You really should check out the latest version of Synaptic. I took Gentoo for a spin and agree that their portage system is wonderful to a degree, but it wasn't enough to pull me permanently away from apt/dpkg. Debian's repository is just too comprehensive to resist. I mentioned Synaptic because it's the first step towards something Grandma would love. Pardon the following metaphor, but I would say that if someone were to take the next quantum step in the dpkg -> apt -> synaptic line of thought software installation on a Linux system would be easier for Grandma than on any other OS.
Why start with Debian at all, though? Why not start from a better distribution such as SuSe, Mandrake, or Redhat Enterprise Linux? Debian has a history of trouble and should be avoided.
What exactly makes SuSe, Mandrake, or Redhat better than Debian? Could you point me to a synopsis of Debian's "history of trouble" that might explain why it "should be avoided"?
...Debian is extremely user-unfriendly. If nothing else, it has a reputation of being next to impossible to install. If you can get it that far, there are no simple tools to use and maintain the system with, unlike the other distributions I suggested.
This statement is almost hysterically ridiculous. I can understand why people don't like the installer, but once you know how to work with it the old saw about Debian makes perfect sense: The installer doesn't matter much because you only have to use it once. As far as system maintenance and use goes you need to look again at Debian's packaging, "alternatives", and "menu" systems. Modularity and integration are found throughout the system and it works very well. In any event, UserLinux would probably want it's own luser-groovy installer anyway. Since that's already been done to Debian by KNOPPIX, and in various other GPL ways to the distros you prefer I doubt contributors to UserLinux would assume the task is too daunting.
...Debian is extremely out of date.
No it isn't. I've got GNOME 2.4.1 on my machine right now. I could install a 2.6 kernel on it with a point-and-click GUI if I wanted to -- even if my machine was an Alpha. In fact, I could even install udev.
Even if you use unstable, packages such as Perl 5.8 are not available. And Perl 5.8 has been out for a long time.
Perl 5.8 has been in Debian since Feburary 17. That's the same day the upstream tarball hit CPAN.
If you want software that was new two years ago, then Debian is the way to go. Otherwise, you're wise to choose a different distribution.
Well, to be fair, some people do want software that's been in the field under fire for two years. That's the whole point of Debian stable. Those that prefer software with a touch of vintage to it know that it still does what it was written to do in the first place. As far as looking to other distributions for sake of keeping current I must ask what you've done in the past to keep an RPM based distro fresh. Back when I was using RedHat and Mandrake I would back up my home directory and reinstall when a new version of those distros came out because any other option was broken or didn't exist. Now that I better understand the limitations of RPM I don't see how that kind of "update" can be avoided even with apt-rpm.
Debian only applies security updates if you use the stable branch.
No, Debian applies security updates to stable and testing.
This means that if you want to be confident that your computer is secure, you have to run even more out of date software. For most people, this is clearly unacceptable.
I would surmise that most people seeking the level of confidence you're describing prefer "out of date" software. This hypothetical majority you're sketching doesn't exist because the people who want what was released yesterday already know it hasn't been proven in the field, and the people who want the greatest security already know what's been found (and patched) in foo-x.y.z over the past year.
... the Debian project itself has a horrible record of security.
Really? Could you lay out a time-line of offenses for us all. You're making a broad historical statement here as if it were conventional wisdom and received opinion. I've been using Linux for 5 years now and this is the first time I've encountered that particular notion about Debian.
Just recently, four of its machines were compromised.
"Douche chills"?! I'm afraid to ask, which is why the phrase is so effective.
As for the "cool" of this thing. I'm not about to drop a few C-notes on a singing harddisc when I wouldn't spend $15 on a walkman. But I've got to highlight my favorite part of the article. When the interviewer suggests 3rd parties will make knock-off white earbuds, Jobs responds, "But then you meet the girl, and she says, 'Let me see what's on your iPod.' You pull out a tape player, and she walks away." I'd love to go bar hopping with that guy.
