Debian 6.0 Released In GNU/Linux, FreeBSD Flavors

itwbennett writes "After two years of work, the Debian Project has announced the release of Debian 6.0. 'There are many goodies in Debian 6.0 GNU/Linux, not the least of which is the new completely free-as-in-freedom Linux kernel, which no longer contains firmware modules that Debian developers found troublesome,' says blogger Brian Proffitt. And in addition to Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is introduced as a technology preview. 'Debian GNU/kFreeBSD will port both a 32- and 64-bit PC version of the FreeBSD kernel into the Debian userspace, making them the first Debian release without a Linux kernel,' says Proffitt. 'The Debian Project is serious about the technology preview label, though: these FreeBSD-based versions will have limited advanced desktop features.' The release notes and installation manual have been posted, and installation images may be downloaded right now via bittorrent, jigdo, or HTTP."

Comments

I love it!

[no known priors]

I'm a Ubuntu user, but I know where it comes from. Debian has been the dream operating system of mine for ages. Easy to install thousands of packages, stable, safe, etc. The only trouble is, when I first tried to install it in 2007, I couldn't get it to work with my wireless card. Ubuntu just worked. I'm going to guess that it wouldn't work now either; my wireless card is one of those Intel ones with the locked up firmware so that I don't start spamming the airwaves... (If I recall correctly the software is ipw2200, or similar.)

Anyway, one thing I note from the press release, is that it is still including OpenOffice.org 3.2.1. I wonder when they'll get LibreOffice (Ubuntu will get it in the 11.4 release).

Great job Debian!

Re:I love it!

[clang_jangle]

That's the whole reason Ubuntu exists though, for people who lack the time or ability or whatever to just install and configure Debian (which exists for people who lack the time or ability or whatever to just build gentoo, which exists for people who lack time or ability or whatever to just create their own private distro from scratch, which of course is for people who lack time or ability or whatever to just go ahead and code their own custom OS using vi or emacs...).

Re:yay. two more variants that nobody will want.

[johnw]

Can you provide an actual example of Debian fans complaining in the way you indicate, or is it all in your imagination?

Debian tends to be the way it is because Debian users (and builders) like it that way. Of course they do end up being rather smug as well, but complaints about those who choose to use lesser distributions are notably absent.

Re:NetBsd kernel...what's the advantage?

[rtfa-troll]

... it has always befuddled me as to why they didn't 'just use' BSD instead.

To be honest, believing exactly the argument you gave companies mostly they did until the last few years. However, you never knew about out because they didn't publish the code. The reason for this is that there is no need to and if they do release their code, their competitors can use it, so their lawyers advise them against. After a few years they either get so wildly successful (JunOS / OSX / Microsoft TCP/IP stack) that they keep their own completely proprietary branch and never help anyone else or they get abandoned (IPSO / AlchemOS / BSDi / SunOS / etc. etc.)

The thing is, that the because of the effects of copyleft, the Linux people cooperate and release code and so, even though the resources put into Linux are much less, there is less duplication and so more is achieved. This has become much more visible recently with Android and other successes and means that corporate types have begun to see copyleft as a platform which makes limited cooperation with potential competitors possible and safe.

If you are choosing a system for your own platform, this becomes a good reason to choose an AGPLv3 base as much as possible and, if you have any proprietry code, layer that separately on top. Your work on the commodity underlying components can be safely released and will move forward with the rest of the community. Whatever investment you put in will be preserved instead of becoming obsolete.

Re:Compelled by FSF diff than by church or gov't?

[perpenso]

Lets say your company adopts a BSD project and a GPL project..... The difference is that on the GPL you can only keep the code in house if you do not want to give out improvements. BSD? Rip, sell, earn money, do not contribute back. Or... at the least you can do that. Which does not help the community.

Well for a limited definition of "helping the community". GPL'd projects have directly benefitted by incorporating BSD code and indirectly benefitted from the knowledge and experience of UC Berkeley's pioneering work in developing a *truly* free and open UNIX implementation. Apple, Sun, SGI and other have advanced the world of computing using BSD based code *and* they have also given back in various ways *including* giving code to the community. For example Apple HFS, which I believe has been incorporated into FreeBSD. And some have argued that some GPL folks take without giving back. One key BSD developer writes:
"GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back. Ironic."
http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code

Basically I'm saying that the meme that GPL gives back and BSD does not is false. Things are far more complicated than that.