Slashdot Mirror
Debian Project Votes To Postpone Policy Changes
jonoxer writes "A little while ago members of the Debian project voted to make changes to the Social Contract. As previously reported on Slashdot, the end result looked likely to be a delay in the release of Sarge, the next Stable edition of Debian, until 2005. But on Saturday Debian developers voted to postpone the changes until after Sarge releases, effectively affirming that the changes need to be made but making a pragmatic decision to not let the next release be delayed as a result. The official voting page doesn't show the result yet, but it's been semi-officially announced."
I know Debian has its supporters and what not, but won't this move hurt Deb's desktop use? It seems that Debian based distros have been taking off (especially live CD based ones, which install much more easily than Deb). Won't this just put it farther behind?
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
They are so far out of whack with reality, what's another year? who cares?
What they NEED to do is strip down the core distribution and produce major updates faster.
That debian is still widely used despite being in the stone age is a testimony to all the things they are doing right.. now they just NEED to get releases under control.
More like Duke Nukem Forever, yo.
Debian is probably the best/most stable GNU/Linux available, and if a sarge ver can accomodate the world--the better we are for it. as a redhatian, turned debianite...I'd say we are on the verge of a major breakthrough...
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
When I heard that a policy change might delay the new release until next year, I was really bummed. That's my one big debian problem--the politcs seem to gum up the works all too frequently. I'm glad to see that this will be put aside until the very much needed next release. YAY DEBIAN!
On a side note, anyone ever take an up-to-date testing machine and convert it to stable at release time? Did it, uh, work?
Debian is something different from most other Linux distributions - it is the absolute high ground, the place which could withstand a legal flood that would wash away any other distribution in existance. That is its function, in my view. There is Redhat/Fedora for pragmatic server use, Mandrake for latest and greatest and friendliest. Debian is adhering to a PRINCIPLE.
Most of us don't like adhering to principles - it really sucks because you have to give up things. In this case you give up convenience and non-free software being hidden safely in the background. For many people that price is too high. That's fine - use another distro! There are others who cater to that. Anyone using Debian has no business objecting to that philosophy - it is the primary reason Debian exists. People not contributing it have no voice at all, nor should they expect one. Think they're dumb for not being pragmatic? Guess how much that matters.
Debian is what happens when you take potential legal problems to heart and try to do what it takes to avoid them. I rather suspect that Debian ultimately wants there to be ZERO chance of any successful lawsuit about anything in the distribution, although I don't know if that is an explicit policy. That's hard, in our society. (What they probably REALLY want is no chance of a lawsuit being brought against them period, but the laws of the US at least don't allow that.)
Debian is about Freedom first, and software second. I see no problem with them releasing and then implimenting the policy changes, since there is not likely to be any increased risk compared to their current release. But if I'm wrong for whatever reason, they should ignore all critics and take whatever time they need to Do It Right. That is done too little nowadays, particularly in Free Software where theoretically Doing It Right is the motivation.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
But on Saturday Debian developers voted to postpone the changes until after Sarge releases, effectively affirming that the changes need to be made but making a pragmatic decision to not let the next release be delayed as a result.
This is a super example of how open source products can, when properly managed, be much, much more nimble than a lot of proprietary offerings. Look at the Longhorn delays. That's not going to come out until approximately the same time the Sun becomes a cold, dark chunk of coal (that's a joke, please don't flame me :) ).
The smaller, more flexible systems that are characterized by Linux-based OSes, however, can quickly adapt to all sorts of changes.
Let's just hope this next edition of Debian is easier to deal with than this article's summary.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
This is fantastic news, absolutely fantastic.
As the current version of Debian is obviously not compatible with the new policy decisions, it is not as if releasing one more version with the same incompatibility will be such a big deal.
I agree that Debian should be as free as possible, but if what is currently released was all right a few years ago, then it will keep for another year or so.
