Slashdot Mirror
Debian 4.0 'Etch' Released
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier today we discussed the possibility that Debian Etch might be released soon. Well, according to debian.org, it has already happened. Etch has been released: 'The Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of Debian GNU/Linux version 4.0, codenamed etch, after 21 months of constant development. Debian GNU/Linux is a free operating system which supports a total of eleven processor architectures and includes the KDE, GNOME and Xfce desktop environments. It also features cryptographic software and compatibility with the FHS v2.3 and software developed for version 3.1 of the LSB.'"
Surely anybody doing anything like that would be rolling thier own kernel anyway? The only time I've used the Debian supplied kernels is when installing, soon as that's done I always compile a fresh one.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
I think this new Debian release is good news for Ubuntu which relies on it, so their next release can be on the 4.0 foundation.... but why would Debian want to compete with Ubuntu? They both have different goals in mind. I love Ubuntu to death, but with the 6 month release cycle, it feels like it's always advancing, but also not as stable as something that I would want to use on a server.
not everyone's got the time and rarely anyone has the need. don't be a gentoo user.
These guys are going to analtate themselves into oblivion. I know this is flamebait, but who takes a distro seriously with such jems such as;
... is now finally deprecated on Debian systems"
1: "...the Debian Security Team may come to a point where supporting Mozilla products is no longer feasible and announce the end of security support for Mozilla products."
2: "register_globals
lol?
It takes a skilled, yet very short bussed person to have any thing to do with such garbage.
not everyone's got the time and rarely anyone has the need. don't be a gentoo user.
That's pretty ignorant. Few if any pieces of software have the number of compile time options as the Linux kernel. Even if you module-ize everything you possibly can, there are still many choices you make that you are bound to, such as IO schedulers and pre-empting.
Any serious Linux user is capable of and knows the value of compiling their own kernel.
God Fucking Damnit
<pedant>No, begging the question is assuming the answer. It justs asks the question.</pedant>
Anyway debian provides a wonderful, stable server distro with the best free software out there. If you want stuff like proprietary audio and video codecs, you can probably get or compile them, but it's not the primary goal of debian. You might be better off with something else.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
If you have no test system and the machine is providing service to users then do not upgrade to .0 releases. It's simple common sense. Maybe you had some overwhelming need to get this release that goes against the need to keep service reliable but you didn't mention it so I'll assume not. Let other people do the testing of that .0 release to find all the bugs and huge gotchas that are basically inevitable.
You know I spent a couple of years bitching about how slow Debian is to upgrade. Now I say let them be slow. They serve some market and plenty of other distributions serve those that want more up to date systems. Why change Debian? Slow releases are a core feature.
The reason why it slipped through the release engineering for the new stable release is quite simply because no one reported it as a bug.
If someone had reported it, it would have been dealt with and otherwise resolved. Indeed, it may still be resolved in a point release, but it definetly won't be unless you (or someone like you) who experiences the bug files a bug in the bug tracking system (using reportbug or your MUA). Since (as of a few days ago) no one has filed such a bug related in anyway to MULTIPATH_CACHED, it has not been fixed.
Considering the sheer number of people who (supposedly) use testing, none of whom apparently found the bug and/or bothered to report it, it was just not a popular feature to have been tested properly. Like it or not, a critical part of Debian's QA are the users who are using the testing and unstable distributions and reporting bugs. If they don't find it, no one will. (In case you haven't figured it out yet, there's nothing magical about being a Debian Developer in this regard; we're users too, and do the same type of testing.)
http://www.donarmstrong.com
It's Ubuntu's dad.
You know I spent a couple of years bitching about how slow Debian is to upgrade. Now I say let them be slow. They serve some market and plenty of other distributions serve those that want more up to date systems. Why change Debian? Slow releases are a core feature.
Actually, ''testing'' is usually reasonably current. If not, you can roll your own package or lock the package and install your own stuff over it. A bit of a pain, but that way I had X11 support for my 7600GT well before Debian had it.
