Slashdot Mirror
Social Contract Amendment May Bump Sarge To 2005
An anonymous reader submits "Debian's Release Manager Anthony Towns announced that after the Grand Resolution to amend the Social Contract has been successful (it does not only apply to software any more), vital parts to modern Linux systems, such as important documentation, firmware needed for proper hardware support will have to be removed from the distribution before the next release. Moreover, the upcoming installer will need to be changed. He goes on to say that he does not expect this to happen by the end of this year which means that Sarge will not be released in 2004."
Release one version with the new contract next year, and one without it sooner? Call it sarge- and sarge+.
Who the hell uses the 2.6 kernel in a production setting? I know I don't. In fact, I vastly prefer to admin servers on debian because finding updated packages is typically EASIER than on Redhat without a support contract. Some server admins prefer the slower moving target of debian releases and the ease of backports.org for packages they NEED upgraded.
Sarge does not need to be "released" to be relevant. The software still runs on the debian OS. You can still upgrade your kernel. IMO, the best thing about debian is that you can start with a very minimal linux install and add the packages you need as you need them a lot easier than is possible with many other distributions.
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
i use and like debian. but i want new packages to be released, and for it to generally appear to be supported.
if you dont want non-free stuff, fine, release sarge, its almost ready (and long delayed) and make removal of non free packages a goal of the next release.
We have machines at work that are currently running Redhat 7.2. A couple are RedHat 8, 9, and RHEL 2.1. Why are they not all running the latest and greatest RedHat? Because we either can't afford the downtime (not to mention configuration) to upgrade every time that RedHat comes out with its next release, or the bleeding edge releases break things. Unless a newer release provides some feature/function that we need in production and we can't get any other way, we don't upgrade each time a release comes out. We've even downgraded a couple of machines from RHEL 3.0 to 2.1 because getting some Oracle software installed was near imposible (even with Oracle consultants on-site!)
I'd much have a rock solid server that performs its job all the time than have a bleeding edge server that requires 2 or 3 upgrades a year just to stay bleeding edge.
See http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, in particular sections #4 and A.
As more and more pieces of hardware will be protected by the ever-intensifying "intellectual property" laws, Debian will get more and more worthless. It's quite simple: In the distant past, manufacturers made specs available to those who asked. Then they stopped doing it, but you could reverse-engineer them. Then a few of them succumbed to commercial pressure (and the desire to look like "nice guys" to geeks who might influence corporate purchasing decisions) and released binary-only, proprietary drivers for the most popular Linux distro(s) (read: Red Hat and, if you're lucky, Mandrake and/or SuSE). Now most companies don't even bother doing that, and there is a growing trend towards the use of wrappers and such around Windows (!!!) DLL-based drivers. Linux's future is one of proprietary drivers and payware wrappers around proprietary Windows drivers.
.DLLs. Mplayer (that favourite of rebellious geeks) uses Windows .DLLs. Am I forgetting any similar projects? And the kernel is full of various drivers (think sound drivers) which ask for proprietary pieces of firmware, right? I suppose the Debian folks are going to rip out support for all of these devices?
... well, and Windows itself. Way to go, guys.
And the Debian people are rejecting this sort of thing because of their morals. That's really great. It's also, unfortunately, a wonderful way to ensure that Debian only has primitive, reverse-engineered, DMCA-illegal, flaky support for newer hardware.
Let's see. nVidia and ATI both have proprietary binary-only drivers for Linux (which of course ONLY work on Linux/x86, not Linux/PPC or Linux/ARM or Linux/SPARC or whateverthehell), right? DriverLoader is required to use a bunch of WiFi chipsets under Linux, using Windows
I LIKE the Debian project's inherent sense of morality. I DON'T like their ridiculous lack of pragmatism. This sort of antic is only going to drive off more moderate users towards the likes of Fedora (bloatbloatbloat), Lindows^WLinspire (Windows wannabe, bloat), and
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I 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
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.
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.
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!").
Businesses use Redhat because they offer commerical support, something I don't believe Debian offers, as Debian is not a commercial enterprise.
I certainly see your point that for some popular devices (e.g. nVidia cards), the proprietary drivers are much better than the open ones. I also agree that going the moral road will turn away some users.
/etc, /dev, and /proc are set up just right.
However, Debian is imho big enough to pull this sort of thing. If some micro-league, half-assed distro went this route, it would die in obscurity, but a major product like Debian will survive. Furthermore, by rejecting proprietary firmware and documentation, Debian is raising awareness of some important issues (like Fedora not including mp3 support raises awareness of patent encumbered technologies).
