, dirty Gentoo users..
And we would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1

Re:Debian has shot itself in the foot by Phleg · 2004-04-26 17:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

My company could never have put up with such a slow and unreliable release schedule.

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.

Re:Debian has shot itself in the foot by pnot · 2004-04-26 17:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

From the Debian website:

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system.

It's a question of defining your goals. You're criticising Debian because their project isn't achieving what *you* see as the ideal goal of a Linux distro.

Debian is not accountable to you. Debian is accountable to its developers -- and as the vote shows, they overwhelmingly support freedom over world domination.

As you point out, there are other distributions which settle on a different compromise between freedom and ease of use. You are, of course, welcome to use these. But frankly I think it's a little cheeky to lambast Debian for not conforming to YOUR idea of what THEIR goals should be. Why do you unleash such bitterness against something you profess not to care about? If you're right, Debian will die quietly and it won't make any difference to you.

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.

Oddly enough, eweek doesn't agree:

According to a Netcraft Ltd. report covering July 2003 to January 2004, Debian was the fastest-growing distribution among Linux Web servers, and Debian trailed only Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux in the number of Web sites it serves.

But hey, I'm happy with Debian, you're happy with Fedora. No need to make a flamefest of it.

Will RMS finally recommend Debian? by steveha · 2004-04-26 17:39 · Score: 5, Informative

One of the cool things about Debian is they way they relentlessly review things to make sure they are free. The Debian Free Software Guidlines (DFSG) are rigorously applied, and anything that doesn't meet DFSG is not allowed in Debian's "main" area.

(I tell people "Debian is fanatic about this stuff so we don't have to be." If you just use Debian main, you are using nothing but free software. Easy!)

Debian has two areas for software that doesn't meet the DFSG: "contrib" and "non-free". Now that this proposal has passed, not only software but documentation and firmware will be migrated out of main and into contrib or non-free.

The first thing I thought when I read this was: I wonder if Richard Stallman will finally be satisfied?

Last August, RMS was asked in an interview, which distribution of GNU/Linux he would recommend. He said he would recommend GNU/LinEx, because it contains no non-free software. As it turns out, he was mistaken about that; GNU/LinEx still has traces of non-free software in it, just as Debian has. He withdrew the recommendation of GNU/LinEx (without, to my knowledge, offering any recommendation to replace it).

RMS has said that he cannot recommend any distro that offers up free and non-free software from the same servers, or contains references to any servers that offer non-free software. (Keep in mind that his definition of non-free is not identical to the "non-free" of the Debian project.) So Debian, the most free distro I know, is still not recommended by RMS.

You can read a somewhat acrimonious discussion thread about this here if you like:

linux.debian.legal discussion archived by groups.google.com

Note that Debian is so committed to free software that they are booting FSF documentation from main, because of the newest version of the "Free Documentation License" that allows invariant sections. Invariant sections are clearly free according to the FSF, but they are not in compliance with the DFSG, and thus do not go in main anymore. Discussion here:

another linux.debian.legal discussion archived by groups.google.com

I will close with a final quote from RMS, on the possibility that Debian might one day strip out the non-free software to his satisfaction:

The change that I asked Debian developers to make, some years ago, was to separate the two, such that we could refer people to Debian GNU/Linux without in the same act referring them also to the non-free software. This would make it possible for us to refer the public to Debian GNU/Linux. If in the future Debian GNU/Linux does not include the GNU manuals, this reference could not be wholeheartedly positive, but we could still make the reference.

P.S. If you asked me for a recommendation for a truly free distro, I'd suggest Debian main. If you don't put contrib and non-free in your sources.list file, you will never get any contrib or non-free software and yours system will be fully free software. That's good enough for me, even though it's not good enough for RMS.

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely

Re:Will RMS finally recommend Debian? by black+mariah · 2004-04-26 18:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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'.

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-26 17:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

I use Debian and I use:

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 /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.

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.

Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG by bomb_number_20 · 2004-04-26 17:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

not to nitpick, but if you boot from disk 5 of the woody cd set there is a nice 2.4 kernel waiting for you.

switching to gcc 3 is also just an apt-get and a soft link switch away.

--
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.

Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG by Chandon+Seldon · 2004-04-26 17:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Debian unstable is relitively cutting edge, and is about as stable as a "stable" gentoo system in my experiance. If it's a desktop system, it's definately time to upgrade.

--
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.

Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG by Soko · 2004-04-26 17:51 · Score: 2, Informative

I think of Debian Stable as a server only distro - rocksolid, never varies, tested in the bowels of hell itself on 11 different architectures. Is it old and crufty? Yup, but some people like it that way - it's a known quanity.

If you want a desktop distro, get the current Sarge installer and go to town - you can even go to Sid with good results. To me, the Debian development model was heavily borrowed by the Fedora project, and it shows. Fedora seems to be closing in on Debians package count and ease of use, and AFAICT is nothing but Free Software to boot. If this is indeed the case, it would seem that Debian is "the one true distro" (how's that for flamebait), a point of reference for all the others. Just as there are the -mm, -ac and -ck kernel trees beside the Linus tree, we have Fedora/RedHat, SUSE, Mandrake and others who are judged against the Debian distro.

I'm glad Debian is around and sticking to the intent of thier social contract - it keeps the other distro makers honest, since Debian matches or surpasses thier functionalty and will always be Free as in speech, and likely Free as in beer too. I don't normally use Debian, but I support them fully in this.

Soko

--
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous

And there's more! by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-04-26 17:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:And there's more! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-26 18:07 · Score: 3, Informative

You appear to have confused "testing" and "unstable."
Re:And there's more! by spotteddog · 2004-04-27 01:43 · Score: 2, Informative

I will take this opportunity to bash you with a clue bat. Unstable is unstable because it changes and may be broken. Testing is slightly less volatile than unstable but still changes at a rapid pace for packages that have active upstream development and/or bugs. Stable is just that - stable. Stable only changes for security related issues.

Saying your problem with testing and unstable is the constant updates to them is like saying the problem with your car is that it moves.

Personally I've had it with all the users complaining stable is not bleeding edge and testing or unstable changes too often. You can't have it both ways. Pick one and deal with your choice. Nobody is forcing you to use Debian.

--
. there used to be a sig here.....
Re:And there's more! by pohl · 2004-04-27 01:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm clear on the intended semantics of "stable", "testing", and "unstable", but my experience is exactly the same as the grandparent post. There may be an occasional burp in the updates, but they go away fairly quickly. In contrast it seems like it takes forever for fixes to get promoted to testing. I've been a debian unstable user for years, and feel like it's the sweet spot to be at for the best balance of recent software and ease of maintenance. Face it, the debian development process is so freaking conservative that even their unstable branch is more stable than other distributions.
This is for my workstation, of course...I wouldn't maintain a server that way.

--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

Slow release cycle? It is not that slow by gnuman99 · 2004-04-26 18:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

For people that don't know, Debian has 3 distributions: unstable (Sid), testing (Sarge) and stable (Woody). This means that if you want most up-to-date software, you run Sid and cope with some possible breakage (I didn't have anything broken badly over the last few years).

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.

Re:Slow release cycle? It is not that slow by mst76 · 2004-04-26 21:27 · Score: 2, Informative

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).
This is wrong, see the discussions on Debianplanet (post by Chris Metzer) and the mailing list. To summarize: Testing exists for the development of the next Stable release. It is not intended to provide people with a more recent Stable. Debian does have a problem getting timely Stable releases, but the solution is not to point end-users to Testing.
Re:Slow release cycle? It is not that slow by Phleg · 2004-04-27 00:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Slow release cycle? It is not that slow by mst76 · 2004-04-27 01:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Did you even read the link? Testing does not get timely security updates. Gnome and KDE were broken for months in Testing in the past year. This may happen in other development trees like Redhat-Rawhide and Mandrake-Cooker, but not in the release versions. Testing may (or may not) be less broken than the development trees, it is not comparable to the release versions of other distros. Close to release it's of course pretty stable. But at the start and in the middle of the cycle, things may be a lot worse. Which is of course the reason that it is called Testing and not Stable.

Re:want sarge now? by LousyPhreak · 2004-04-26 18:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually stable means 'version stable' (afaik)

so once you install woody you'll know that i.e php will stay the same version as long as you use woody (and dont use packports or other sources), even if you installed a million security upgrades. so a serveradmin knows when he installs woody what versions of each software he has available.

the added benefit is that by using the same versions for longer time than others you learn about almost all security leaks so you can fix them over time.

but one big downfall is that the packages are severely outdated and (because of the version-stability) no new software gets added/updated so you are practically stuck to what you got (unless you use backports and the like which infact defeats the 'stable' principe).

if the packages were not that outdated i could imagine that software vendors would start to add debian to their list of supported distros.

so i stick t sid (server and workstation) and never had problems so far (except maybe the issue that my amule got updated and the new version is REALLY unstable (crashes at least every hour on me)) so i had to reinstall the old one, but thats one of the resons i like linux so much: CHOICE!)