Assuming, of course, that the next release comes out in about a year, which would be a GOOD THING. One major upgrade a year is fine. Once a month would be far too unstable, and even once every six months would be unnecessarily unstable for Debian, IMHO.
(I am not a Debian developer, but I do maintain about thirty Debian machines. My opinions are based on this.)
Is Sarge becoming the Half Life 2 of Linux distros?
That is silly, there is NO comparing the two. Everyone knows that Half Life 2 WILL be released someday.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
This is good news. Alas, it will still have been too long when Sarge comes out.
I've heard others elsewhere suggest that there should be a server distro and a desktop distro in Debian. I like the idea personally.
Yes, I know about testing and unstable. I use unstable as my desktop. However, I'd like to have reasonable recent software without dealing with the constant moving target that is unstable. I'd like to see a desktop version that is updated every six to twelve months and that isn't held to the same standards the server sub-distro would held to. I think unstable updates too often. Stability is also a factor. Yes, unstable is relatively stable, but you have to keep close watch on incoming packages to make sure they don't break something.
This would also allow for docs to be made for the majority of Desktop Debian users who don't seem to be using stable.
If I had to pick one great failing in the business world, it'd be "too many irons in the fire". Many a company has tried to sell you everything and anything- and thusfar, the only company to do it successfully has been Walmart, and that's at least partially from stepping on their workers like they're dirt, but that's another story for another time.
Debian excels at being reliable and "serious". I don't use it because, unfortunately, it's not even -remotely- close to current; it's about two weeks shy of two years old. However, it is serving a specific market, and it should not pander to trying to please everyone. Mandrake is worse, in my opinion- they still want to be everything from your desktop to your server; they excel in the desktop arena, and that is where they should focus for the same reason.
Do one thing, do it well- and never have to worry about pleasing everyone, having conflicting goals, etc. You'll never have to say, "well, this configuration system will never be understood by new linux users!"- because your market is experienced linux users who will appreciate extra functionality (by the way, this is a mythical example).
I've never used Debian, but understand the advantages and have a few friends who prefer it. I like and use Mandrake on desktop systems I have to use regularly; my personal "servers" get Gentoo. Redhat is what I use for business/enterprise stuff.
Please help metamoderate.
...and extreme things have trouble fitting into a real world.
What they're doing here with this social contract and slowing down development to maintain principles is not just an inconvenience - it may lead to this distro becoming less and less relevant if not dying outright.
Its kinda like holding your breath because you're gainst air pollution and want to stick to your principles. If you do it efficiently you'll pass out a lot and get very ill. If you do it with absolute efficiency you'll put your head in a bucket of water and die. I think the former is a better anology to what's happening here because there will always be Free software extremists about to keep a distro like Debian alive if not well.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Click the link above for a better explanation of instant runoff voting (try the flash demo). It's ultimately the best way to get what the people want. I love that the IT organizations (Debian, ACM, IEEE) are using this!
One simple rule for its versus it's
Software is... software. Its not a cure for some social ills, its purpose is defined by the usability it brings to people.
Software which places such usability in second place becomes something else.. a propaganda tool perhaps? If Debian continues to keep such course, the only reason I see for using it is to make a political statement.
I wish the Debian project would stop pretending and become a political party or something.
Don't go silently into that peaceful night
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112887
It doesn't point back to an article.
It points back to a remote site of all things.
Is there a good place to see a comparison between Debian and Gentoo? I am curious as to the advantages / disadvantages between the systems. I want to give the switch to Linux another try, and given that both systems are very popular with the slashdot crowd, I was wondering if there was anyone who could help me compare / contrast. I am particularlly interested in reviews on which distributions make playing all types of media files as painless as possible.
Thanks.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
People say debian is fairly bug free but the politics are more damaging than any software bug.
Once they iron out that bug maybe I will consider using it again but for now it's basically fedora and gentoo for the future.
Debian was nice but it just keeps getting slower and older and more extremist with every release.
Who the hell wants to deal with that?