Well, to be fair the 2.6 prereleases seem much more stable to me than the 2.4 prereleases. I think there was a bit too much anticipation centered around 2.4's release. It might have been better served by staying a 2.3 kernel until around 2.4.9 or so. I'm sure the tinkerers here remember how much flux the VM went through after 2.4.0.
But... just because this release is going much smoother that doesn't mean your critic doesn't have a point. Regardless of how long 2.6 retains backward compatability with some aspects of 2.4's presentation to userland, there are some fairly fundamental things that are going to have to change for a system to be fully 2.6-ized. Devfs is being dropped for udev, swaths of proc are being moved to sysfs, and modules get a whole new userland tool. Now, I can boot 2.6 on my desktop and even run X with those unofficial nvidia module wrappers, but hde's performace is degraded despite hdparm's report of increased functionality and I can't run it on my powerbook without a hack to fix the keyboard. The userland stuff for udev hasn't even been written yet. If you've got anything under/etc that touches/proc you may have to rewrite it. Does your server hardware have the ability to monitor fans and temperatures? If so is that important as a failsafe for your uptime? Better check everything between i2c-foo.ko and whatever sends you mail 'cause sysfs has made it a whole new ballgame. Understand, I'm not saying that this kernel doesn't look born to win. It does. But look at your conf files for devfsd. Unless you've rolled your own distro odds are you've got all sorts of wierd tweaks to support a namespace that's lingered since 2.2. Raise your hands if you can boot your machine without "MKOLDCOMPAT"! (I especially love the "original 'new' devfs names or the really new names".) My point here is simply that 2 years after 2.4.0 made a better way of handling devices official the change is still being absorbed. That's not a bad thing. It just illustrates the conservative, one-step-at-a-time way that the whole system moves forward. Most won't stick a prerelease or even a 2.6.0 kernel on a machine that pays thier rent because they don't want to fix something that isn't broken.
Well, the parent may have been wondering what I've wondered about Transmeta chips: If they're so efficient at running "morphed" x86 machine code, wouldn't they be even more efficient at running code compiled to its native ISA that didn't need translation?
I had the exact same accident on a Vespa 15 years ago. I was going ~35 MPH and had no helmet. I ended up with a totaled scooter, a broken wrist, a few stitches, and a massively bruised lower leg. I got very lucky.
Mandatory helmet laws are like anything else the government does "for your own good:" dangerous.
Well, it may be that the government doesn't really give a shit about whether you wear a helmet or not. They might just want to keep your familly from sueing someone over brain damage when there was something you could have done to prevent it.
I would say that synaptic is a lot less usable then aptitude or even plain old apt-get/apt-cache.
It depends on which version of synaptic one uses (to me). The version in stable sucks. I still use the cli package management tools all the time, but being able to browse the entire repository "at a glance" with everything classified each way to Sunday is downright fun.
I agree that THG has a sharp tack at the helm. I've read a few articles there that were pretty informative. But wading through his 150-words-per-ad-laden-page layout style AND vetting the content for bullshit just isn't worth my time. What I want to know can usually be found at Anand's, StorageReview, and Ars in any event.
But I like to think that maybe Forman and Peter Shaffer got it right. That Mozart really was an uncomparable genius with music. That maybe he posessed a greater understanding of music than any before or since.
You make it sound like the fiction in "Amadeus" includes his genius. I can't think of any cannonized composer who worked like Mozart. Beethoven layered blank staff paper so the score could (physically) put up with his erasure. He rewrote the Hallelujah Chorale nearly 200 times. Mozart didn't just go straight to the score without intervening sketches, he went straight to writting out the individual musician's parts, then to the conductor's score after having the composition fully worked out in his noggin. IIRC, he wrote 3 symphonies in a month (39-41). The guy really was an extreme savant.
There is another factor to consider that has different ramifications for Linux users. Should I buy a kick-ass card today it will someday seem like my Matrox G200 -- still solid, respectable, and capable of doing everything it could when I first bought it but outdated. I can't use it to play America's Army. Still, it calls to me from its anti-static baggie: "Put me to work. I'm still good at what I can do." Any R300/R350 will eventually say the same thing... and I doubt there will ever be a DRI driver for my Ti4200.