(hell, i really should stop writing that large rants ;) )

--
-- Karma: beyond good and evil - mostly affected by posting political

Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG by Wyzard · 2004-04-26 18:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Is this second box of yours a server which needs stability above all else? Or is it, as I suspect, a desktop system?

If it's a desktop system, just run Sid. Despite the "unstable" label, it's quite usable -- I've been running it on my desktop for 3.5 years and it's still running smoothly; I've never needed to reinstall, or do major recovery of any sort (aside from some filesystem corruption at one point, but that was my own fault and not Debian's). Packages break on infrequent occasions, but rarely severely, and with some common sense you can work around the problems. "unstable" doesn't mean "will crash on you"; it means "hasn't been tested enough yet to be considered stable".

I'm running kernel 2.6.5, using LVM2 on some of my disks and XFS on all my filesystems. My desktop is GNOME 2.4 on XFree86 4.3 using the 5336 release of NVidia's driver; I may install the "experimental" packages of GNOME 2.6, but I'll probably just wait a little while until they're moved into unstable. My system is up-to-date and I'm quite happy with it.

If you want to use the new installer, go download it -- it's quite usable already. If you're comfortable using your existing testing system (installing and upgrading packages, configuring things, etc.) then you'll find that Sid isn't much different. You'll run into snags on occasion, but they're minor, and you'll learn from them and be that much more knowledgeable in the future.

Debians own social standards??? by quinkin · 2004-04-26 18:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Hrm... Having read the majority of the newsgroup postings on the topic I think I can say with some certainty that the Debianites really need to work on their own social standards.

They are astonishingly rude and confrontational in an entirely unproductive way. Sure it's probably unfair to point the finger at Debian alone (especially on /. - oh the irony) but I can say with some certainty that nothing positive will come from that thread. Conflict resolution amongst egotistical (come on , we can admit it) geeks is damn difficult - especially when programmer opinions take on the form of religious zealotry (free vs. libre).

These are big changes, and many people are expressing that they felt misled with the "editorial changes" description of the vote in question. I am not going to get involved in an internal dispute, except to say that it is in the best interests of the project for the majority not to feel manipulated and/or deceived. Again, I'm not saying they have been, I am saying that is what some are expressing.

Q.

--
Insert Signature Here

Re:Debians own social standards??? by Karora · 2004-04-26 18:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

...heellpppp! I've been captured by little green penguins!
Re:Debians own social standards??? by DAldredge · 2004-04-26 19:18 · Score: 3, Funny

You imply he is wrong in the first half of your sentence, then in the second have say he was right.

Every thought of running a presidental campaign?
Re:Debians own social standards??? by Karora · 2004-04-26 21:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Hardly - I said he's over-generalising, but within any sufficiently large group of individuals there will always be annoying little pricks.
I don't even agree that Debian has more than it's fair share, just that the nature of the beast is that the organisation is comprised of people who actually care. Passionately.
:-)

--

...heellpppp! I've been captured by little green penguins!

Re:Woody's Age by Wyzard · 2004-04-26 18:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Then again, it begs the question, is Debian really a desktop OS? Debian developers seem to argue that one a lot.

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.

Guys, remember what Debian is about by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-26 18:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Ah jeez... by ecloud · 2004-04-26 18:52 · Score: 2, Funny

another excuse to be even later than ever.

I wish I had known to go vote on that one. I've been a bit of a Debian snob ever since I switched from Slackware but they seem to get further behind all the time. Am trying Gentoo on one box now, and it's much better about that. Nowadays it's better for bragging about too... don't need no steenkin' unoptimized binaries, and all that jazz.

Yeah I like the stability, and I like that it's 100% free software but this is ridiculous. Maybe do it in the next version? Plan ahead a little, rather than stop the whole train?

Eric Raymond a few years ago was preaching that while Open Source software doesn't permit you to make money by selling software, at least you can sell documentation, and consulting services, and t-shirts, and still put the beans on the table. Well I guess they don't even believe in non-free documentation. Next they'll be insisting that all Debian t-shirts be made only from wild open-range hemp, harvested and woven by young virgin volunteers, stone-washed in the Rocky Mountain heights, and given away freely to anyone who knows how to sing the Free Software Song properly.

