Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 Set for December

dolson writes sends in a heartening update straight from the Debian project's news page: "The Debian project confirms December 2006 as the date for the next release of its distribution which will be named Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 alias 'etch'. This will be the first official release to include the AMD64 architecture. The distribution will be released synchronously for 11 architectures in total. At this stage, the upcoming release will ship with Linux 2.6.17 as its default kernel. This kernel will be used across all architectures and on the installer. A later version may be selected during a review in October. New features of this release include the GNU Compiler Collection 4.1 as default compiler. X.Org will replace XFree86 as implementation of the X Window System X11. Secure APT will add extra security by easily supporting strong cryptography and digital signatures to validate downloaded packages."

Comments

OK, but...

[SchwarzeReiter]

does it run... Oh, never mind.

Re:OK, but...

[KiloByte]

does it run... Oh, never mind.

Don't laugh so loud, grasshopper. This question is adequate.
And the answer is: yes. K*BSD arches are in good shape, but none of them are release candidates for Etch. Nexenta (OpenSolaris kernel) gathered so much bad karma because of Sun's CDDL's intentional incompatibilities with GPL causing problems that Nexenta isn't going to be an official arch anywhere soon. Debian/Hurd isn't that bad, but too bad, Hurd remains just a toy for now. And Debian/Minix stays at the level of talks for now. It's only Debian/win32 which died completely.
So yeah, Etch does run Linux, but most likely Alien/Lenny/??? (Etch+1) will have K*BSD variants.

Re:OK, but...

[doti]

No.

It runs GNU/Linux.

Re:OK, but...

[david.given]

And Debian/Minix stays at the level of talks for now. It's only Debian/win32 which died completely.

Debian/Minix would be cool, but it'll probably have to wait until Minix gets a paging VM and support for the brk() syscall --- curreently there's no way for an application to increase its heap size once it's started, which rather screws over most normal Unix apps. (For example, in order to run a configure script, you have to have a copy of sh handy which has been configured with a huge heap.)

Debian/Win32 I mourn, though. That would have been amazingly useful. The only real competitor I know of is Cygwin, whose package management facilities are awful...

(Debian/BeOS ought to be pretty possible, at least in single-user mode; and Debian/Plan9 would... okay, probably not really work.)

Re:OK, but...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

You don't need brk(), just a paging VM, and mmap().

Re:OK, but...

[jdbartlett]

Not if Torvalds has anything to do with it.

And he does.

It runs Linux/GNU...

Re:OK, but...

[Al Dimond]

Debian/BeOS and Debian/Plan9 would work just fine. You'd just have to accept that you were using an operating system that's not Unix, and not Not Unix either.

Creating a distribution of BeOS or Plan9 with the Debian mindset and many similar tools is certainly possible. However, in order to provide the true experience of either OS you'd need a dedicated team willing to write native programs in the style of those OSes and make sure that improvements made to the Debian/GNU Linux versions were reflected in their separate programs. The same thing is true of Debian/Win32 (except that they can't actually distribute Windows; perhaps Debian/ReactOS). Completely possible, but it's a lot more work than just porting things.

Re:OK, but...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

+1 Funny? WTF?

Debian turns me on.

[Reverend528]

Reading about this release is giving me a Woody!

Re:Debian turns me on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, don't get your hopes up, the 2006 part could be a typo.

Re:Debian turns me on.

[ShadowLeo]

Don't be such a Hamm.

Re:Debian turns me on.

[Bruce Perens]

It's great that there's so much Buzz about Debian!

Re:Debian turns me on.

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

OK sarge!

Re:Debian turns me on.

[betasaur]

Finally, I'll be able to scratch that etch...

Re:Debian turns me on.

[Your Pal Dave]

Hey, don't be the guy who comes in and Rex everything!

Re:Debian turns me on.

[nicolas.b]

It will eventually die when debian developers think twice and will release Etch for 2012.

Welcome

[tomstdenis]

To the year 2006.

AMD64 support and a GCC newer than 2.95? Gee whiz, golly that's unheard of!

Tom

Re:Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

you do have the admit that when they finally do move they move all the way (they are talking about a 2.6.17+ kernel for example)

Re:Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Also current stable release of Gnome. However the next Gnome release is set around the same time. Debian project should push back their release until they can get the Gnome 2.16 in, otherwise they'll be having outdated software for a lot longer time. Which has been usually the case in the past. It would be only about days..

Re:Welcome

[TheUnknownOne]

And just in time for 2007 too!

Re:Welcome

[LainTouko]

I'm currently running AMD64 Sarge with GCC 3.3.5.

Re:Welcome

[Homology]

AMD64 support and a GCC newer than 2.95? Gee whiz, golly that's unheard of!

If Debian want amd64 support they better do so ;-)

Re:Welcome

[14CharUsername]

But it would take months for them to get gnome 2.16 tested properly (it has to be stable, right). By then firefox will be a few days away from a new release. Which will take months to test. By then a new version of KDE will be coming along. By the time they get all that tested and ready Gnome 2.18 will be a few days from being released.

Re:Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome To the year 2006.

That jokes a lot funnier when you use a year that's already passed.
Here, I'll help you out:


Welcome to the year 2004.

AMD64 support and a GCC newer than 2.95? Gee whiz, golly that's unheard of!

Tom


Now, isn't that better?

Re:Welcome

[Homology]

gnome has dependencies that would make a pile of poo proud. Really, package maintainers hate gnome.

Re:Welcome

[erikvcl]

Hell, I hate Gnome. How come the "flamebait" posts are always the best?

Re:Welcome

[gnalle]

At the moment I am using GNOME 2.8 on Sarge and 2.14 on Ubuntu, and frankly I don't feel much of a difference. Of course 2.14 is more polished, but 2.8 is still quite usable. I doubt that the difference between GNOME 2.14 and GNOME 2.16 will be substantial.

A lot of users were unhappy with the late release of Sarge, but now it looks like the development of GNOME and KDE have slowed down. At least the results are less visible. If GNOME continues at this pace then it is perfectly OK for me to live with a 18 month release cycle.

Re:Welcome

[baadger]

An "emerge -pve gnome" shows a total source code download of 592,129 kB atm (For a Gnome 2.14.2/Xorg 7 environment)
An "emerge -pve kde" shows a total source code download of 541,705 kB atm (For a KDE 3.5.2/Xorg 7 environment).

There are fewer packages for KDE in the Gentoo portage tree but thats because it's much more monolithic, there is however a modular set of packages for KDE. Either way the downoad size is almost the same, and i'd say their just as bad as one another to maintain.

I haven't run into many GTK apps that require Gnome libraries except maybe libgnomeui (provides additional widgets I think), which is small.

So quit trolling and think up something better than "make a poo proud" next time.

Re:Welcome

[vhogemann]

This makes me wonder...

How much of this is due Cannonical/Ubuntu contributing back?

Re:Welcome

[Strog]

I don't think the number of bytes is the biggest issue for packaging here. The bigger issue is some of the deps for Gnome are used by other applications and might be upgraded seperately. Are you using mDNS or avahi? FAM or gamin? It's when you start making these changes and different patches that things start getting more difficult for packagers. FreeBSD users had to deal with a special Gnome upgrade script because it would break it if you upgraded in the conventional way. The biggest non-KDE* package is QT so that can make it easier for packagers.

None of this changes the end user experience (except if they have to jump through hoops at upgrade time) for either desktop but the argument that it's easier on packagers definitely has some weight to it in my opinion. Many of the packagers out there have done a great job on isolating these issues from endusers and you have to give them a lot of credit for all their hard work.

Re:Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero, nicht, nada.

Re:Welcome

[turbidostato]

"i'd say their just as bad as one another to maintain."

And I'd say you probably haven't had the privilege of maintaining neither of them.

Anyway, you can ask, say, Patrick Volkerding which indeed used to maintain both of them about his informed opinion.

Re:Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

"Debian project should push back their release until they can get the Gnome 2.16 in, otherwise they'll be having outdated software for a lot longer time."

