Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sarge is Now Frozen

Posted by timothy on from the chill-yo dept.

JoeBuck writes "Steve Langasek has announced that Debian Sarge is now frozen. He produced a schedule that would lead to a Debian release at the end of May, though I would expect it to slip somewhat. I'm glad that the long wait for a Debian release will soon be over."

4 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. We have moved on........ by kkelly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    most of our team left Debian a while back. While its stability is still a strong point, many other distros are very proactive about putting out a stable, quality product these days without the rediculously long timeline....

    --
    K
  2. Re:Big woop now it's only 3 years behind. FP and F by mthaddon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I realize a lot of the posts here are in jest, but what's wrong with being a little slow on the release schedule? There hasn't been a release of Microsoft's desktop OS since 2001 (wow, comparing Debian to Windows XP - kind of like comparing __insert appropriate metaphor__).

    As long as the developers are still committed to maintaining the distro, I think we should all be thankful that Debian is so conscientious in it's release policy.

  3. Re:Good news, even for Sid users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    X.org is already stable in 11 architectures? Who did that?

    Its relatively easy to do it just for i386 (It's the original target). As I know most of the efforts to port X to most architectures comes from Debian.

    Ubuntu and others have i386, AMD64 and PowerPC basically. They make a great work. But doing it for 11 architectures and with the stability that Debian does...

    I can't understand you. I think you are just to ignorant to understand.

  4. Re:How Debian (really) works... by noahm · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Debian Stable seems to be doing just fine. It's a bit old, so hardware support is dated, but no one who needs a "stable" distro ever complains that Debian Stable isn't "stable" enough. Those using Stable are the same people who like to assume that Debian is a server-only distro, and wonder what all the fuss is about "new releases". Unless you're one of the new users who clicks on debian.org and mistakenly downloads and installs Stable, expecting a modern desktop with modern hardware support, Stable is great.

    I disagree. At this point, I find woody too old to even be usable on servers. What's outdated? Well, let's see: the MTA, whichever it may be; the web server, whichever web server you may prefer; the SNMP packages; the various FTP servers; OpenSSH; Kerberos; OpenAFS; PHP; perl; gcc; MySQL; Postgres. The list could go on. Not only are these packages out of date, but they're horribly out of date, in some cases multiple upstream stable releases behind. I run a number of services on woody boxes, and for most of these services I've had to backport packages or use something like backports.org for the important packages, often including their dependencies. Having to do this kind of thing sort of defeats the purpose of a "stable" release, IMO. Just because a machine is a "server" doesn't mean it doesn't need modern hardware support or up to date software. Maybe it's OK if it's just a simple little shell/static HTML server sitting in your closet for you and a few friends to use, but when you start trying to run an enterprise on Debian stable, you find it rather limiting.

    noah