Say you get a shiny new pci card with a little tux on the box, and a proprietary driver on the CD. Cool, huh? No. Not cool. The driver will work with your Linux system provided:
-you use kernel 2.4 or maybe 2.6
-you compiled said kernel with gcc 3.2 or 3.3
-you use glibc 2.somethingorother
-your
Years pass. Linux gains 20% desktop market share. Duke Nukem Forever is released for Mac and Lintel. You fish out an old computer from your closet; you want to install a Linux (kernel 3.0; compiled with gcc 3.5; with glibc 2.somethingelse; and a GNU/Darwin directory layout) to turn into a streaming virtual reality server for your apartment. Guess what's the probability of your closed-source driver still working?
Open source drivers might be a hassle to use in the short term, but C source is still the most portable way to distribute software.
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.
It's obviously the result of a grand conspiracy involving the masons, jews and gentoo users. Those dirty, dirty Gentoo users..
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
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.
(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:
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
Adding to your post, I would like to make the case for Debian unstable.
Unstable in no way means it's really unstable. What it means is that while packages have had some basic testing, the distribution as a whole hasn't been religiously tested, and, consequently, isn't years behind the curve as stable is.
Packages in unstable often provide improvements and bugfixes that the versions in stable didn't yet have.* This means that, while stable is guaranteed to be stable, many people will find unstable more usable (especially people using Gaim, as the IM networks change protocols once in a while, breaking older versions).
The message is, if you want guaranteed stability, use Debian stable. If you want to stay current, but still want to have the benefits of Debian (easy software installation, automatic dependency resolution), use Debian unstable. Don't use testing, unless you really intend to test it - it's almost guaranteed to be broken.
* Note that security fixes are backported to stable. This means that you can keep using the version of the package you have always used, and be sure your configuration keeps working, while still getting security updates that are only available through upgrading for other distros.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If you want stuff up to date, but want to have something that would be considered "stable" by other distros, you run Sarge (or testing).
The Woody distribution is for cases when you want to run a bunch of applications predictably. This means that your production application will run the same on day one as it does on day 100. An update will not break your application. An update will not change the way the application works. That is the point of stable - stable operation for a long period of time.
And yes, you can install 2.4.26 in Woody (from kernel.org). Woody actually has 2.4.x kernels no matter what the trolls are talking about.
As with any group of over 1000 individuals, your statement is a vast generalisation.
How can you call us "rude and confrontational" when all you are basing that on are some mailing list posts, primarily in a mailing list which is renowned for that behaviour.
Personally, as a Debian Developer, I try to assist people and fix bugs in my packages, as my way of contributing back to a phenomenal set of software. Debian has over 5000 packages in the distribution, and while those are mostly not written by DDs, they are packaged, and made to play together nicely and install, upgrade and uninstall cleanly, and the whole damn thing just works.
Yes, of course Debian Developers are principled people who care passionately about things other than software, and if you stick a thousand of them in a mailing list together there is bound to be fire! And hell, some of us are geeks without social skill. Cry me a river.
I really wish they would make up their minds. Are they trying to provide the most stable distro out there, or are they trying to be an unofficial organ of the FSF? Both perhaps? If this last is the case, then they ought to have been more balanced about this decision. Why push back the release cycle by a whole year just to make the GNU zealots happy? Why not wait until the next release for these change and bring Sarge out on time? At least the message there would have been that "we agree with FSF/GNU ideals in principal, but we have other goals which are as important as far as this release goes."
Instead, the message they are sending is that "Debian is for GNU zealots only. We don't give a damn about anyone else. If you have a need for any closed-source program or proprietary hardware, you are evil." I am sick of this attitude, frankly.
Don't get me wrong, I respect what RMS and FSF/GNU have done for the cause of free/OSS software, but I simply can't agree with the notion that closed-source is evil. I prefer Linus' approach which is essentially to say that we think free/OSS is a better idea, but that authors have a right to go closed-source if they want. Personally, I tend to think that the BSD license is often, maybe even generally, superior to the GPL. I use Linux because it ofers more choices than BSD, not because I dislike BSD or its license. I had thought that Debian was distancing itself from GNU, but I guess they've done a 180.
I have used Debian for over three years, because I like the package system. I am not a GNU zealot. Over the last two years, I have become increasingly annoyed with holdups in the release cycle, but promises of a quick Sarge release went a long way to apease me. This is the last straw. There are other distros (Gentoo for one) with as good or better package/ports systems, and that at least pretend to care about real-world users. Goodbye Debian.
P.S. Before anyone flames me, keep in mind that in part I am blowing off steam out of utter frustration. If I spoke overly harshly, I apologize to anyone I offended.
That'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
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
Here's some context for people who don't follow Debian matters habitually.
.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.
/. 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.
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
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
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!