Gnome project should push forward their release so they can get in Etch, otherwise they'll be out from the best all-purpose Linux distribution for a lot long time.

Just in time for Christmas

[Elros]

I wonder if anyone will buy it for me...oh...wait

Re:Just in time for Christmas

[ignavus]

No, but I'll sell it to you.

process

[slack_prad]

I've heard a lot about Debian's testing process. Can anyone explain how it works .. and what makes it so stable?

Re:process

[neonprimetime]

and what makes it so stable?

In general, MORE TIME TESTING = MORE STABLE PRODUCT. And if it's not obvious already, Debian definitely takes their time testing.

Re:process

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. (un)stable like in "resistance to change", not like in "uptime".

A stable version will only see bugfixes backported to the version at release time. Unless Theo starts his FUD again.

Re:process

[frovingslosh]

Sure. You can get Etch now. It's also called testing, and is very stable. There is also a newer "unstable" version that you can download and use, it is changing almost daily, but overall it is pretty stable in spite of the name. So by the time a version like Etch is officially "released" it is extremely stable, and somewhat out of date. I find that unless you are building mission critical process control systems that need to be extremely bug free, you are better off using the Debian testing version than the official release, particularly if you have newer hardware that you want to be able to use.

Re:process

[Homology]

In general, MORE TIME TESTING = MORE STABLE PRODUCT. And if it's not obvious already, Debian definitely takes their time testing.

The long testing part is due to the very big collection of thirdparty packages that Debian has, along with very liberal rules for package dependencies back and forward through various releases. I'm sure that is a major headache for the maintainers except for the "was-a-maintainer" that have left for something else.

So, long testing period does not imply higher quality with respect to other Linux distributions, or *BSD for that matter.

Re:process

[JohnnyBigodes]

MORE TIME TESTING = MORE STABLE PRODUCT

Or an outdated product, as I've come to realize. I have a rented server running Debian, which has given me nothing but headaches because some of the packages are horribly outdated, namely PHP5. I mean, PHP 5 is what, over two years old now, how come they didn't think it was stable nor tested? This is one of the reasons why the next server I rent will be running something else. Better to have "untested" (use that word carefully) stuff working than no stuff at all. Must be that "security-through-obsolence" paradigm rearing its head :)

Re:process

[JohnnyBigodes]

Failed to explain something there... PHP 5 isn't present in the stable/official Debian repository, had to eventually install PHP 5 from an alternative repository, after lots of trouble actually finding it.

Re:process

[Kjella]

Or an outdated product, as I've come to realize. I have a rented server running Debian, which has given me nothing but headaches because some of the packages are horribly outdated

I sure wouldn't want to have a debian stable server where I couldn't add a few repositories or pin some packages from testing. I like the stability of the groundwork, but you have to put some flexibility into it yourself. Debian stable is frozen in time, I'd say 18 month release cycle plus 6 months because they don't put bleeding edge in there to begin with, so being two years behind is by design. Honestly I wish I could jump between debian stable and ubuntu LTS... 9 month release cycle with long support on every version if I choose to hold back would be outstanding.

Re:process

[samkass]

In general, MORE TIME TESTING = MORE STABLE PRODUCT.

Have you really found this to be true? To me it seems like the projects that take the longest to test, especially when the testing mostly happens at the end of the development cycle, are the ones for which the design was the most muddled-- and no amount of testing can compensate for that. I'd guess that your typical Windows release gets a whole heck of a lot more testing than your typical Linux release, for example.

Re:process

[LincolnQ]

I find that unless you are building mission critical process control systems that need to be extremely bug free, you are better off using the Debian testing version than the official release, particularly if you have newer hardware that you want to be able to use.

You can do this if you like, I guess, although I would feel a little uncomfortable: My rule is "stable whenever it matters to someone else". I use testing on my own machines, but I've definitely found myself in situations where testing was broken (usually just due to large upgrades like libc6 or something, but still, more broken than I wanted to deal with) -- or, if the whole archive isn't broken, you can still get upgrades forced on you that change the behavior of the system in unpredictable ways and make you unhappy. Generally, the increased stability of "stable" is worth it to me and my users when I'm doing any sort of administration.

It's useful to note that in the uncommon-but-not-rare case where you or a user wants a package upgrade from testing or later, you can very easily use apt to pull down the source and build-dep, compile it for your system and install it as a package with very little hassle. Do this for the packages where it matters, and you have a mostly stable system with the features you need.

Re:process

[JackieBrown]

I find unstable more stable than testing. The fixes hit there first without the 10 day delay to enter testing. Most errors can be avoided by reading when you type apt-get dist-upgrade. If it says remove something you need say no.

Re:process

[A.K.A_Magnet]

"Stable" is a reference to the packages. Debian stable means you won't get 20 new packages or packages updates every week (and that's optimistic, on testing or unstable, you get that much on a daily basis). You only get security updates. It has nothing to do with software stability, except that the process makes the software in Debian stable .. well very stable! For example, Ubuntu is Debian testing made stable: they get a snapshot of Debian testing every 6 monthes, they fix some of the bugs (critical, hindering normal usage), and then they freeze it (the only updates are security updates, just like with Debian Stable; to be fair, Ubuntu's work isn't that simple, the main part of their work is to make the distribution the way they want with a top-down approach, ie they want some feature or something to look different and they do it). The difference is that Ubuntu's stability process is very weak compared to Debian's, but certainly good enough for most desktop users. That's what "stable" means in the "Debian Stable" sense (that's the same meaning in a "stable" API, ie an API that won't change anytime soon), and it's needed on production systems (you don't want daily updates that can break everything). Great for desktops, mandatory for servers. Debian Sid (to be Etch) is primarily meant for Debian developers.

Re:process

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, every bug fix goes into unstable. If the package get installed into the users system and lasts about 10 days without breaking it, it gets upgraded out of unstable into testing. Testing is where things wait until the whole shebang get 'released' as stable. This happends about every 18 months. But if a package gets into testing and then does bad things, it get removed and then a new unstable version gets moved in. The hard part is having all the 16,000 packages being useable with no release critial bugs for 11 architectures at the same time. This is more or less when they release. This amount of testing catches obvious syntax bugs, endian bugs, corner cases, desktop and server testing bugs, various types of installation testing (ie. embedded, desktop, server, low memory). There are also 'release goals' like transitioning to X.org, to a particular version of: perl, python, gcc, ... or whatevery the project decides to do. Check out: http://debian.home.pipeline.com/ for my big diagram of the process(in en, pt, es). (note: this was posted in the web os called eyeOS)

Re:process

[zootm]

It's just a matter of priorities, really. There's a balance to be struck between having the newest stuff and having a stable distribution. The stable branch of Debian just balances its priorities very strongly towards stability. It's up to the user to decide whether that's what they want from their operating system. If not, there is other branches of Debian, and other distributions entirely, which can be used. Allowing wild variation in philosophy like this is one of the redeeming features of the "distro soup" that exists.

Re:process

[amavida]

"...16,000 packages being useable with no release critial bugs for 11 architectures at the same time..."

Wow!
Now I can finally understand the cause of the glacial slowness of Debian progress.

I wonder how many folks actually need this...

Re:process

[Respect_my_Authority]

Just use backports.org. It has up-to-date packages ported from Testing and compiled for Stable. Including PHP5.

http://backports.org/

Re:process

[gpuk]

Why not just grab the latest v5 source from www.php.net and compile it yourself? That way you get the latest version and you control exactly what features you get (e.g. PEAR support / CLI support / PDFlib / libxml etc.)

Just because there isn't a package for something doesn't mean you can't have it. In fact, for things like php, apache, mysql, ftpd - it is almost always better to compile yourself from source. This way you maximise the apps efficiency and arguably enhance security as you disable any feature you don't need/want.

Re:process

[JohnnyBigodes]

Very handy link, thanks!

Re:process

[Sinus0idal]

Change your apt sources to testing and apt-get dist-upgrade. Testing is adequately stable for the majority of needs. Half the problems people have with debian are due to them not knowing about debian.