Slashdot Mirror
You really should check out the latest version of Synaptic. I took Gentoo for a spin and agree that their portage system is wonderful to a degree, but it wasn't enough to pull me permanently away from apt/dpkg. Debian's repository is just too comprehensive to resist. I mentioned Synaptic because it's the first step towards something Grandma would love. Pardon the following metaphor, but I would say that if someone were to take the next quantum step in the dpkg -> apt -> synaptic line of thought software installation on a Linux system would be easier for Grandma than on any other OS.
What exactly makes SuSe, Mandrake, or Redhat better than Debian? Could you point me to a synopsis of Debian's "history of trouble" that might explain why it "should be avoided"?
This statement is almost hysterically ridiculous. I can understand why people don't like the installer, but once you know how to work with it the old saw about Debian makes perfect sense: The installer doesn't matter much because you only have to use it once. As far as system maintenance and use goes you need to look again at Debian's packaging, "alternatives", and "menu" systems. Modularity and integration are found throughout the system and it works very well. In any event, UserLinux would probably want it's own luser-groovy installer anyway. Since that's already been done to Debian by KNOPPIX, and in various other GPL ways to the distros you prefer I doubt contributors to UserLinux would assume the task is too daunting.
No it isn't. I've got GNOME 2.4.1 on my machine right now. I could install a 2.6 kernel on it with a point-and-click GUI if I wanted to -- even if my machine was an Alpha. In fact, I could even install udev.
Even if you use unstable, packages such as Perl 5.8 are not available. And Perl 5.8 has been out for a long time.
Perl 5.8 has been in Debian since Feburary 17. That's the same day the upstream tarball hit CPAN.
If you want software that was new two years ago, then Debian is the way to go. Otherwise, you're wise to choose a different distribution.
Well, to be fair, some people do want software that's been in the field under fire for two years. That's the whole point of Debian stable. Those that prefer software with a touch of vintage to it know that it still does what it was written to do in the first place. As far as looking to other distributions for sake of keeping current I must ask what you've done in the past to keep an RPM based distro fresh. Back when I was using RedHat and Mandrake I would back up my home directory and reinstall when a new version of those distros came out because any other option was broken or didn't exist. Now that I better understand the limitations of RPM I don't see how that kind of "update" can be avoided even with apt-rpm.
Debian only applies security updates if you use the stable branch.
No, Debian applies security updates to stable and testing.
This means that if you want to be confident that your computer is secure, you have to run even more out of date software. For most people, this is clearly unacceptable.
I would surmise that most people seeking the level of confidence you're describing prefer "out of date" software. This hypothetical majority you're sketching doesn't exist because the people who want what was released yesterday already know it hasn't been proven in the field, and the people who want the greatest security already know what's been found (and patched) in foo-x.y.z over the past year.
Really? Could you lay out a time-line of offenses for us all. You're making a broad historical statement here as if it were conventional wisdom and received opinion. I've been using Linux for 5 years now and this is the first time I've encountered that particular notion about Debian.
Just recently, four of its machines were compromised.
No shit? Hey I read /. too!
They were
Of course there's always pencil and paper. It's pretty cheap too.
As for the "cool" of this thing. I'm not about to drop a few C-notes on a singing harddisc when I wouldn't spend $15 on a walkman. But I've got to highlight my favorite part of the article. When the interviewer suggests 3rd parties will make knock-off white earbuds, Jobs responds, "But then you meet the girl, and she says, 'Let me see what's on your iPod.' You pull out a tape player, and she walks away." I'd love to go bar hopping with that guy.
Hey, cool. I just got some blank CDRs. Could I interest you in a third copy of that album?