I don't know the history of the libc documentation but I don't think anybody was suing them for compensation, were they? If not, maybe it's free enough, regardless of some poorly chosen words in a preamble somewhere?

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by B2382F29 · 2004-04-26 19:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Debian's Identity Crisis by Elf-friend · 2004-04-26 19:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

It seems to me that Debian can't decide what it is these days. Half the time, the just want to be the most secure and stable Linux distro out there. The other half of the time, all that matters is the licensing aspect.

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.

Re:Debian's Identity Crisis by twilight30 · 2004-04-26 22:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

That is just dumb by DAldredge · 2004-04-26 19:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

For fuck's sake... by theantix · 2004-04-26 19:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

In other news... by luna1ix · 2004-04-26 19:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Debian has decided to change the codename of the next release to GNU/Longhorn.

--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. -- Linus Torvalds

MOD PARENT UP! by gunpowder · 2004-04-26 19:38 · Score: 2, Informative

and perhaps grandparent down a bit.

Grandparent post makes much more sense if you replace "unstable" with "testing" (and vice versa).

Unstable is unstable, because it is
- packages are not guaranteed to *work* on all platforms
- using unstable might have broken dependencies, ie. apt-get is not guaranteed to work properly
- the pool is quite 'unstable', ie. you'll get alot of updates every day

Having said that, 'unstable' is indeed rather stable most of the time (at least on ix86), at least comparable to what RedHat or SuSE call a 'new release'.

Testing however contains only packages from unstable that didn't have any bug reports for the last 10 days (IIRC, and meet dependency requirements, and more).

So 'unstable' is if you really want to use the absolutely latest software (just a few days old), and testing if you want very recent software, but at least with no (big, bad) surprises.

Planet Debian by alex_tibbles · 2004-04-26 20:32 · Score: 2, Informative

To see the blogs of those involved and commenting, go here.
See Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho and Joey Hess in particular. Anthony Towns (the Release Manager in question) has also blogged on the issue.

--
Posters recognized by their sig,

Does that mean the installer will still suck? by Trepidity · 2004-04-26 21:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Does that mean the installer will still suck? by Mr.Ned · 2004-04-26 22:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Knoppix is not Free Software because of the kernel binary firmware. That's the problem with which Debian is grappling.

No. by eddy · 2004-04-26 22:52 · Score: 2, Informative

>Why doesn't Debian just borrow their installer or something?

Historically the problem has been that these "smooth installers" are i386-only. Debian supports many different architectures, and they're not about to make i386 a "special case".

Hope this answers your question.

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

too far by tacocat · 2004-04-26 23:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

I was reading on this email post and it's really discouraging.

many pieces of hardware will not be supported by the Debian system itself

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.

Re:too far by Phleg · 2004-04-27 00:43 · Score: 2, Informative

"the Debian system itself" is the key phrase, here.

When Debian refers to its own release, it does not refer to packages in contrib and non-free. They're there, they're updated, they're maintained by Debian Developers, they've got mailing lists, they've got bug reporting pages, and they're available through apt. However, they're not an official part of the Debian distribution.

Support for this hardware will still be there--you'll just need to add a single word to your apt configuration: "non-free".

--
No comment.

Seems like splitting hairs to me by Trepidity · 2004-04-27 00:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Debian can't just "push" Sarge out by Phleg · 2004-04-27 00:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I see a lot of people are asking Debian to just throw Sarge out the door, and then worry about complying with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Social Contract.

This is not possible. What was recently voted on is a new social contract which forbids releasing any software, documentation or other product that isn't free. It's not just a decision that was made, or simply that a large number of people wanted it so that it's done. It's an actual contract upheld to its users by the entire Debian team. Doing a quick release of Sarge would not only be a violation of that contract, but it would be a violation of the entire spirit of Debian.

--
No comment.

Re:Debian can't just "push" Sarge out by TiggsPanther · 2004-04-27 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is not possible. What was recently voted on is a new social contract which forbids releasing any software, documentation or other product that isn't free. It's not just a decision that was made, or simply that a large number of people wanted it so that it's done. It's an actual contract upheld to its users by the entire Debian team. Doing a quick release of Sarge would not only be a violation of that contract, but it would be a violation of the entire spirit of Debian.

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.
That ain't gonna happen any time soon, but it's a real shame.
Tiggs

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."

Re:Debian is wrong about documentation by boots@work · 2004-04-27 01:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Kicking out even FSF's documentation, on the grounds that is doesn't meet Debian's criterion of freeness, was a really stupid thing to do.