Re:process

[smchris]

Yup. It seems like testing for the desktop and stable for servers is a popular convention. I believe I've notice one obvious bug, that had a workaround, in a year using testing. And considerably fewer bugs than Fedora.

But, as an ironic side note, I've decided to give up on KnoppMyth and am following a website's instructions on manually setting up MythTV with Fedora Core 4. I haven't tried Fedora 5 but my inpression is that Debian Testing has a great many considerably later versions of programs than my (upgraded) Fedora 4. So, can we now also put to rest the popular opinion that Debian lags behind some other distributions?

Debian running current software?

[Martin Blank]

OK, I know that the various testing levels have had updated software for a while, but pushing this volume of changes to the mainstream distribution does seem like something of a shock. Debian's historic reliance on "tried and true" versions seems to be giving way (at least partially) to the realization that many people don't want to use it because it lacks significant feature updates.

I'm impressed.

Re:Debian running current software?

[frovingslosh]

They are not pushing a volume of changes into the distro all at once. They are just saying that in December, Etch, which you can download and install right now (or better yet, do a "net install") will be called the official Stable release. Sarge, the current stable release will be retired (well past time). Newer versions will become "testing" and "unstable". I've been using Etch, it is pretty nice. But I expect that with it's "release" in December I'll stop using it and move on to the new "testing" version. The official Debian release tends to show it's age too much and the testing version is actually very stable.

Re:Debian running current software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Martin,

I think we're doing this the right way. We haven't changed our testing process. It was just that a lot of teams worked harder than before. Right now we've ~ 200 release critical bugs to solve until the release that won't be now in July, but in December. We're ok with our schedule and it will be stable as Sarge was and released on time. People just mix up stuff, because we failed to ship Woody (before Sarge) in time and in a sane way.

-- stratus

Re:Debian running current software?

[shawn443]

Depends on what you call a feature. I don't care if my ssh gateway can easily mount a digital camera. I think the best feature is the stability for my servers. Sometimes the cutting edge software is too cutting edge and not necessarily better. I don't second guess their methods when I can apt-get in total confidence. In my opinion, Debian is probably the best OS for serious server duty. I would stack it up against OS/2 or any of the other proprietary server OS's. I also use Debian for my desktop (XFCE). I wouldn't install it on a newbies machine though, so I readily concede that point.

Re:Debian running current software?

[jsight]

Sarge, the current stable release will be retired (well past time).

You do realize that sarge has been out for less than 1.5 years, right? December would be a nice time for a release, but I don't really think this can qualify as "well past time". :)

Re:Debian running current software?

[Kadmos]

And for an alternative view I look at my current deployment of Debian Sarge and realise that it has had excellent performance, flexibility and reliability. Apart from security updates I haven't had to change a thing. IMHO Debian has all the great things of Linux in a package which I can depend on in business (I also use it at home). Of course I am looking forward to Etch, but Sarge will live forever in my memory as a great release.

Architectures.

[saintlupus]

Last I checked, Debian GNU/Linux didn't run terribly well on anything but x86 and ppc -- NetBSD was by far a better choice for something like a MIPS box or a VAX. Is that still the case?

--saint

Re:Architectures.

[XanC]

You must be thinking of some other distro.

http://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/

Re:Architectures.

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time you checked? I guess that since Sarge, our last release, tons of architectures were ok. We've a new and strict policy for architectures now. AFAIK, mips and mipsel are ready to go as we speak. FYI, i'm not a porter, but if i recall correctly, VAX was never a possibility. More information at: www.debian.org/ports/

-- stratus

Re:Architectures.

[HomerJ]

Why would you want to run anything else on a VAX other than good ol' VMS? I wish someone made an Itanium laptop, so I could run OpenVMS on a portable.

Re:Architectures.

[bgat]

Can't say much about VAX, but debian positively rocks on MIPS and ARM. In addition to PPC and x86en.

Re:Architectures.

[delirium of disorder]

I don't know about VAX, but Debian runs great on MIPS and many other platforms. I installed and used it on several Sgi Indys and X worked fine, as did sound, networking, and all the hardware features I had used under IRIX. Some software was slower (gcc is notorously less optomised for MIPS then the commericial Sgi c compiler MIPS Pro), but more modern software was available. Most Debian packages are available for most architectures.

I also run Debian on PA-RISC for my shell server. Add an account for yourself and do a few apt-cache searches to see which packages are available. All the major desktop and server packages are there (various apache mods, firefox, gaim, amule, etc). I found Debian to provide more modern software then HP-UX or BSD for PA-RISC. Even most of the somewhat obscure Debain provided applications are available. I run Debian and Ubuntu on x86, OpenBSD and Solaris on SPARC64 (Solaris is better for SMP systems), IRIX and Debian on MIPS (IRIX is better for newer Sgis like the Octane2), and HP-UX and Debian on PA-RISC. Overall I've found Debian to be the most portable complete Operating Environment. I have not used NetBSD that much so I am not aware of it's current state. It has a reputation for portability, but seams to lag behind in terms of real world testing (many of the ports apparently consist of cross compiling code), and also doesn't seem to have as many packages as Debian. Overall it just looks less up to date then Debian or OpenBSD.

Re:Architectures.

[saintlupus]

Last time I checked was quite a while ago -- I think Woody was current, or perhaps the one before that (Slink?). At the time I was looking to install a *nix on an old 680x0 machine, and I ended up going with NetBSD rather than Linux because I couldn't find anything suitable for the target machine. Thanks for the update, I appreciate it.

Also on the subject of other architectures, is there any commonly available ARM hardware besides the NSLU that I could install Debian on? I'd like to play with it.

--saint

Re:Architectures.

[mattyrobinson69]

its rock solid on our AMD64 hardware (yes, sarge isn't official on AMD64, but weve not had any problems)

Re:Architectures.

[Curien]

I've been running it happily on my Alpha since potato.

Re:Architectures.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not used NetBSD that much so I am not aware of it's current state.

That's fine, so end of story?

but seams to lag behind in terms of real world testing

First of all, "seams" are things you sew.

(many of the ports apparently consist of cross compiling code)

I see that as a strength of the build system and the codebase - built a release on a m68k, vax, hpcmips hardware recently, have you?

and also doesn't seem to have as many packages as Debian.

pkgsrc has 6110 packages (as at 2006Q1). Doubtless, Debian does have more packages. NetBSD has everything I have ever needed both on the desktop and servers. YMMV. For me, it's not the amount of third party apps that an OS has, it's if the *works* for me...

Overall it just looks less up to date then Debian or OpenBSD.

Whoa, there's one from left field. Up to *date*?

How does one measure that? With Features?

For example, is having Xen support up to date? e.g.
* NetBSD 3.x will run as Xen 2 dom0, or domU, or, Xen 3 domU.
* The -current version of NetBSD also runs as Xen 3 dom0.

And as for pkgsrc being up to date? From the recent 2006Q1 announcement:

* gnome-2.14
* kde-3.5.3
* opera-9.0
* perl-5.8.8
* postgresql-8.1.4
* thunderbird-1.5.0.4

Pkgsrc, of course, officially supports AIX, BSD/OS, Darwin (Mac OS X), DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD, IRIX, Interix, Linux, NetBSD, OSF1, OpenBSD, and SunOS (Solaris).

Or is "up to date" about the versions of installed software in the OS?

One of my -current machines:

NetBSD XEN3FOO 3.99.23 NetBSD 3.99.23 (XEN3FOO) #1: Fri Jul 21 11:39:34 UTC 2006
* gcc version 4.1.2 20060628 prerelease (NetBSD nb2 20060711)
* OpenSSH_4.3 NetBSD_Secure_Shell-20060204, OpenSSL 0.9.8b 04 May 2006
* wpa_supplicant v0.4.9
* postfix/master[21663]: daemon started -- version 2.3.0, configuration /etc/postfix
* ipf: IP Filter: v4.1.13 (396)

If you really want to know what's happening with NetBSD, why not start here:

http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/changes-4.0.html.