I will likely be going to the next ''testing'' in a month or so.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
When you start with Linux, you use the stock kernel, because it is easily available and works. When you gain experience, you start to compile your own. When you become a professional sysadmin, you use the stock kernels, because they are easily available and work.
> Any serious Linux user is capable of
... not), and then forget to reenable it when they switch back!
Yeah. Except they always seem to end up disabling initrd for some unknown reason ("initrd is hard, man..."
> and knows the value of compiling their own kernel.
Yup. 0, to me, except if I do some forms of kernel hacking.
The statment "Everyone serious compiles their own kernel anyway" is just not true.
They could instantly surpass Ubuntu by pretty much adding all the stuff Ubuntu does (it's all FOSS anyway, right?), but making these small changes:
1. Give users an option to use commercial drivers right off. The new Ubuntu is doing this, but the implementation is still a little rough around the edges, and it's not at all clear that commercial drivers are frequently better than the FOSS ones, which is certainly true for GPU issues.
2. Default to Iceweasel and Icebird. Debian does this already, so they are a leg up. True FOSS is true FOSS, right? And for some dumb reason Ubuntu still defaults to Evolution.
3. Make it even easier to turn on compiz/beryl. Still pretty hard even in feisty, requires xorg.conf editing and such... Lame.
4. Make the default menu look more like windows. You know: "Start" menu, Quicklaunch, App running display (with preview), System Tray, Clock/Calender. Eliminate the top bar that gnome defaults to.
5. Have four potentially different wall papers for each desktop. The first distro to do this is ahead of the Linux Pack.
6. Include some really good foss games. You know, games with 3d sound and video, and online multiplayer. Urban Terror is free (as in beer). Use that one, till a better full FOSS alternative comes along. Hell ioquake3 with the original quake 3 demo files would be better than what most distros ship with.
7. Have Iceweasel, Icebird, Pidjin, Tomboy Notes, and Open Office Writer automatically in the quick launch.
8. Make it REALLY EASY to get EVERY CODEC.
9. Install Wine, and while you're at it, fix wine so that you can easily create a launcher on the desktop to any windows app, running under wine, that runs like intended right off the bat.
10. Have a gorgeous theme by default. For some reason the Ubuntu crowd is obsessed with shit brown. This is the part that is easiest to beat Ubuntu on.
Do this, and Debian will be THE distro for everyone, and easily supplant Ubuntu, Windows, and Mac OS X.
Do it not, and remain the odd arcane distro that only a few back room IT nerds use while half assed FOSS OSes (that duplicate each other's efforts, and rarely work that well out of the box) continually lag behind the corporate behemoths that have already got themselves pre installed on 90% of sold computers as it is (Windows/Mac).
I mean, or just stay private and personal, and to hell with saving the world, which seems like the current Linux mantra.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The reason is not that it has not been reported as a bug _To Debian_. It has been reported multiple times to others, perhaps to LKML?
The problem is that Debian doesn't more or less automatically read these bug reports. The mentality is that "if it's not reported to debian, it's not a bug". This eases the burden of being a package maintainer, but it certainly doesn't help Debian or the users.
What is needed, is cooperation of bug-reporting cross-distro, at least for bugs that are not distro-specific. Do we really need dozens of bug-reports for the same bug?
And to clarify: This is not Debian-specific.
Any serious Linux user is capable of and knows the value of compiling their own kernel.
Which includes knowing when it is not necessary to do so. Unless you have extremely strange hardware, or very esoteric requirements for the system, the packaged kernels are absolutely fine. Building your own gains very little over the packaged kernels in these circumstances, either in performance or convenience; it will probably actually make life more complicated, as you will need to keep your kernel up-to-date manually, rather than just using the newer packaged kernel for your distro.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
Ubuntu users do. Ubuntu completely relies on the Debian upstream packages for each release. Ubuntu them patches everything and submits the patches back to Debian. You could argue that Ubuntu could do all this by itself but Debian is massive and is known for its high packaging standards which is a good thing. Ubuntu and Debian, at the end of it, are two different things with two different goals. Debian wants stability, Ubuntu wants the latest technology and packages. Ultimately, Debian should still be important for servers and Ubuntu for the desktop. Just don't dismiss Debian yet.
