Slashdot Mirror
Updates From Debian
A couple of people noted that
"Linuxlookup.com is reporting the third update of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (codename `woody') which mainly adds security updates to the stable release, along with a few corrections to serious problems. Those who frequently update from security.debian.org won't have to update many packages and most updates from security.debian.org are included in this update." Another reader writes "Looks like the Debian project just released
their old stable distribution (woody) with a huge numbers of security
updates, some removals and some less critical bugfixes. It's been a long
time that we had to wait for it, the last update was in November last year,
together with the break-in." And finally: pkarlos_76 writes "What's holding up Debian Sarge from release to stable? It's those lazy maintainers..... no actually it's just a few issues with security and bugs being quashed, and maybe you can help speed things up, especially if you are a maintainer, as your package will be left out if release candidate bugs are not fixed. Sarge Release Status Update available on Debianhelp . Even if you aren't a maintainer, any help with bug quashing, picking up orphaned packages or what not is always a Good Thing.
Debian has a very good packaging system with very well definied dependencies. You could install a system and update it over and over again, without the need to reinstall.
On the other Hand, Debian integrates security fixes without using the new upstream version from the original package maintainer, giving software developers a solid plattform to base the applications upon.
There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want. --Calvin
Try the sarge installer, it's a huge improvement.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
Debian GNU/Linux is quite ideological. The best writeup on it I've seen is Why Linux? Why Debian?
I wouldn't call it conservative: Debian comes with over 8000 precompiled packages, many of which are fairly recent (see distrowatch or others for version info).
Debian is a user-supported (noncommercial) distro that appeals to people with some experience with Linux or which believe in the GNU philosophy. The package manager (apt) is quite good. It is a well thought out distro & (arguably) has had the most succesful branches: Knoppix, Ubuntu, etc.
What is good with debian is that it's STABLE. :)
You can install a server using Debian, and you know that it will last for years. The security update try to never change the version of a program but only correct the bug, in order to avoid possible break. I'm never scared before I run an update on a Debian stable.
The problem is that the packages can be a little old if you're running the stable version. That's probably not Debian stable that you want for a Desktop computer
wtf.n0x.org
We decided to go with Sarge (testing), as we where expecting a final release with security-fixes soon, and didn't wanted to have woody installed and becoming obsolete within a couple of weeks.
/etc/apt/sources.list file to pull packages from Woody rather than Stable. Let other folks debug the upgrade process on their experimental boxes before you upgrade your production boxes.
For anyone else considering the same route... If you want a Stable server OS, install Debian Stable. Regardless of when Sarge is finally released, Woody will be supported for an additional year or so. In fact, if you have a Debian stable box and don't want to get pulled into Sarge before you're ready, change your
Anyway, if you want a modern flashy desktop based on Debian, look no further than here.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
It's also very stable and you can get by with a minimal of packages. The approach is to patch exisiting versions rather than force 'upgrades' to newer versions which may or may not change behavior (see PHP for examples of behavior changes even between point versions).
And it runs on quite a variety of hardware besides lame old x86. I've run classes for semesters off of old junker Macintoshes -- 100% availability, no downtime from course start until the hardware was retired for good the next year.
It's also very fast to install once you get used to it. (Don't use dselect) I've installed Debian for use as a web/cgi/database server on Pentium machines in under 15 minutes. Including some tweaking, however that needs a fast network connection.
It's easy to choose linux 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 or a custom variant Linux kernel. I've also read that you can drop in other kernels besides Linux, like BSD. Though I myself have not tried, but would like to read more about it.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
All debian varieties can use apt-get (and its partner tools) to contact the main debian repositories. The repositories have a *huge* selection of prepackaged applications/libs/etc that you can install with very little fuss simply by choosing "apt-get install NAMEOFPACKAGE." Alternately, there are CLI tools such as "aptitude" which one may use to select software from a categorical list of packages, or GUI tools such as "synaptic" that do the same in a graphical environment.
At regular intervals, you may "apt-get update" to update your machine's list of software known to debian. "apt-get upgrade" can then be used to upgrade to known newer versions, or apply security updates in debian/stable.
For software updates/installations that have configuration options, often you will get a curses-based interface which steps you through basic configuration.
Debian/stable: As most have mentioned, very stable, well tested, and generally out-of-date as far as new features etc etc (but with security fixes etc being backported). Automatic download/configuration of most new security updates via apt-get. Very nice for servers or other systems that you want to be reliable, but don't need a bleeding edge environment. Packages are generally well-tested against each other, so you have a good assurance that apt-get installing package B will not break package A.