And maybe next time, do some research?

Preview Release

[marciot]

Preview release is here

(with apologies to the debian developers... I couldn't resist)

Re:Preview Release

[creepynut]

You know, funny you should mention that. I've been using Ubuntu for at least a year, first tried it about 2 years ago. When Dapper came out I was amazed, all the configuration tools, menu editor, update manager and such.

I'd used Debian before, but not a lot, probably around GNOME 2.6 and lower. That all certainly wasn't there. Then, I decided to fire up VMWare and install Debian Etch just to see how things are moving. It was practically Ubuntu without the splash screen and Add/Remove Programs in the Applications menu.

Now, granted, I know that is certainly not the only thing the folks at Ubuntu have been up to, but it goes to show that Ubuntu isn't the only one making progress in the Linux world. Debian is still chugging along, faster than ever it looks to me, and Ubuntu is benefitting from that more than anyone.

Re:Preview Release

[BigCheese]

More like October when Edgy is released.

I just converted my home server from Sarge to Dapper because I needed a couple of more current things (Python 2.4.3).

Re:Preview Release

[frovingslosh]

More like get it from the Debian website, wehere it has long been available as the "testing" version. Other than adding an occasional driver and a lot of hype, I don't see any real benefit to Unbutu, which is based on Debian anyway. The "live CD" sucks (relatively speaking to other Live CDs), and I have found no reason to install it instead of Etch, which I already have installed on a couple of systems.

Re:Preview Release

[G Morgan]

Thats an old complaint, why don't you you mention the pornography in one of the earlier versions as well.

Fair enough it was pure madness but isn't a current problem.

Re:Preview Release

[Brunellus]

Flamebait, pure and simple. Listen up, Debianistas: the only hard and fast requirements are encoded in the licenses under which software is released. So, comrades, point to me how the ubuntu project (or any of the other Debian daughters, like, say Xandros) violate the terms of the licenses under which software in the Debian project is released?

How about "Not at all?" Take your bitterness, compact it into a pill, and swallow that.

The whole Debian/Ubuntu internecine bitchfest reminds me a lot of the communists I knew on campus--the Maoist faction couldn't even be seen with the Stalinist faction. Did anybody but them care? No. But I'm sure they had a lot of fun in their respective cell meetings, counting the meagre takings of their pamphlet sales (which had to be on alternate days, lest they have to share space with the traitors from the other side)

Re:Preview Release

[Lord of Hyphens]

I just converted my home server from Sarge to Dapper because I needed a couple of more current things (Python 2.4.3).

Now why exactly did you swap out the entire distro when all you needed was a few packages? Just curious. Why not double-check the dependencies on what you wanted and compile/install them yourself? It'd would've saved you a reconfiguration (at the very least). I believe you can upgrade any package you please. Well, except maybe for glibc. Upgrading glibc is pain.


My Linux install started life as Slackware 10.2 (2.4 kernel), but it sure doesn't look like it anymore.

Re:Preview Release

[Anonymous Coward]

Lousy analogy. Debian and Ubuntu are not on the equal footing - one's dependent on the other. Unless your Maoists are dependent on Stalinists, or vice-versa. It is in the interest of Ubuntu and other Debian-derived distro to ensure Debian remains healthy.

Re:Preview Release

[Homology]

The whole Debian/Ubuntu internecine bitchfest reminds me a lot of the communists I knew on campus--the Maoist faction couldn't even be seen with the Stalinist faction. D

Many years ago a classmate went to USA as part of a high school exhange program. When he came back he had this hilarious, but tragic, story : The US higschool he attended had pupils wanting to have a soda machine to buy Coca Cola, so they asked other pupls to contribute what they could. The entire project was cut down because it was "communist".

Re:Preview Release

[Brunellus]

Point taken. I brought up the anecdote because I'm detecting the same level of bitterness and consequent ineffectiveness.

My main question, though, remains: No matter how Debianistas bitch, nobody has shown me any positive reason that Ubuntu and its community should simply bow to Debian's every wish. This is Free Software, right? If you really believe in Free Software, you CANNOT bitch about what happens when someone takes the sources from your project and builds on them, even if they build in ways that you did not anticipate or would have intended to build. Instead of having the courage of its convictions, the community seems more content to indulge in infantile bickering.

Re:Preview Release

[Scaba]

Reminds me more of the old "People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front" feud.

Re:Preview Release

[creepynut]

Hey sorry if I came off as flamebait.

I'm an avid Ubuntu user, and I've been using it since Warty Warthhog. It's been my primary OS on my notebook since a bit into the Preview releases of Dapper Drake.

I love Ubuntu, and while I used to recommend Fedora Core, Ubuntu is all I recommend these days. However, I'm simply acknowledging the hard work the Debian team does. They're both great distros, but Debian lacks the Desktop polish I like in Ubuntu. Little things, like a splash screen and the community support is second to none.

I also know that Ubuntu contributes back to the community, and it does to a great job on hardware support, hence the "Ubuntu Hardware Database." My laptop has never run Linux so well since Dapper Drake was installed.

Ubuntu gets two thumbs up from me, and my post was 100% NOT flamebait.

Re:Preview Release

[Homology]

Flamebait, pure and simple. Listen up, Debianistas: the only hard and fast requirements are encoded in the licenses under which software is released. So, comrades, point to me how the ubuntu project (or any of the other Debian daughters, like, say Xandros) violate the terms of the licenses under which software in the Debian project is released?

Learn to read: No one claimed that Obonto violated licensenses. Obonto is just another commercial outfit that attempts to latch on the precieved goodwill of open source while advocating and encouraging binary blobs.

Re:Preview Release

[Brunellus]

If Ubuntu has violated no license or broken no law, then would people do us the great favour of shutting the fuck up already? Goodwill is not enforceable. It may be desireable, but it is not a necessary condition for progress in the Free Software ecosystem. Is it just me, or is the Debian project moving a LOT faster now that the Debian Daughter Distributions--Ubuntu included!--have vastly expanded the pool of developers, testers and users?

We don't have to like each other. But it would be nice if we could appreciate what we mean to each other collectively.

Re:Preview Release

[gustavofranco]

Probably you're ack'ing our work on desktop environment task, a subset of the work in the tasksel package. Everybody else can benefit of this just selecting after base installation that they want the desktop environment! I'm directly involved on this and added update-manager and other stuff there. Feedback is welcome. :)

If you're using 'testing' you can do aptitude update && aptitude install desktop gnome-desktop . Enjoy! More documentation to come with a new desktop related web page soon.

Re:Preview Release

[GnuAge]

Did anybody but them care? No.

Ummm, you obviously didn't care or you would have realized that Maoists ARE Stalinists. MouseyDung and his acolytes never had a problem with ol' Uncle Joe, just with the Social Imperialists who rose to the leadership a few years after he died. The CCP still trots out a portrait of Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili on the side of the Great Hall Of The People on ceremonial occasions. Speaking of trots, it is probably the Trotskyites/ists that you are thinking of, not the Maoists feuding with Stalinists. As I said to a Sparticist buddy of mine "Sects, sects, sects, that's all you ever talk about."

Actually, the Stalinist iconography has always been a bit of an embarassment to Western Maoists. I remember a Maoist bookstore in Berkeley in the seventies (now a Fish'N'Chips shop, I believe) where if you bought four portraits of the great socialist leaders (Marx, Engels, Lenin & Mao, presumably) they'd throw in a fifth poster of the Late, Great Man Of Steel for free (a 50 cent value!) A bargain at half the price.

Re:Preview Release

[Homology]

We don't have to like each other. But it would be nice if we could appreciate what we mean to each other collectively.

Sure I appreciate what so many users stand for: demands for binary blobs instead of hardware documentation, and then the same users claim it is "immpossible to release it documentation" or demand that I show what business case there is to release said documentation.

I see Obonto as a perversion of what Open Source stands for, but hey, the other commercials distros are following closely.

