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."
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.
that sound you just heard was the clue flying over your head.
yes, the move to postpone changes so as to not delay the release will someone put it farther behind.
I bet you also think 2+2=3
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
are you talking about social contract or postponing it? how can postponing can be bad for debian desktop usage?
for the former, Debian is very strong all over the world, so if debian starts enforcing social contract, most developers will have to fallow Debian rules in order to penetrate to debian repository. finally, just for you information, new debian installer is much better than knoppix hd installer.
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
I think you meant to say, "When Longhorn comes out, Sun will be worth no more than a chunk of coal" ;)
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.)
> I bet you also think 2+2=3
For small values of 2, it does!
My other car is first.
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.
Aren't longer release cycles better for production enviroments? If you have 500 servers do you really want to update every month (except for critical bug fixes which you can get by putting apt-get in a crontab)?
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
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.
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
But as I understand it (I don't use Debian), FreeBSD's stable is less "stable" than Debian stable (in that it's updated a lot more). FreeBSD STABLE is still a branch where potentially big changes are made, and it's possible to cvsup a broken setup. What seems to be a more adequate comparison is FreeBSD's RELENG. RELENG is basically frozen in time at a particlar release (RELENG_4_8 for example, corresponds to 4.8-RELEASE), and is only updated with security/stability fixes.
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.
The installer was redesigned in Sarge, and should be much easier to use.
And you don't have to download all 14 CDs: only do so if you a) have a penchant for pain or b) are obsessive with hard copies of things.
You only need the first CD to have a working stable system, and Debian sorts its packages based on popularity, so most likely, you'll find what you need within the first 4 CDs.
You could also just use apt-get and an http or ftp source, but I guess that would be too convenient.
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
Software is... software. Its not a cure for some social ills, its purpose is defined by the usability it brings to people.
And free software brings more usability to people by being free.
In any case, everything is just itself. Cotton is just cotton, whether it's grown by slaves or free farmers on their own farm. That doesn't mean that what we use and how we choose it doesn't have consequences.
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/
I think it is. It's not explicitly stated in the Debian Constitution, but IIRC every new package that is uploaded must be approved by the ftp-masters before it will be added to the archive.
Are there any instances of the ftp-masters insisting on things that the most of the rest of the project doesn't want?
Not as far as I know. The ftp-masters don't really hold any ceremonial power. They just collectively control the distribution system; if the ftp-masters refuse to allow a certain file to be on their machines, then that file will effectively not be in Debian. It's similar to how CmdrTaco effectively controls every post anyone makes to Slashdot. Although he doesn't have to specifically approve posts, if he deletes your post, there's nothing you can do about it.
It's more of a "sysop == God" thing than anything else.
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!
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.
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
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.