Slashdot Mirror
Debian 7.0 ("Wheezy") Released
First time accepted submitter anarcat writes "After two years since the last Debian release (6.0, nicknamed "squeeze"), the Debian release team has finally published Debian 7.0 (nicknamed "Wheezy"). A newly created blog has details on the release, which features multi-arch support (e.g. you can now install packages for both i386 and amd64 on the same install), improvements to multimedia support (no need for third party repositories!) and improved security through hardening flags. Debian 7.0 also ships with the controversial Gnome 3 release, and the release notes explicitly mention how to revert to the more familiar 'Gnome classic' interface. Finally, we can also mention the improved support for virtualization infrastructure with pre-built images available for Amazon EC2, Windows Azure and Google Compute Engine. Debian 7.0 also ships with the OpenStack suite and the Xen Cloud Platform. More details on the improvements can be found in the release notes and the Debian wiki." An anonymous reader points out (from the announcement) that "[t]he installation process has been greatly improved: Debian can now be installed using software speech, above all by visually impaired people who do not use a Braille device. Thanks to the combined efforts of a huge number of translators, the installation system is available in 73 languages, and more than a dozen of them are available for speech synthesis too.
In addition, for the first time, Debian supports installation and booting using UEFI for new 64-bit PCs (amd64), although there is no support for Secure Boot yet."
It took a while, but all the effort was worth it.
Heh, kernel 3.2... this OS comes outdated out of the box.
It's not outdated. It is well tested.
Ubuntu pulls packages from Debian unstable on a rolling basis, and then has their own release cycle. So the releases of stable Debian versions aren't that relevant to Ubuntu releases.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
As someone that is new to Linux I've always found Debian to be somewhat weird. I guess a lot of Debian users uses it since they are used to it. But as a new Linux user, why would I use Debian when the software is so old and outdated? We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10. OK that Firefox revs every six weeks, but you get the point. If it's old from day one then how old won't it be when Debian 8 is released.
Looks like debian is still using Apache 2.2.... no wonder nginx is gaining ground. Apache 2.4 has OCSP stapling support which gives a huge boost to SSL performance.
Until you put it under load on a mission critical server somewhere.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Here's your quick and easy way to give back. I don't code in c/c++, I hate writing documentation, so share some bandwidth and seed the torrents for a few hours or a few gb.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
re: for many people it's not the main OS but more like a solid reference implementation.
.
That others use Debian as their "backroom workshop" does not define Debian's true role, no more than one person using another person as a slave manifests that slavery as being the defining characteristic of that other person.
.
I disagree with your statement that debain's role has changed "more towards being a professional backroom workshop for other distributions". Debian has stayed being what it has always been. It's just being used more as the foundation that supports the work of the facade builders and marketers that put a pretty face (or not-so-pretty Tammy Faye Baker clown-makeup face, if you want Gnome 3, imho) on top of all that and market it as if they made the whole thing.
.
I agree that Debian is a solid implementation. But I disagree with your contention that it's more like a solid reference implementation. A "reference implementation" would imply that it is a demo of some of the capabilities of what can be done and that others are to build upon it. (whoops, the second half of that sentence is actually true! That's exactly what GNU's GPL licensing allows!) A "reference implementation" implies that it's built specifically just to be a partial implementation, which debian definitely is not. While others may build atop Debian, that is not Debian's sole purpose.
.
For details on Debian's purpose, see Debian's own documentation about their "social contract", or read about it on articles about it.
.
For info about how it started and about Debian's manifesto, read about the Ian who makes up the "-ian" half of "debian" or read the original Debian Manifesto .
the fact that everyone who runs debian runs the testing version just makes my point
Except not everyone does. Most machines under my control run Debian stable, because I don't want any trouble from them. I just need them to do their job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel
Take a look at Maintenance. Linux 3.2 is the version with longest support: until 2015.
Right now, I am running wheezy with kernel 3.8.5. Noone keeps you from building your own kernel. It's just that the stable version (and the installer) come with 3.2.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
Good point, but you got it wrong from the very beginning though: it's not ``since it's old it's stable'', it's ``since it's in Debian stable, it's stable''.
I've found that pulling tools together from desktop environments other than KDE and Gnome and just using a few of the indispensable apps from them is the best way to go. For example, I use Thunar instead of Nautilus or Dolphin. The simpler desktop environments tend to have more portable components, not as tied to their parent.
Then again, except for a web browser, e-mail, and feed reader, the majority of my time is spent on a terminal anyway, so I may be the outlier here.
Fish don't fry in the kitchen,
Beans don't burn on the grill.
Took a whole lot of trying
Just to get up that hill.
Now we're up in the big leagues,
Gettin our turn at bat.
As long as we live
It's you and me baby.
There ain't nothing wrong with that.
What if one is happy with one's desktop setup from last century? Mine has, more or less, looked the same since about 1998, although I've updated the underlying packages, e.g., I now use awesome window manager rather than icewm, and I now use rxvt with unicode. I still use gnuit as my file manager (the name changed from git because of the popularity of version control program). I've tried various other things on occasion, such as Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LDXE, but I always go back to my home rolled "desktop". I'm not a programmer (academic in the humanities), but still appreciate the control this combination gives me using my very rudimentary ability to write scripts using such languages such as bash and lua.
Best wishes,
Bob
Heh, kernel 3.2... this OS comes outdated out of the box.
It's not outdated. It is well tested.
Pro Tip: Guys/Girls: Do not use that phrase to describe your genitals.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What if one is happy with one's desktop setup from last century? Mine has, more or less, looked the same since about 1998
Mine has looked the same since 1992 or so -- it's what I ran on Solaris at the university.
I still haven't understood what's the big deal with a desktop anyway. You need ways to move your windows around, a way (like a menu) to start your favorite GUI programs, and a way to logout. A way to lock the screen too if you have people around you. A clipboard, but that's built into X11. I can't come up with a lot more useful features, and yet there's all this heat generated by various desktops reinventing themselves and pissing people off.
Linux 3.2 will be supported until 2015. That's longer than the support lifetime for any other kernel version at the moment, unless the maintainer for 3.4 decides to support it past 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Maintenance