Re:Preview Release

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I have to ask: Is your U key broken or what?

Re:Preview Release

[BigCheese]

There were a few others like Subversion and Dovecot. Frankly, I just wanted to get more current software on a better schedule then "around once a year". I get that with Ubuntu.

Re:Preview Release

[redcane]

apt-get -t testing python?

Re:Preview Release

[Petrushka]

Gpp wasn't referring to you, but to this reply to your post. Which was most definitely flamebait. (I guess you might need to change your threshold to see it normally.)

Re:Preview Release

[intangible]

I don't know, seems to be a great way to gain Karma :P

Re:Preview Release

[jsight]

Glad to hear that xenophobia is common everywhere. :rollseyes:

Hopefully you realize that story is likely to be completely bogus, right? For starters, noone is likely to have to pay to get a soda machine put into a school. :)

Re:Preview Release

[BigCheese]

It was a hybrid testing/backports/stable server. With Ubuntu it's just Dapper.

Re:Preview Release

[Techman83]

Debian = Smooth Slick and lean, good for servers etc. Very Stable

Ubunutu = Bells and Whistles, Makes a great desktop working evironment.

Simple...

Re:Preview Release

[Gleng]

My Linux install started life as Slackware 10.2 (2.4 kernel), but it sure doesn't look like it anymore.

Hah, that's what I loved about Slackware. When I used it for a few years, people would ask me what distro I used, and I would say "Well, it used to be Slackware..."

Re:Preview Release

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to understand what is insightful about the parent post. I hope the meta mods will do their job.

Re:Preview Release

[Respect_my_Authority]

Is it just me, or is the Debian project moving a LOT faster now that the Debian Daughter Distributions--Ubuntu included!--have vastly expanded the pool of developers, testers and users?

This is the way it looks to me, too. MEPIS switched from Debian to Ubuntu, complaining that it had become too difficult to follow Debian Testing because it was changing in such a fast pace. Well, Debian's fast progress might be bad news for the derivative distros but it's certainly good news for the users. :-)

Re:Preview Release

[jfcarroll]

You have it backwards. The reason Debian has progressed so much is precisely due to Ubuntu. The Ubuntu programmers make changes to the source code and then pass the changes up. Debian 4.0 wouldn't be coming out this year if it weren't for Ubuntu.

Why?

[Espectr0]

The world needs a stable distribution for servers. Seems Debian is risking its default model for stability in order to appear being updated often.

I wonder if Ubuntu has got something to do with it...

How many years passed between debian 3.0 and 3.1? The changes were big, and now in so much less time a whole number (4.0) gets released.

What are the differences besides using a recent kernel for the first time?

Re:Why?

[pathological liar]

Official AMD64 support is a big one. The new kernel may-or-may not be necessary, depending on whether they backported the fixes for AMD64 to 2.6.8 or whatever they're stuck on currently. That's also important, because the bugs were pretty severe (random thread crashing.) SecureAPT is a nice touch as well. Xorg is a reasonable and probably not-too-disruptive change. GCC could be disruptive, but probably won't be that big a deal.

Re:Why?

[14CharUsername]

It probably does have something to do with Ubuntu. With so many people using and developing ubuntu, the newer versions of the software in debian's repositories will be better tested than their current stable versions. The whole point of debian sticking with older software was that it was better tested. But if everyone's using newer versions of the packages, the older versions aren't being as well tested. So there really is no point in staying with the older packages.

Re:Why?

[FictionPimp]

Until they dont require a chroot to use 32bit apps and you can just apt-get firefox32 or something similar I do not believe they have amd64 support.

Re:Why?

[KiloByte]

That's not "amd64" support what you're talking about, that's "i386 on amd64".

Re:Why?

[bn-7bc]

Hmm here is an idea: Make a derbian Enterprise distribution (akin to RHEL) guarentied backwards comaatebility and pathces for 5 years, and let debia stable become more cuting edge. In this way the users stay happy when they get new features fast. And server admins with DeBian Enterprise Linux (DEL Hmm better look for a different acronym) will be happy with having a rock solid and patched sytem. Agrre/Dissagree: PLZ tell me youre thoughts on my idea

Re:Why?

[mattyrobinson69]

hmm, best go remove it from the amd64 server i installed and maintain - that has a great need for 32-bit firefox...

Re:Why?

[Phillup]

You have firefox on a server?

Re:Why?

[mattyrobinson69]

no, i was being sarcastic, as the gp claimed debian dont support amd64, as there is no way of running firefox without a 32bit chroot

Re:Why?

[lanswitch]

I suggest that you put some kind of spell-checker into those distro's.

Re:Why?

[Phillup]

It appears that I got lost in the thread somewhere... (must have been trying to work)

Thanks for putting me back on track!

Merry X(windows)mas

[Anonymous Coward]

and a Happy GNU Year!

Re:Merry X(windows)mas

[cerberusss]

Merry X(windows)mas!

[condescending unix computer user mode ON]
HELLO? it's either MerryXmas or Merry The X Window Systemmas.

[condescending unix computer user mode OFF]

hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahaha

Oh, you'rs serious???!!!!!

Nah, I'm just joking. I'm a debian user. I believe you.

kernel

[ciscon]

i hope they didn't remove drivers from the kernel.... again.

Re:kernel

[HighOrbit]

i hope they didn't remove drivers from the kernel.... again.

I don't know if you are trolling or not, but I'll bite

As explained in this pdf file about the debian kernel here, they remove non-free drivers. I understand why they do it, but I could see where it would be annoying if your hardware was effected. Here is a quote from the pdf:

As the kernel is a core part of the Operating System it is in main And thus must comply with the DFSG Because of this, some source files are removed or modified This generally means the removal of drivers that include binary firmware blobs

On a related note, I sometimes get the feeling that they don't spend as much time polishing some of the rough edges off the kernel the way the Redhat people do with kernel patches and backports. But that is probably to be expected since they are (i'm guessing) mostly volunteers and not paid (like I'm sure the redhat engineers are). Regardless, I'm not looking a gift-horse in the mouth and I am thankful for their efforts. I'm a happy debian-stable user and look forward to etch.

Re:kernel

[pklinken]

module-assistant is a nice utility for installing (and updating) external modules e.g. wireless device drivers or nvidia drivers
http://packages.debian.org/testing/devel/module-as sistant

Re:kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness! I have no end of trouble with RH because they patch so heavily that I have started calling it a "RH kernel" rather than a Linux kernel. Perhaps it is just the stuff I do, but I have to download and compile a vanilla kernel from kernel.org before I can start working on the machine. (For the curious, I do networking research which requires me to modify the kernel source. But I have also had the problem when patches for new hardware are not supported in the RH kernel.)

Finally

[scenestar]

Debian sarge has a near ancient feel for desktop use.

after mucking around With all those new desktop distros out there it will be refreshing to go back to good ole debian.

(Don"t give me that crap about apt-pinning, I know what it is, but I prefer simple apt-get freshness)

Re:Finally

[creepynut]

Sarge might be a year old, but it's hardly ancient.

At least it's got GTK2. I remember using the Stable (Woody, I believe) when Sarge was in testing. Now, this was when the 2.6 kernel had been out for some time.

I was AMAZED by how utterly difficult the installer was to use. And the default kernel was 2.2, just.. wow. It didn't have any GTK2, so I was discovering Gnome 1.x for the first time, also not a pleasant experience. My first dive into Linux some time before that was Mandrake, with KDE (which version is a mystery).

Of course, then I learned of the Testing distro, and I stuck with that.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the Sarge on desktop isn't that cool, but we will ship GNOME 2.14 and KDE 3.x and maybe some parts of GNOME 2.16 will be in Etch too. The debian installer guesses if you want and have the hardware to install a desktop environment, and after installing the base system it shows you the good and old task selection where you can select/unselect that. laptops will be auto detected and it will select the laptop task for you too. The default desktop is GNOME but the user and custom debian distributions can change to KDE. We're still improving some stuff there, but it will be cool and can be already tested, if you give the weekly images a try. They're at www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer.

