Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debian Release Mgr. Proposes Dropping Some Archs

Posted by timothy on from the notion-that-could-become-an-idea-and-maybe-a-concept dept.

smerdyakov writes "In this story posted by Andrew Orlowski of the Register Debian Release manager Steve Langasek has announced that support will be dropped for all but four computer architectures. Among the reasons cited for doing this are improving testing coordination, 'a more limber release process' and ultimately a ('hopefully') shorter release cyle. The main architectures to survive will be Intel x86, AMD64, PowerPC and IA-64." Actually, the story says clearly that this is only a proposal at this point, but it's definitely something to watch.

10 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Dropping ARM??? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That might really hurt embedded developers. Seems like embedded users would be far more likely to use Deb than IA-64 users.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. As anal as Debian is, this is kind of sad. by theolein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, debian is the only distro that supports all the exotic architectures. If debian only supports the main architectures in futre, what then will the difference be between them and SuSE, Mandrake, Ubuntu and Gentoo for that matter?

    1. Re:As anal as Debian is, this is kind of sad. by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In my experience, apt is not the same when implemented on other dists. One the surface the commands are the same, but the integration isn't there. Neither are the normal debian repositories. Like you can't upgrade the whole system with apt-get dist-upgrade.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  3. Scary but beneficial by caryw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While Linux is well known for being exteremly cross-platform, 99.9% of installs will be on one of those four architectures. It would make sense to concentrate solely on those four rather than adding support for every Amiga and 68XXX setup out there. Especially now with Debian becoming a very strong player in the linux server community (now that RedHat is concentrating mainly on paid contracts and has allowed Fedora Core to become bulky and buggy.)

    Besides, if you really want to run *nix on your Atari go download NetBSD.
    - Cary
    --Fairfax Underground: Where Fairfax County comes out to play

  4. Re:In other news... by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aren't porting and actively supporting two different things?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  5. IA64? by bstadil · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why not let HP and Intel carry the support banner for IA86.

    The few machines sold hardly matters. HP 'claims" they will sppnd $3B on IA64 over next 5 years surely they can afford to pay for Linux on this dud of a processor.

    Or better still pay the Debian guys

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  6. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    THANK THE LORD!

    Someone at Debian is finally getting a fucking clue. I've been telling stupid Debian zealots this for years... your distro is dying because everything has to move in lockstep. Take a look at the Linux kernel -- it's x86, and yet there are loads of ports which move at their own speed. Debian is a slug of a distro because it moves at the speed of the absolutely *LEAST* developed port. Split them off focus on the x86 distro... and let the other catch up or die off. Debian is smothering... and all the puffed up insane zealotry about how other platforms are supported just as well as x86 is worthless if your distro is 5 years out of date.

  7. I disagree wholeheartedly. by hummassa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone at Debian is finally getting a fucking clue. I've been telling stupid Debian zealots this for years... your distro is dying because everything has to move in lockstep.
    Interesting, from where I am it seems to be pretty much alive, thank you.
    Take a look at the Linux kernel -- it's x86, and yet there are loads of ports which move at their own speed. Debian is a slug of a distro because it moves at the speed of the absolutely *LEAST* developed port.
    There is always sid.
    Split them off focus on the x86 distro... and let the other catch up or die off.
    And then the only thing that sets Debian apart from the other distros (quality, determined by lots of portability issues spotted, bad code spotted this way, lots of different archs using the same distro, etc. will be dead. People will just use Ubuntu, if they want to use something x86-ppc only.
    Debian is smothering... and all the puffed up insane zealotry about how other platforms are supported just as well as x86 is worthless if your distro is 5 years out of date.
    Interesting, I run Debian, with kde 3.4 over kernel 2.6.10 and my distro does not feel 5 years out of date.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:I disagree wholeheartedly. by noahm · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Interesting, I run Debian, with kde 3.4 over kernel 2.6.10 and my distro does not feel 5 years out of date.

      Sure, you run sid. You know what that means? It means that this proposal won't affect you at all. (additionally, I'm sure you run x86, along with what, 98% of all other debian users?)

      The thing is, you're the type of user who doesn't need predictable release cycles. You can get by on the bleeding edge and run software for which a new package release may be uploaded on any given day.

      A lot of Debian users are in very different positions. I, for example, run Debian in an enterprise environment, with literally hundreds of servers and workstations. woody is simply not an option in this environment. Hardware support (both kernel and user space) is dreadfully lacking, and we'd have to backport most of the software we use every day anyway. We'd end up running something so bastardized that we'd no longer see many of the benefits of running Debian at all. So we were forced to go with something more current. We chose sarge, with the understanding that we'd have to be responsible for the security of our systems, with little help from Debian. But of course, there are problems there, too. Sarge changes every day. A machine installed today may look nothing like a machine installed tomorrow. Additionally, we simply have no way of knowing when sarge will be released. The saying within Debian has always been "we'll release when it's ready", but of course, there's never a published metric for readiness, so there's simply no way of knowing when that will be.

      Basically, right now, Debian really doesn't have a good release for enterprise users. That really sucks, since IMHO Debian provides a software infrastructure that makes it really appealing for large scale deployments. I really hope this new proposal is a step toward a shorter and more predictable release cycle!

      noah

      (Debian developer, sysadmin, and user since 1997)

  8. Re:This is not final by Ulric · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm not a Debian user, but I understand that the long release cycles are viewed as a problem by those who are. Do you think it will be possible to solve that problem without dropping a few architectures, and if so, how?

    I understand that Gentoo supports several architectures, including several (alpha, sparc) that would not be supported with this scheme. How come they don't seem to have a problem getting releases out the door? (You may not have more of a clue than I do, but perhaps someone else does.)