A while back while reading in an issue of "Linux User & Developer," I read an article about how bad the install was for first timers installing Debian. It went over one of the readers hard times, troubles, etc. After the user finally coming to a completion with the install, they made a comment that made so much sense to me. With the greatness of apt-get literally letting you uprade anything and everything, once you have debian installed, you never need to reinstall. That's probably why most users don't really bother with a new installer, because for one they're already se and won't have to deal with it anymore, and because secondly...Even the thought of the installation process invokes uncontrolable goose-bumps....:P
-- [H]itman_forhire
Sure, why not... once the source gets released.
although it's quite laudable the way that debian sticks to it's guns w/r/t policy and free software, it's beyond a joke how long they take between releases. it's good to see a bit of common sense applied so that Sarge comes out quicker. It'd be nice if "Stable" were updated more often; FreeBSD's -STABLE does and they have almost as many architechtures to support as Debian.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
Well slackware's installer is far easier than I ever imagined. And if you really knew indepth about apt-get and dpkg, you'd realize that slackware doesn't have anything close to it. and nor does Fedora. Yum is weak and in it's infancy, and doesn't have neither the functionality nor the power of apt or dpkg. But unless you knew the 2 in-depth, you'd be clueless as to what I'm relating to.
-- [H]itman_forhire
Unstable does NOT mean it will crash, not at all.. unstable means the layout and dependencies are not stable, and prone to change from update to update.
I cannot afford to run an update and have dependencies break partway through.
As a workstation, I would not hesitate to run unstable, not at all.. as such quirks can be easily dealt with.
Yes, I can test on another machine.... but that can be difficult in practice.. a certian level of stability of updates is needed.
Fixing things by hand is very difficult..
Yes i am perfectly capable of building from source, or using another package format... or using backports from somewhere else for updated packages.. but that defeats a large part of hte purpose for running debian.
And the last time I looked Sarge was up to 14 CDs! This "design by a committee" approach makes Debian years behind other distros.
I mean, it obvious they really care about the contract. It's obvious many users are not _as_ interested in waiting for the contract to be reexamined.
So they move Sarge while agreeing to discuss it at a later date.
When's the last time you saw something this internally important to a project drag a project down in flames? How many other non and for profit organizations have torn apart/forked or become non productive over such a dispute?
It's a nice compromise and I'm glad they're willing to be so reasonable about it.
As far as being out of touch, hey slow and steady is still a winning strategy for those willing to wait. *
~G
* glances at apt source.list for all the lovely unstable bits.. I'm not one who likes waiting tho' ^_^
...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky
reading through these comments i wonder: When will people learn that debian/stable is not contain the latest and greatest software?? "stable" in terms of debian the distro means that no major amounts of software are changed, it only gets security updates. the packages in the stable tree aren't changed, so therefore it's stable.
if you want the latest and greatest software, run debian/unstable. "unstable" doesn't mean that the software itself is unstable, it's just that the packages in the unstable tree are changed/updated often, hence calling it "unstable". debian unstable contains all the goodies that are in the latest versions of other distros, like kde 3.2, gnome 2.6, etc, etc.....
also, yes, all the packages in sarge may fill 14 cds, but you don't need to download all of them. all you need to get is the net-installer iso (around 100 MB) and then download only what you want. so set up the base system with the net-install cd, then the latest versions of whatever you want are just an apt-get away.
sorry for the rant, but people unfamiliar with debian are often misinformed or make unfair assertions.
Is this true? I'm not saying it isn't -- just wondering if anyone who isn't an anonymous coward will back it up.
Are there any instances of the ftp-masters insisting on things that the most of the rest of the project doesn't want?
I love Debian as a distribution. As with all things decided in a democratic fashion, it will never be everything to everyone - not even those hoping for '100%' libre.
Nevertheless, there's a few things that I wish the project would relax on a bit, w.r.t the DFSG.