-- stratus

Re:Finally

[cortana]

GTK 2 was present in Woody: http://packages.debian.org/oldstable/libs/libgtk2. 0-0

is there an election or something?

[mathx]

I thought debian only released in presidential election years...?

-math

Re:is there an election or something?

[elzurawka]

Sometimes, when there is avery bad president, they choose to do it durring the congressional Elections

Re:is there an election or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought debian only released in presidential election years...?

Historically, there have been new presidents for other reasons. Maybe the Debian guys know something we don't, or just really love Jodie Foster.

</grassy knoll>

Re:is there an election or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought debian only released in presidential election years...?

That would mean several times an year! But if you were thinking "once in about 4years on average", you are living in your own special nest with your "Mom" feeding you what she wishes. Get out of the nest and you will be amazed to see the world.

Re:is there an election or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

in election years and in impeachment years

Re:is there an election or something?

[baadger]

Hey thats still more frequent than the trend Microsoft is setting

Improved install?

[PurifyYourMind]

It's been quite some time since I've tried Debian, but I remember the installer being pretty difficult. Does anyone know if this has been improved, and how it compares to other medium-difficulty distributions?

Re:Improved install?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it improved a lot since Sarge and we will deliver with an optional GUI installer too. Preview screenshots at: http://osdir.com/Article7765.phtml

-- stratus

Re:Improved install?

[dosius]

3.1 (Sarge) was a breeze to install. Did it twice. Almost as easy as Ubuntu.

-uso.

Re:Improved install?

[frovingslosh]

I like the Etch installer, greatly improved over Sarge. You can try it now, just install "testing". Only problem that I had with it was that on a 4 partition system it refused to install Grub to the Linux partition where I wanted it and insisted in putting it in the MBR (clearly no good reason for this, since the older Debian Sarge install it replaced had Grub where I wanted it).

Re:Improved install?

[creepynut]

Could that be because the installer is the same? :)

Re:Improved install?

[KiloByte]

Even Woody installer had the benefit of being stable. Try to install Ubuntu without random crashes all the way, including some Python entrails thrown into your face.

I had the unpleasant experience of watching someone install Ubuntu Dapper recently; it's on the level of Windows! Eye-candy thrown in, everything hidden from the user, random faults without any reasonable way to debug.

I would put an installer that works over one which looks pretty.

Re:Improved install?

[Valthan]

Hmm... And I thought Sarge was fairly easy to install on my machine... Even my ATI card worked, much to my pleasure when everyone says they can't get them working with Linux...

Re:Improved install?

[EQ]

"Try to install Ubuntu without random crashes all the way, including some Python entrails thrown into your face."

OK - I take you up on that offer. I tried - and had 17 installs without a single "random crash all the way" nor any "Python entrails".

Your statement sounds like bullshit to me. Random crashes? Yeah right - if that were the case Ubuntu/Xunbuntu/Kubuntu would be hammered all over the place on the web. I think you're lying or else not using the latest release, or else are trying to still use your old 386SX PC as the install platform.

The 14 (Yes 14, I did several offices in a R&D area, per company policy no imaging allowed) scratch installs I did all went smoothly - no "entrails" nor any other faults. 6.06 LTS was smooth as silk. Same goes replacing Redhat ES3 with a server install for one of the researchers who did the install himself.

The 3 I did at home: no problem. Set right up, replacing a cranky Fedora install, a SuSE 9.3 (my main PC) and a Gentoo setup that I left to rot long ago.

So I have no idea what you are talking about (and I doubt you do either) - if in doubt, take the text install and it just works. And whats wrong with it looking like Windows? That's far better than the standard crap installer Debian has been saddled with since forever in their release line. Or the FreeBSD installer prior to the latest.

I believe your complaints to be exaggerated or else simply lies for a troll - or else one of those disgruntled Debian Purist types that shows up in every Ubuntu discussion.

Good luck with things - if you are having troubles that don't seem to exist for much anyone else, then you're going to need it.

Re:Improved install?

[Alphager]

I did 3 Installs of 6.06. . All 3 lacked something and/or crashed during install. 5.10 worked great; The new graphical installer has some issues when you go "back" (which i often do during the partitioning-process because it never does what i want it to do).

Re:Improved install?

[KiloByte]

I do not claim that I know Ubuntu. What I claim is that two different attempts to install 6.06 on two completely different machines kept failing badly, and this is 2 of 2 installs I witnessed.

One of these installs was done by an educated but non-technical user (one of the biologist types who churn huge number-crunching programs). On every try one of the following problems appeared:
* partman crashed without a word (the most usual one)
* a dialog popped up during the debootstrap phase, filled with random Python entrails (happened twice)
* a dialog with nothing but "The installer crashed [Ok]" without any extra information (happened thrice)
* network config locking up (with iwconfig being stuck in interruptible sleep; too bad, the user vehemently denied all my offers to help, so I couldn't investigate this more closely)
The machine was known to be good -- it used to dual boot an earlier Ubuntu and Win2k, then just Win2k for a while after a disk upgrade.

Such tries went on for many hours. I would personally skip the installer and debootstrap it by hand, but I kept getting told that if the installer can't be forced to work, the rest will be incapable of being forced to work as well -- so I let the user continue, just watching (while doing some idle other tasks myself).
The next day, I she told me she switched to Gentoo which installed cleanly the first time. Oh well.

or else one of those disgruntled Debian Purist types that shows up in every Ubuntu discussion.

Yeah, I'm a Debian user/maintainer. No, this is not an Ubuntu discussion -- it's one about vanilla Debian with just a few digressions about Ubuntu.

Re:Improved install?

[mandolin]

The ubuntu installer is slick, but it is by no means foolproof.

I sat through a (newbie) friend's Dapper install just days ago, after he said it froze on him. This was the 2nd install attempt on a hard drive previously loaded w/windows.

This time, (and he said it got much farther) the installer froze for quite a while at 84% ... something about a mirror list? This was for 10-15 min or so. It unstuck itself just after I fired up the web browser to see if anybody else had reported this.

The install then completed. After reboot, I couldn't apt-get basic things like 'build-essential'; this turned out to be because /etc/apt/sources.list was messed up -- all the "us.archive.ubuntu.(whatever)" lines had been commented out by the installer (the comments said it couldn't verify them, or something). When I uncommented those lines, that repository appeared to be having problems. Removing the "us." bit from all the lines fixed that.

He was also annoyed that his screen resolution couldn't be tweaked from the GUI beyond 1024x768, which I fixed by mucking with his xorg.conf file.

Re:Improved install?

[poolmeister]

Although Kilobyte's post may have been a bit exaggerated, I agree that compared to Fedora, Debian and even Suse, Ubuntu can end up shockingly unstable after a while.
I stuck it out with Dapper for a few months despite many minor annoyances like having to install many basic packages which in my opinion should have just been there already, like portmap, nfs-kernel-server, samba(maybe?), many fonts, the list went on... not to forget the slow pace of Ubuntu package releases, even in the multiverse repositories
After an apt-get dist upgrade finally hosed the lot I threw in the towel and slapped FC5 back on there and my system's been up to date & stable ever since.

Anyway, my point was that Ubuntu may install nicely and look kinda slick but it may just drive you nuts after a while.

Re:Improved install?

[oatworm]

I don't know what Windows installer the GP's been using, but every one I've tried over the years starts with grey-on-blue text, vague instructions that are often repetitive, no ability to choose what programs I want on there first, no confirmation that it's properly detected my hardware and installed drivers for it until it's already on the machine... even Sarge was better than that.

Re:Improved install?

[pedalman]

Try to install Ubuntu without random crashes all the way, including some Python entrails thrown into your face.

Perhaps it's a problem with faulty RAM. Memtest86+ is your friend. I would also look into dodgy power.

Re:Improved install?

[KiloByte]

Try to install Ubuntu without random crashes all the way, including some Python entrails thrown into your face.

Perhaps it's a problem with faulty RAM. Memtest86+ is your friend. I would also look into dodgy power.

This is good advice; in fact, most experienced people do this on a twitch reflex.

However, the problems were not totally random but happening once in X tries in the same places. Somehow, this is the way Windows tends to fail -- the same places on the same machine, just unreliably[1].

You can't ever be certain, but I believe the hardware was sound. It did work for a long time without any issues, there was quite a bit of time since the box was opened, too.

[1]. Yeah, Windows even crashes unreliably. Go figure.

Re:Improved install?

[amavida]

"Although Kilobyte's post may have been a bit exaggerated, I agree that compared to Fedora, Debian and even Suse, Ubuntu can end up shockingly unstable after a while"

See this is the confusing thing for potential Linux users confronted with all these contradictory anecdotal claims.

I've seen lots of people saying unkind things about Fedora & swearing on their mothers grave that Ubuntu is way better...

Who do you believe?

Big improvements

[phorm]

I found that 2.6.17, with the improved IO handlers, definately added a performance boost to my machines. The main headaches I've had with testing have revolved around X.org 7.x being quite a bit different from previous versions (more componentized) and issues with getting it to work with the NVidia stub (you need to tell it where to find the new lib location), etc.

However, all-in-all I've found that running Debian/testing has gone pretty well, and Debian/stable+backports has worked pretty well too. I'll be looking forward to when the features in testing happily merge back into stable.

Oh, and hopefully the rather-cool FPS Nexuiz will merge into stable as well, as it's pretty impressive to see something like that ending up open-source and available in the standard repositories (it's available in testing+ right now). It's also the first OSS app that's really given my graphics card a run for its money.

3.1 is the new 4.0

[XanC]

There were major changes for Sarge, aka 3.1. Somebody pointed out that it should be 4.0, and everyone agreed, but it was too late in the release cycle to change it. They figured as long as it was higher than 3.0 it didn't really matter.

Re:3.1 is the new 4.0

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right and the freshness of Etch has nothing to do with Ubuntu and Ubuntu development model. A lot of new teams in Debian started after Sarge release and some others worked harder to put more new stuff in and stabilize that. We're still doing this job and the announcement is just our public commitment to release Etch in December, that was the plan of our release team from the start, right after we released Sarge.

-- stratus

Corrected link

[roger6106]

Corrected Nexuiz link.

It's linux for servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite winning some DB2 certifications from IBM, I think most Debian afficionados still prefer Debian-true for server deployment. I use Ubuntu for my Desktop but I've deployed 3 new Debian linux servers in the last 2 months. If Ubuntu's accelerated release cycle did in any way affect the sudden version jump and short gap between sarge and etch, it's aimed at satisfying the server market.

Maybe they'll even finally upgrade the Tomcat packages... it's been at version 4 forever.

Can we also have...

[jo42]

Apache 2.0 and MySQL 5.0?

Re:Can we also have...

[arodland]

Well, considering that Apache2 is in the current release I don't see why it wouldn't be in the next. And so long as no major bugs show up against mysql, I don't see why it wouldn't go in either. Of course even Debian can't protect you from the massive load of bugs that the mysql devs call "features" :)

Re:Can we also have...

[KiloByte]

Apache 2.0 has been in Debian for ages. I'm afraid that you, sir, are a troll.
Also, the plans for 2.2 migration speak about having 2.2 as a replacement instead of putting it side-to-side, so no, Etch probably won't have that Apache 2.0 you want.

MySQL 5.0 was released in October 2005, Sarge in June 2005. So...?

Re:Can we also have...

[cortana]

$ cat /etc/debian_version
3.1

$ apt-cache policy apache2
apache2:
  Installed: 2.0.54-5
  Candidate: 2.0.54-5
  Version table:
*** 2.0.54-5 0
        540 http://ftp.nl.debian.org sarge/main Packages
        540 http://security.debian.org sarge/updates/main Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Didn't PHP 5.0 come out <strong>after</strong> Debian 3.1 ("sarge") was released? Nevertheless, packages are available from <http://backports.org/>.

Re:Can we also have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry you're using logic. The GP is clearly republican so your tactics are useless.

Is it Etchy Eft or Efty Etch?

[njchick]

Oops, it's not Ubuntu, it's just plain Debian.

Will this include biarch support?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last tim I checked, apt-get wouldn't support two architectures on the same install (i.e. 32 bit and 64 library paths). RPM does support this, which is why I ended up choosing Fedora at the time. Does debian 4.0 finally support this, or it still single architecture?

Re:Will this include biarch support?

[Rizzer]

Multiarch is currently under development, see http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/20/.
If I understand correctly, it will not be ready for etch (4.0), but the following stable release seems likely to have it.

Re:Will this include biarch support?

[jesterzog]

Well I run 64 bit Debian etch, and it won't let me install 32 bit packages. It's possible to do so in a completely separate userspace, of course. I wouldn't suggest pure 64 bit linux for desktop use at this point, unless you're happy to put up with occasional crashes of desktop applications... especially Office apps. (I'm happy with this myself.)

Re:Will this include biarch support?

[kchrist]

It includes biatch support, with 10% more shizzle!

Oh, never mind.

The user Debian folks didn't seem to happy

[Anonymous Coward]

... with this announcement from Martin "Joey" Schulze. There was a similar announcement on debian-devel-announce (see http://release.debian.org/20060717), but it didn't contain a specific date.
In a german debian IRC-channel (#debian.de on ircnet) other DDs accused him of sending mails to debian-announce without prior consultation of the release team. German source: http://nopaste.info/877fdb503d.html
--
Moritz
http://moritz.faui2k3.org/

Re:The user Debian folks didn't seem to happy

[Celandine]

If you read all of the debian-devel-announce posting you will see that it does in fact contain a specific date.

Secure APT

[Anonymous Coward]

Secure APT will add extra security by easily supporting strong cryptography and digital signatures to validate downloaded packages.

Wahooo and finally too those features.

Newer GCC than Gentoo stable

[makomk]

Hmmm... so they're moving to GCC 4.1? Hmmph - Gentoo stable is still stuck on the 3.4 series, at least on x86 and most architectures (mind you, it is a source-based distro, and moving to a new GCC major version is a big thing). I thought Debian was supposed to be behind the times, and Gentoo was supposed to be bleeding-edge?

(Seriously, I run Gentoo unstable, but I've deliberately taken measures to avoid upgrading to GCC 4 - still not worth it IMO, at least until I can be sure most software will actually build successfully with it.)

Re:Newer GCC than Gentoo stable

[jsight]

Gentoo is definitely not bleeding-edge when it comes to GCC. They are generally way behind basically everyone else on that front.

Re:Newer GCC than Gentoo stable

[andrel]

You're probably running Gentoo on an x86 and only worried about the Linux kernel, so the limitations of 3.4 don't affect you. Debian switched to 4.1 in part because it fixes problems with the hppa and m68k ports (and the nascent Debian ports to HURD and the FreeBSD kernel), and in part because it has new warnings pointing out code that isn't 64-bit clean.

The exact release date for etch

[SFSouthpaw]

is a bit sketchy.

The relase cycle is speedy!

[dastrike]

At least when compared to MS. Three Debian releases between XP and Vista. And people say Debian is a slow mover.

Well, at least assuming that both "Etch" and Vista will hold their target dates... Is this a too bold assumption to make? Perhaps.

Re:The relase cycle is speedy!

[dacarr]

I'd be more likely to count on Etch coming out as projected +/- 1 month than Vista. But that's just me.

Re:The relase cycle is speedy!

[nicolas.b]

The difference between windows and obsoletes linux : i don't need to update the whole system just to update the gimp because of dependancies and the toolkits. In windows, i can install the latest photoshop or gimp without needing to update the whole fucking system and i don't need package manager doing so much hard work. I hate package management in linux it plain sucks. You can't install GTK2 and modern apps on a debian woody without needing to compile, configure, upgrade, install billions of packages. You can install the gimp with two clicks on an old windows.