Debian/unstable: No security patches for unstable packages. Instead, regularly updating will get you newer versions of software. Sometimes you get conflicts but ususally it is fairly stable. I've been using a debian/unstable desktop for quite sometime now... the worst problems I've had thus far is needed to manually select a different "automake" version for Anjuta to work, and having a package that wasn't from debian being broken by a gtk update (mainly because some quirky coding in said package didn't like the new GTK version).
Debian/testing: I haven't used it, but basically I believe it's supposed to be slightly more bleeding edge than debian/stable. Packages haven't been fully tested against each other, package updates/changes are more common.
Really, you could think of the above as something akin to freshmeat.net's software grading system, where 'stable' is often for "mature" software packages, 'unstable' includes "beta" or less mature, and 'testing' is very new or "alpha."
The only thing that confuses me at current is why my Firefox is only avaiable up to version 0.9.3, even in 'testing'...
In summary though, the concept that debian is for old/crufty software is bogus. This may apply to debian/stable, but unstable will keep you very up-to-date for most users.
One item not yet mentioned is that it supports a LOT of differnt computing platforms:p s
alpha
arm
hppa
i386
i64
m68k
mi
mipsel
powerpc
s390
sparc
and soon AMD64
On top of just being really cool in in of itself, this allows you to have a unified computing platform across mutliple legacy, bigiron, and modern consumer x86 hardware installations.
Cute, but still not true.
To upgrade to the latest software, replace "stable" with "testing" in your sources.list file. If you need further direction, look here.
The "testing" repositories usually contain the latest releases of software, and sometimes packages compiled from CVS.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
You shouldn't run testing or unstable on production servers. They get major version upgrades of packages which introduces new features that sometimes break existing deployments. The stable version only gets bugfixes and security patches, sometimes backported to the version that was shipped. This is necessary in a production environment. blahblahblah.heard.it.all.before.blahblahblah Debian's main selling point depends on the role you want it to fill. But the apt dependency resolving package management system combined with the number of packages available are the advantages universal to every role you would try to fill.
For example, to set up a Java/C#.net web server: First, install the minimal stuff from any of the many different debian installers.
Then, from the minimal debian-stable system
and you'll end up with a pretty current web-server - since tomcat & mono will depend on pretty current stuff.All the other packages you'd need (apache, java, mono (the recent one from unstable), etc) will be automatically handled thanks to its dependancy checker.
That said, I have used the new installer several times recently, and it works fine, but:
- I always have at least one unrecoverable error during manual partitioning which has to be recovered from after installation; and
- The download of update packages invariably breaks in the middle, dumping me out to a shell or aptitude to finish it all off, again manually.
I hope these issues get worked out of the installer before it gets released.Put identity in the browser.
Let's not forget backports.org. Modern packages where needed without having to going the whole hog and drop Stable for Unstable/Testing. That still not exactly a solution I would really want on a production box.
The actual release stopper at the moment is getting the Security autobuild network ready to build packages for Sarge.
While it's true that packages such as Abuse have release critical bugs, the release of Sarge will not be held up by them. Sarge cannot release while RC bugs are present--if it's simpler to remove Abuse from Sarge than it is to fix the RC bug, then Abuse will be removed.
I thought the order is, stable, testing, unstable, experimental.
Testing is sarge; unstable is sid.
Install Woody base (stable) and quit after you have a base system
/etc/apt/sources.lst to unstable all the way through and do
Then change your
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
then, now that you're upgraded to unstable/sarge use aptitude to install all the other stuff you want from sarge respositories
I would agree to this, but the philosophy has its own problems - say I want to run exim on woody... woody still uses exim 3, and if you go to the exim homepage, they state
"Exim 3 and previous versions are now considered obsolete. Exim 3 is not being developed any further, nor is it being actively maintained"
And therefore in order to use up to date secure packages, I end up using backports, and thus might as well be using testing anyway due to the package dependancies etc.
If I want to run an up to date version of horde, I need newer versions of php/pear etc than woody offers, and thus have to backport again... and it goes on...
Exim 3 is being maintained by debian developers for up to date security. It wont get new features and support for setting up a new system if you need help as no one outside of debian list will be of much help with exim 3 now but it will still be secure.
As for horde I agree you either have to use a very old version of use a backport that will install updates that could make the system less stable also programs link clamav are stuck with really old version and make the program usless in stable that is why I do use the backport for it. Area like AV and spam filters are the bigest problem in my option and need a better way to handle in debian.
That would be tasksel's job.