-licensing. APL and MPL licensed software is potentially heading towards non-free. Why? Because of the clause to the licenses that states that you abandon all patent claims when contributing code. To me, this is fantastic, and stops companies from contributing code, then making turning about-face and suing everyone that uses it once a patent for a mechanism used therein is granted a patent. I view these licenses as "more-free" but there is much disagreement. We may not like software patents, but ignoring their existence is no way to handle the issue.
-the dissident test. This terribly frustrating test causes problems with modifying code and documentation for many packages, in the hope of ensuring that any moral dissident does not have to be bound to exposing their identities if they alter/contribute code. It's a funny thing, because dissidents normally operate outside the boundaries of their region's laws, purportedly to eventually have these altered. Why accomodate people who, by definition, will ignore your rules when they see it fit?
Anyways, I'm glad for this vote, as it means that we can get an updated stable soon-ish, something that is long overdue.
Alright, this really shits me.
/etc/apt/sources.list! It's as easy as that. apt-get update, followed by apt-get -t experimental gcc-3.4. DONE.
Exactly WHAT part of Debian is out of date? It's not the packages, that's for sure.
I use Debian unstable. Do you actually know what the "unstable" part means? It means that the contents of the "unstable" packages are probably still changing! Does that make it any less usable? When you're admining 20 servers, you probably don't want your PostgreSQL database server to suddenly become incompatible with your data due to a format change. (aside: debian upgrade scripts can try to automagically dump/re-import your old database for you)
But compared to a desktop OS like Fedora? NO! Debian unstable is absolutely FINE for desktop usage, despite the "unstable" label.
So why is it called "unstable"?
It may be because upstream is still changing fundamental parts of the app, such as when the new exim4 (at the time) decided to split the config files up. You can't put that in "stable" can you?
Or it may be because the Debian package maintainers haven't figured out the best way to package something according to Debian policy, like when the vim package suddenly decided to break into multiple packages separating out arch-independant/doc related stuff to avoid duplicating data on the mirrors.
I'm sure there are better examples, but the point is, when comparing Debian vs DesktopLinuxOS like Fedora, compare Debian Unstable.
If you do, you will find that package updates are plenty and timely. I think the kernel images are barely even a week behind the kernel.org releases. Gnome 2.6 took a while, about TWO WHOLE FRIGGING WEEKS. How much faster do you want?
If, for example, you want the latest GCC 3.4 which I'm guessing isn't considered "ready" to replace GCC-3.3 as the default compiler, then just add an experimental source in your
Geez, why after all this time do people still not GET Debian.... it's enough to make somebody ANGRY
a release cycle has little meaning to the Debian project, since anyone with the skills to install Debian and the patience to learn it's package management system can easily update a system to whatever they want. The only reason for Debian to do new releases is to bring the project in line with it's Social goals.
This is why when someone says they run Mandrake or Redhat, they'll tell you the version (8,9,10, etc), but if you ask a Debian user they'll just say 'Debian' and leave it at that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
YES, the packages are out of date. I'm talking about STABLE>
The fact that I can use UNSTABLE which has more or less modern packages in it, but might fuck up on any given day when doing an upate means i lose the benefit of using debian in the first place, and it's totally unsuitable for production use on lots of servers.
Sure, if you have one workstation, or one pet server, it's acceptable, easily. If you want a few dozen scattered around the globe, it's not.
"Oh yeah the NEW BETA version has those new features" is a microsoft like excuse...what you are saying comes awfully close to that.
Yes, I understand exactly what unstable means in this context.
You are right; I don't want things to go out of whack just like that.... major revisions of things, especially things like postgres, etc, should not change within one version, requiring reformat of databses, etc. what I *do* want is a STABLE release sooner than every 2 years, with more modern packages that aren't 2 YEARS out of date by the time the next version of debian makes it stable.
I don't want to have to use backports and experimental packages just to use packages that are already a year old and in production *everywhere*.
IN other words, if debian just lessened the scope of what is required to be integrated and stable, got it down to a more realistic set of packages, it would be fine.