My rule is "stable whenever it matters to someone

[frovingslosh]

My rule is "stable whenever it matters to someone else".

Unfortunately, stable and untesting are just terms that Debian uses to refer to the different releases. Debian testing is by far more stable than any version of Windows I have ever used, and for all pratical purposes it is Stable. They could just as well have labeled the Debian versions "new", "stable" and "old" than "unstable","testing" and "stable".

Duke Nukem Forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean we will finally see Duke Nukem Forever?

*ducks*

Maybe Alsa and Wine will talk now....

[Anonymous Coward]

and I will be able to play OpenGL games again???? Then again, maybe not. In Sid, winecfg doesn't show Alsa in the audio tab. Miles Sound keeps Call of Duty from launching, and Google is getting me nowhere.

You're describing GNOME

[Feztaa]

You said yourself in your own post, that you used an old debian with GNOME 2.6, and now you're seeing new features in the new debian and you're impressed with the progress debian is making.

Now, I'm not arguing that debian isn't making progress, but... oooooooh, they packaged the latest GNOME. Any distro that happens to package the latest GNOME also has made all the exact same progress you speak of. So that's kind of meaningless. GNOME has made leaps and bounds of progress in terms of usability, UI consistency, things like that... credit where credit is due man, this is GNOME making progress, not debian.

Re:You're describing GNOME

[Respect_my_Authority]

Precisely. Ubuntu releases are synced with GNOME releases and every new Ubuntu release packages a new version of GNOME. So it looks like Ubuntu is making great progress although it's actually GNOME that is making progress.

When Debian packages the latest GNOME, you suddenly realize that Debian feels very much like Ubuntu. The underlying system in Ubuntu (integration, package management, ideals, carefully thought-out policies, internationalization, documentation, menus, debconf, etc.) comes straight from Debian. Ubuntu just has less developers, less originality, fewer development branches, poorer quality, less supported architectures, less choices, less everything. But it always has the latest GNOME and that's what matters to many users, it seems.

MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least it's gunna beat Vista.

Sarge?

[lky]

I'm running AMD64 SID with gcc 4.1.2 here.

Everything is stable and works well.

Are we losing rock solidness?

[Sithgunner]

Whoever is going to use Debian for desktop can just stand back for a moment. Please go Ubuntu or something else or the testing releases.
Debian should have been the rock solid stable distro that can sit in a server with least maintenance to do against other distro who often break things, update configuration file structure suddenly and change the behaviour of an application than put only security patches back ported.

Sure, getting 2.6 kernel makes many SATA and whatnot to work, but who was making the release cycle? Why did 3.1 take so long and why is 4.0 coming out so soon with massive changes?

I'm starting to doubt Debian would keep up being the most stable solid for use with servers distro.

I mean, a serious network server doesn't need any X for sake, which means all Fedora and whatnot are just out of my way, when it comes to using them as real serving purposes. Now what should I use when Debian starts to be Ubuntu catch up distro? I would go back to some BSD sacrificing performance for the sake of better security model and less maintenance cost.

suggestion

[xmodem_and_rommon]

ever heard of debian "testing" and "unstable"? i'd only advise running the "stable" version on a system that has to be rock-solid. In my experience, testing is perfectly stable (and i think that the stuff in debian testing is typically tested MORE than most distros test there "stable" stuff). ANd YES testing it includes PHP5.

Re:suggestion

[JohnnyBigodes]

So by saying "And YES testing it includes PHP5" you're telling me that according to a little genie in some bottle, PHP 5 somehow needs yet another amount of testing? Maybe what, ten years down the road, when the software is useless, it's deemed "stable"?!

My point is, we are talking about something that has, by anyone's measure, been tested to hell and back, and not just by the Debian people. Just saying "well it's for Debian, it needs testing" isn't really a valid argument when the item in question, such as this one, has already had pretty much all the testing it could have.

Re:suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

"My point is, we are talking about something that has, by anyone's measure"

By anyone's measure, you say? Well, have *you* tested PHP5 with, say squirrelmail, or phpreports, or phpgroupware or htcheck-php, just to name a few? I bet not. Well, Debian people *do* test them.

Testing on Debian Testing is not there in order to test the app/program; if it makes into Testing it is suppoused for the app to be stable enough (otherwise we would be talking about Experimental, if at all). Testing is there in order to test the *integration* of the vast amount of packages, not the programs themselves.

But, of course, this is Slashdot, where unknowledgeable people talking nonsenses is the way to go!

Preventa (Debian/Minix 3)

[mu22le]

And you forgot to mention that the latest porting project: Debian/Minix 3 is dubbed Preventa "Because if it becomes an official Debian port, it is probable that the sheer number of release critical bugs caused will prevent Debian from ever releasing again." :)

Theese are strange days indeed, when one of the best linux distributions plans to support Linus arch-enemy's creature.

BTW this completely in the spirit of Debian, the project is, in fac, not just a Linux distro, but "the universal OS", it is natural for the project to try to include different kernels.

Printing in Debian

[Britz]

I use Debian testing as my main desktop machine at home. They updated the Cupsys packages about a month ago. And now the bug list is so long that my machine hangs when I load said page into Firefox. I seriously doubt that all of them will be fixed before December. Most problems seem to be about GDI printers. But I have a trusty old Laserjet 4 and I need to reeinstall my printer every time I want to use it (I already filed the report). Sarge shipped with a bug in the printing system (most likely gs-esp was the culprit, but I don't know) that crashed the whole printing subsystem if you printed large sized pdf documents. I had a file server that I also used as print server that ran Sarge and because of a disc crash I reinstalled from scratch once and the problem was back.

So Etch would not be the first Debian that ships with a broken print subsystem.

Re:Printing in Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

well, try to force updating packages that are putted in hold. Use unstable, not testing, which is better. Testing means "test it at a given point", but that point can be broken.

Re:process - sligth correction

[Maulkin]

A snapshot is taken of the 'unstable' suite, not the 'testing' one.

4.1 is fine under Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a fresh Gentoo install with 4.1. Went without a hitch except for some extremely stupid GCC 3.4 packaging and dependency concerns that required a stub (hard stuff, I know!)

The reason that upgrading is discouraged is that the new GCC 4 optimization framework is *much slower* for no real benefit (yet). I don't think that sticking with 3.4 is a particularly bad policy. As an aside, a fair number of the linux-kernel people complain when anyone submits a patch that breaks compatability with GCC 2.95. Those aren't dumb or 'behind the times' sort of people, they just like compiling kernels thrice as fast.

a release?

[Bizzeh]

debian making a release within 5 years of a previous release? AND its a major version jump...

dotdeb has up-to-date webserver packages

[Nurgled]

I guess you've probably already solved this for yourself, but for the benefit of anyone else wandering by...

The dotdeb alternative repository has more up-to-date packages aimed at those running "LAMP" servers. It has PHP 5, Apache 2 and MySQL 5 packages (amongst others) that are quickly updated in response to new releases. I use it on my rented server where I provide hosting services to some of my friends and it has worked like a charm so far atop the base Debian Sarge.

Secure APT!

[meridian]

It means nobody will be able to place backdoored files onto the mirrors and edit the md5 sum list without someone quickly noticing! Pity they already hacked the Debian core dev server and backdoored Debian further up the tree
Heh WHO KNOWS but at least apt secure is finally making it into the stable version. I am wondering if its only checking the Release.gpg or if the .deb packages will actually be signed as well
At least they notice they get hacked and release the information that this has happened. Unlike what any company driven distro would be doing.

Re:Secure APT!

[stevey]

I am wondering if its only checking the Release.gpg or if the .deb packages will actually be signed as well

It only needs to check the Release file, since that contains the hashes of the "Packages" files, which in turn contain the hashes of the .deb files.

If the checksums file apt will give errors.

December...

[ashtonb]

2007

Daughters of Debian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a new porn movie? Where can I get it?

[Ducks and runs]