If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
I think at the end of the day it all depends on what you need to support. If you're supporting a single high performance system, well then a hand optimized kernel makes sense.
If you're supporting a few hundred servers then any differences between the systems need to be kept to a minimum.
I think you're trolling, you can count the number of servers you admin on one hand, or you're inexperienced. You might say it's because I'm a lazy slob, I might say it's because I have several hundred machines. While groups of them are the same (6 here, 12 there, etc.), it'd be absurd to even consider what you're suggesting - not to mention the insanity a security update could bring.
I've witnessed attempts by various individuals to fundamentally alter the goals of Debian. Most common is trying to make Debian a more "desktop-oriented" distribution. Good attempts turn out as separate distributions. Honestly, that's how it should stay.
See, Debian not only welcomes child distributions, it thrives on them.
http://www.debian.org/misc/children-distros
At some point in time, I would encourage consideration of Debian's slogan, "The Universal Operating System".
Debian has been and always will be an operating system that equally (as in equity) targets all applications; that's why child distributions are necessary, and why Debian Unstable is so damned important. Child distributions are required to pull the Debian project in a productive direction. Debian Unstable is required to tie the required functionality of child distributions together and, in turn, propagate the benefits to all parties involved.
It doesn't make sense to take a piece of software to any sort of bleeding-edge when it will be deployed world-wide on Debian servers and Debian routers. Furthermore, the fact that a child-distribution is already working to "sex up the desktop" is evidence that Debian need not take initiative in such a direction; it's already involved.
I use Debian, because nothing else meets my needs.
Debian - Gives the user control to choose what they want to use, more packages more options..
Ubuntu - Makes most of the initial choices for the user..
Debian - manual configuration of a lot of items..
Ubuntu - a bit better at auto-configuration of hardware.
Debian - Etch 20,400+ Packages in the official repository
Ubuntu - Fiesty I think it's around 6000 Packages but can't find a stat anywhere to confirm exact munber.
Debian 13 hardware Architectures i386, x86-64, PowerPC, 68k, SPARC, DEC Alpha, ARM, MIPS, HPPA, S390, IA-64, AMD64, Intel EM64T
Ubuntu 3 Hardware Architectures i386, AMD64, PowerPC,
I've used child distros in the past an always ran into problems. I would then switch to the parent distros to get away from the problems.. So I use Debian rather than one of it's numerous children to prevent a repeat of my previous experiences. http://www.debian.org/misc/children-distros
far...out
It's called debian stable. It should use stable, tested features. Enabling experimental features and not doing exhaustive testing puts this kernel release directly into the "amateur" camp, which is sad because Debian is a mainstay.
Do you not understand? Exhaustive testing is done by YOU! and me, and the original poster who seems to have accomplished the epitome of bad administration. It's our job to try and break the betas, alphas and RCs. It's our fault if the final release doesn't work with our exotic setup. It's amazing how the concept of Linux escapes some people. Linux is us. Us is Linux. IOW: We have seen the enemy, and he is us.
It's labeled experimental for a reason. That means don't use it in production because it may change and if it is not currently broken, it probably will be later.
No, it means that the code looks good, everything seems reasonable, but we were unable to account for anything more than 99.9% of things. If you think you're outside of 2+ standard devations, please be cautious when trying this option. If your machine isn't anything funky, you'll be just fine.
And frankly I am tired of seeing the argument of "better than windows". Well, whoop de fucking shit. Windows 2000 is by all reports a better operating system than Vista (in terms of doing what you want it to do) but I wouldn't use either to operate a nuclear power plant. Besides, the EULA forbits it. Explicitly.
Guess I struck a chord. I'll leave Windows out of this, then.