Many people using debian do not understand what the labels stable, testing and unstable mean.
Debian stable ist called stable, because the packages are only replaced in order to fix security flaws. The security patches are manually backported by the debian security team. This concept assures that one can configure a system and handcoded scripts will not break until a new version of debian stable is released (every 2-3 years!).
So stable has the meaning that one can install a system, do automatic daily security updates and forget about it until the next version comes.
Debian unstable gets updated packages every day. So if you would like to have current software you could chose debian unstable. Unstable does not get security fixes. This isn't too bad, because the original software mainainers patch their software and this will get into debian unstable pretty soon.
Than there is debian testing which is meant to be the testing system before the release of the next version of debian stable. It does not get security patches. It sometimes does not get timely package updates.
If you want a system which is stable in the way, that the software does not have many bugs, you should NOT use debian stable, but UNSTABLE!!! This is because non-security-bugs are not patched in debian stable, but in debian unstable, as new versions arrive there. A good example is mozilla: In debian stable, the current version is 1.0.0! It did not even get security fixes as this would have meant too much work! In debian unstable the current version of mozilla is 1.7. Mozilla 1.7 definetely crashes less often than Mozilla 1.0.0!
Do not use debian testing for other reasons than testing the next version of debian stable! Testing has sometimes outdated software AND does not get security patches. This combines the bad features of stable and unstable!
So if you want a system that almost never changes, because you do not have the time to reconfigure your system often, use debian stable. In all other cases, use debian unstable. It is not less secure. In some cases, like mozilla, it is MORE SECURE! Never use debian testing, except you want to help with testing at the debian community.
Please do not suggest that debian stable has less bugs than debian testing which has less bugs than debian unstable. Almost the opposite is true!
for recognizing Concordet Voting.
It's nice to see that even an AC can recognize the comitment go effective and efficient Democracy that is embodied in the Debian Project.
Read, L
No, this isn't true. The ftp-masters are Delegated by the Project Leader to perform checking packages against legal issues. They indeed have a say whether or not to let a package go in the archive.
However, as with every delegate and also the Project Leader himself, their decisions can be overridden by the developers (by means of a vote, where any five developers can call for).
In the end, the developer body has the ultimate say about everything.
--Jeroen
Site slashdotted? Look here for mirrors, or even better: o
The way every other package based installer works (that I've used anyway) is to install all the packages from the installer boot (usually by forcing dependencies) and then say "all done, reboot now".
The way the Debian installer works is to install a barest minimum system that will boot and run apt and then reboot. Then once it has rebooted it asks for some apt repositories, asks which packages you want install and then installs them (this bit may take a couple of passes though the list to work out any warts in the dependencies). Having done that it presents you with a fully working system WITHOUT a reboot.
The fact they can have that much confidence in the apt repository and the tools is pretty impressive.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
WRONG. Both the APL V2.0 and the MPL are 100% free software licenses. Don't believe me, get it srtaight from the FSF. What you are probably referring to is that these licenses are GPL-incompatable, however GPL-incompatable != non-free.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
I'd rather like to see Sarge with the new policy enabled, even if it takes two more years or four. (I am young, I can wait.)
I mean, Debian is FREE, and so should be its documentation.
I bet we can expect a big surge of Debian popularity soon, as the "stable" version becomes up-to-date again, making it usable for something like 6 months at least. Sarge is quite well on the "speet spot" of software released now, with KDE 3.2, Gnome 2.6 and Kernel 2.6, and the last "good" version of xfree (the next good x server is probably some time away anyway).
It's nice to see debian decided not to slash it's own wrist by postponing the release. The problem with debian is, people who make the decisions to release or not are themselves using Unstable, and don't really care either way with the release. The loser is the guy who wants to run Debian stable, but doesn't get a say on if/when they are planning
to release.
BTW, one significant turn-off with Debian is the quality of the user base - you need to search far and wide to find as unfriendly a bunch. There is no friendly community that some would expect from such a project. Perhaps it's all the infighting that hardens the people...