OK, with you so far...

Writing software is its own reward for a lot of people. 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". Now it may well be that there is not enough good open documentation on some particular topics at the moment, but that is no reason to assume that it is not worth trying to get free documentation.

The FSF docs are free enough for all practical purposes.

They are free enough for many purposes, but the licence is buggy and needs to be fixed. Some projects such as Arch have gone back to the GPL for documentation, which is the sensible choice at the moment. Both FSF and Debian need to stop fucking around.

Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? by Oestergaard · 2004-04-27 01:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

More Free than GNU? by Nutcase · 2004-04-27 01:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

stable=woody, sarge=testing, sid=unstable by kungfujew · 2004-04-27 02:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Just thought I'd clear the confusion here... I saw some of you guys refer to sarge as "unstable" and sid as "testing".....this is not the case. the correct names are: stable=woody- for production servers (current stable release) sarge=testing - this you run on your home machine sid=unstable -you dont want to run this because it breaks almost every day trust me, backing out of a dist upgrade to unstable is a painfull and involved process.

Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot by Ctrl-Z · 2004-04-27 02:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Article on Debian Planet.

--
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.

A brief review of history. by Daniel · 2004-04-27 02:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's some context for people who don't follow Debian matters habitually.

Debian has a document called the DFSG, or Debian Free Software Guidelines. These guidelines are used to determine whether software included in Debian is free: they require that the software be freely distributable, freely modifiable, etc. Stuff that doesn't meet these guidelines doesn't go on the CD images and is segregated into the "non-free" section of the archive; this policy is enshrined in Debian's Social Contract. More contextual information on the DFSG and its application is available here.

Now, historically, these guidelines have been applied to everything distributed by Debian. For instance, the Doom shareware .WAD went into non-free because its license forbade modification. However, some controversy has arisen in the last few years due to two developments: first, the FSF started using a new license (the "GNU Free Documentation License") for its documentation; more recently, there has been a trend for hardware manufacturers to require drivers to upload binary firmware code upon initialization.

Despite its name, the "GNU Free Documentation License" turned out not to meet the DFSG (you can read some unofficial explanations [URL redacted because I believe the author wishes to keep it private for the time being; I will post it later if he tells me it's ok; I'll badly summarize it by saying that Invariant Sections are the major issue but not the only problem]). Because this license was applied to documentation of large packages, such as libc and Emacs, because it claimed to be "Free", and because it was published by the FSF, some people felt that Debian should find a way to distribute software under this license in "main" even though it was clearly non-free according to the DFSG. The typical argument advanced to support this position was that "documentation is not software, so it doesn't need to meet the DFSG". This argument relied on an ambiguity in the meaning of the word "software": it can mean either "anything that's not hardware", or "sequences of instructions to be executed on the host microprocessor".

The firmware issue is somewhat different; there were some recent arguments on the debian-devel mailing list over whether binary firmware that is uploaded by an otherwise free driver should be moved to non-free. I haven't followed this as closely, and it only came up in the last month or two. (well, it has been discussed in the past, but the first serious discussion I'm aware of is in the last month or two)

The amendment that was recently passed changes the text of the Social Contract to make it clear that everything in the Debian archives (not just executable programs) should meet the DFSG. This was intended to settle the GFDL question once and for all.

The message referenced by this /. article is a post from the Release Manager indicating that he is changing his policy as a result of the GR. Until now, certain things that were unambiguously non-free, but where it was felt that the non-freeness was either not a regression (ie, they were non-free before and we didn't realize it and distributed them anyway), or where it would cause significant disruption to force the non-free item out of main (for instance, binary firmware), were being allowed to remain in Debian main until the release of sarge. Assuming that this message was sent in good faith, Anthony is indicating that he honestly believes that this was not previously a pragmatic exception to the Social Contract, and that no such pragmatic exception is possible now. Thus, he is now holding up the release until all this non-free stuff gets removed from main.

Discussion is ongoing on several Debian lists, and I don't think it's appropriate to make assumptions about the final outcome until things have settled down again.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!

Re:A brief review of history. by Daniel · 2004-04-27 03:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Just a note: a reference on the GFDL that has been publically posted is available here.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!

Re:Debian is wrong about documentation by KevinDumpsCore · 2004-04-27 03:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

> > 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.

Slashdot Mirror

Social Contract Amendment May Bump Sarge To 2005

107 of 525 comments (clear)