Check out www.minion.de
But... just because this release is going much smoother that doesn't mean your critic doesn't have a point. Regardless of how long 2.6 retains backward compatability with some aspects of 2.4's presentation to userland, there are some fairly fundamental things that are going to have to change for a system to be fully 2.6-ized. Devfs is being dropped for udev, swaths of proc are being moved to sysfs, and modules get a whole new userland tool. Now, I can boot 2.6 on my desktop and even run X with those unofficial nvidia module wrappers, but hde's performace is degraded despite hdparm's report of increased functionality and I can't run it on my powerbook without a hack to fix the keyboard. The userland stuff for udev hasn't even been written yet. If you've got anything under /etc that touches /proc you may have to rewrite it. Does your server hardware have the ability to monitor fans and temperatures? If so is that important as a failsafe for your uptime? Better check everything between i2c-foo.ko and whatever sends you mail 'cause sysfs has made it a whole new ballgame. Understand, I'm not saying that this kernel doesn't look born to win. It does. But look at your conf files for devfsd. Unless you've rolled your own distro odds are you've got all sorts of wierd tweaks to support a namespace that's lingered since 2.2. Raise your hands if you can boot your machine without "MKOLDCOMPAT"! (I especially love the "original 'new' devfs names or the really new names".) My point here is simply that 2 years after 2.4.0 made a better way of handling devices official the change is still being absorbed. That's not a bad thing. It just illustrates the conservative, one-step-at-a-time way that the whole system moves forward. Most won't stick a prerelease or even a 2.6.0 kernel on a machine that pays thier rent because they don't want to fix something that isn't broken.
No, dont' bother. It might take upwards of 10 to 15 minutes to download the patch, make oldconfig, compile, install, and reboot. What a hassle!
My ifconfig man page doesn't mention MAC addresses at all.
I had the same problem on a TiBook. It's there at least up to test7 and IIRC test9. The usb keyboard on my desktop has no problems.
What is OS X doing that is new?
Well, the parent may have been wondering what I've wondered about Transmeta chips: If they're so efficient at running "morphed" x86 machine code, wouldn't they be even more efficient at running code compiled to its native ISA that didn't need translation?
I had the exact same accident on a Vespa 15 years ago. I was going ~35 MPH and had no helmet. I ended up with a totaled scooter, a broken wrist, a few stitches, and a massively bruised lower leg. I got very lucky.
I am.
Well, it may be that the government doesn't really give a shit about whether you wear a helmet or not. They might just want to keep your familly from sueing someone over brain damage when there was something you could have done to prevent it.
I've got to wonder just how significant that loss is compared to sticking a suspension system on a bicycle.
He lives in Silicon Valley.
Yeah, if we went back to, uh, "unspend" a certain $87B+ the damn thing would pay for itself.
It depends on which version of synaptic one uses (to me). The version in stable sucks. I still use the cli package management tools all the time, but being able to browse the entire repository "at a glance" with everything classified each way to Sunday is downright fun.
I agree that THG has a sharp tack at the helm. I've read a few articles there that were pretty informative. But wading through his 150-words-per-ad-laden-page layout style AND vetting the content for bullshit just isn't worth my time. What I want to know can usually be found at Anand's, StorageReview, and Ars in any event.
I don't know.
always matter, even when they shouldn't. That's the point.
You make it sound like the fiction in "Amadeus" includes his genius. I can't think of any cannonized composer who worked like Mozart. Beethoven layered blank staff paper so the score could (physically) put up with his erasure. He rewrote the Hallelujah Chorale nearly 200 times. Mozart didn't just go straight to the score without intervening sketches, he went straight to writting out the individual musician's parts, then to the conductor's score after having the composition fully worked out in his noggin. IIRC, he wrote 3 symphonies in a month (39-41). The guy really was an extreme savant.
are you saying that... there might not be any Weapons of Mass Destruction?
There is another factor to consider that has different ramifications for Linux users. Should I buy a kick-ass card today it will someday seem like my Matrox G200 -- still solid, respectable, and capable of doing everything it could when I first bought it but outdated. I can't use it to play America's Army. Still, it calls to me from its anti-static baggie: "Put me to work. I'm still good at what I can do." Any R300/R350 will eventually say the same thing... and I doubt there will ever be a DRI driver for my Ti4200.