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Old version: "we provide infrastructure (such as our
bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages."
New version: "we . . . provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
tracking system and mailing lists)."
Why on earth has Debian switched to a non-free bug-tracking system and mailing list manager? Or is it just that none of the developers who voted for this new social contract bothered to read it carefully and see what it's actually claiming?
WRONG. Both the APL V2.0 and the MPL are 100% free software licenses. Don't believe me, get it srtaight from the FSF. What you are probably referring to is that these licenses are GPL-incompatable, however GPL-incompatable != non-free.
No, you're wrong - what he's referring to is DEBIAN'S CLASSIFICATION, which is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not on what the FSF say.
If Debian decide that the APL and MPL are non-free, they will put software released under those licenses in the non-free section, whatever you, RMS, or the FSF think of that.
I don't know if Debian really is considering classifying those licenses as non-free, but if you're interested in following this up, I suggest you look on debian.org, not gnu.org, because Debian != GNU.
As an ex-debian-rant-meister I am pleased with having switched to Debian after the RH9 closure.
.spec file which project maintainers are generally happy to look after themselves.
Getting used to the differences took a couple of working days but it was well worth it.
Networking setup is very simple with debian, they haven;t managed to scatter it over so many conflicting config files as redhat.
Debian also really care about free software.
The only annoying thing with debian is the large (lots of files) debian-specific directory required for each package compared with redhats single
But thats a small gripe. The other gripe is that it is too hard to donate to debian. I have given up twice unable unsure of who I'm eventually paying money to and for what.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Everyone knows that Debian systems run rather old packages. (Those out-of-date Debian jokes are almost as fresh and funny as the *hilarious* gentoo compilation gags.)
But why? What does Debian actually *do* with the tarballs the rest of us download?
Tons of testing? Major modifications? Ultimately, is the time they take time well spent?
Just curious, that's all.
As per another poster, I'm referring to discussions in debian-legal regarding the status of those licenses *for Debian*.
Indeed, some Debian people have been trying to get the FSF to see things their way and alter the GPL to make it DFSG compatible.
Why? There are DDs that are more radical about free-as-in-libre than RMS.
Again, a great distro, but with interesting internal politics.
I run "testing" on my desktop, and it works great. Kernel 2.6.6, recent packages all around. Not had any problems with it. If people read "server, desktop, experimental" instead of "stable, testing, unstable" it'd be much closer to the truth.
I don't know where it is coming from that testing don't get security patches. It might not have the guarantee that stable does, but in my experience they've been there almost instantly. That's pretty much what you get from ALL other distros as well (we provide as fast as we can, but make no guarantees).
As for installation, I install the base image (100mb, there's even a 30mb microinstall), then download the rest on-demand. If you're not on broadband, pick up the box and put it somewhere with broadband (where you'd download the CDs) until it is installed. It's text based and looks a little crummy (this is the new installer, you know), but it is powerful and easy. Slap an (optional) GUI on top and it competes well with Mandrake and Fedora.
Overall, I think those that installed 'stable' sometime in the stone age love that their distro is still supported. And whenever sarge is released, that it'll probably be supported to something like 2010. That matters to a significant portion of the people (server admins) that will never gripe about it on slashdot until it is "my "#"# production box just went to #%"!!!!!"
Personally, I don't care much for their social contract (I have no problems putting non-free and other sources in my sources list), I just picked them because in my opinion they're the best distro around. Best to get any real work done at least, with a minimum of maintenance.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Let's not forget that the freedom in documentation that you want is more than many, including myself, would consider appropriate.
To be 100% DFSG-defined free, some have argued in debian-devel and debian-legal you should be able to edit, and redistribute your edits of any documentation.
Sounds ok when you first think of it, which is probably why the general resolution that proposed that changed passed. But then you realize that:
1) the docs include standards, like RFCs, which _should not_ be changed and redistributed, less confusion ensue. There is a formal process for contribution and review, but just editing the docs isn't it.
2) the docs include license texts, like the GPL, APL, etc. The condition of using and redistributing most of the code in debian/main, including such useful things as the kernel, glibc, gcc, g, is that the text of GPL be distributed along with it. However, the GPL text itself isn't 100% free from the DFSG's point of view because it once again cannot be altered and redistributed as the GPL. And bingo, you're stuck! The GPL can't be put into non-free, because is presence is mandatory, but good luck in having the FSF alter their license.
I have nothing against a free _software_ interpretation of the DFSG, but there are good practical reasons why the same freedoms cannot be applied to the documentation.
----------seperate point for discussion-----------
Interesting thing - wait much more than 6-12 months for Sarge, and most serious debian installs will be running production systems with a heavy concentration of backports.
And with backports, there are less eyes on the package's code level, and less eyes to notice that an update may have been released to plug some security problems. But there's the trap: (1) use testing and have a too volatile OS, (2) use stable + backports and get a functional os, that's generally secure, or (3) use just stable and get an OS that in time loses the ability to deliver 'standard' features, i.e. functions that have been available for more than a year.
But why? What does Debian actually *do* with the tarballs the rest of us download?
Sometimes I wonder this myself. Are the upstream packages too broken to be good enough for debian? Has debian deviated so far from mainstream that the packages require extensive customization? Why can't the fixes be committed directly to upstream?
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
The comments that you read over and over again about Debian are: 1. It is the slowest distro to crank out new releases. 2. It is the slowest distro to crank out new releases because of an emphasis on quality. #2 is GREAT and is all the justification that is needed, but it does it have to be that way? If the Debian project had more eyes/bodies could they crank out releases faster? Could they crank releases less slowly if they reorganized the way did things? Could they crank out releases faster by find a way to sacrafice a trivial degree of qualtiy for a significant improvement in speeding up their release cycles?
I generally mix my stable/unstable sources. Unstable takes precedence, but for some packages I keep a stable source in my sources.conf.
If you wanted an older samba version, you could just apt-get install samba/stable, which could help your compatability issues (I don't use the newer samba features anyhow, although others might)
Square, Round, Triangular. They all have there appropriate slot. No amount of zealotry will properly fit a wrong shaped peg into the incorrect opening. Debian has it's place and usage just as Fedora, Suse, Gentoo Mandrake, Windows and lol Lindows. The biggest speed-bump of Open Source (FSF) *nix adoption is going to be the same fanatical behavior that pops up on any radical (Radical as in throwing open all the doors of opportunity to end-user and small business's in like. Not Jim Jones radical)idea, concept or technology.
The big problem (though it's not new) is that Debian still considers GPLed software -- even though it's encumbered by a long, complex, and incredibly restrictive license -- to be "free." (They even capitalize "Free," indicating religious faith rather than rational thinking.) Any software license that is so complex that it takes up more than a page (or even a few paragraphs) certainl is not "free."
We use a Condorcet voting method. We call it "Preferential Voting" even though it really isn't. It's really simple. All you have to do is rank the candidates. Put a 1 in the box of the candidate you want to win. Put an 8 (or whatever) in the box the candidate you don't want to win. Fill in the middle by preference. Of course, we have the same problem as every country in the world, way too few independants and ultra-conservative political parties. But unlike the rest of the world, every Australian is required to vote, so the inadequacy of our government is every Australian's fault.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
On a production machine for a company's e-commerce website or whatever, if you update something, and it breaks something else taking down your e-commerce website, your entire business just got brought to a screeching halt, and heads roll. If you admin a production system, the last thing on earth you want are frequent updates. You want an OS that does not change unless there is a security hole discovered. You want to come to work and have the same old system working as well today as it worked yesterday.
That is who uses debian stable. Would I recommend deb stable for a desktop machine? No way. Use testing. But would I recommend testing for a "mission critical" server? No way. You'd have to be out of your mind.
That's why there is more than one "Debian".
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent