AMD64 will be unofficialy released with sarge, and with security support. The reason it's not official is that the archive have grown quite considerably and ftp-masters are worried but the size of the full release (all archs), I'm not totally convinced by that, but they know a lot more than I do. Other reasons are that the port came quite late in the release cycle (it's late enough as it is), and waiting for the planned biarch support. As for which archs will be supported in the future see the Vancouver proposition http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/03/msg00012.html and the debate following that on debian-devel (there's nothing conclusive).
Netinst gives you the base packages on the cd, but it won't pick the correct kernel for your processor, on x86 you'll only get -i386. Business card will pick the correct kernel and pulls base from the net.
Testing aka Sarge is supported by the security team since May 3. KDE 3.4 is packaged by the debian maintainers at alioth.debian.org, X.org I'm uncertain about.
The netinst flavor won't pick any kind of kernel it just defaults to i386, the businesscard version does atleast pick different processors, don't know about smp though. (That the recomended install is supposed to be netinst is such a wildly spread myth that it infact has become the most recomended way to install).
That's a nice way of looking at how it all turned out, but I don't agree with as reason as to why things are as they stand. The late release of sarge is in no way intentional. After woody was released everyone agreed that the old installer simply had to go (aka "boot floppies"), but no one was working on the new installer, and when development finaly begun it was a one man show and the effort involved was greatly underestimated, atleast by all those not involved. This delayed the even possible release by atleast two years. When the new installer started to show promise it was then discovered that debian needed a completely new infrastructure for auto-builders to provide security support to sarge, this last thing is what we've all been waiting for (it's been nearly a year now i think) and that has now been fixed (It's in the article) prompting the freeze and subsequent imminent release of sarge. I know a lot of people say it's either supposed to take his long for a new release (like you seem to say), claiming that desktop users are supposed to run testing, (although it was made to keep archs in sync and didn't have infrastructure to provide security updates), or blame the internal bickering, number of supported architectures, anal licence requirements, alledged mass resignation of developers etc. Those reasons have imho been used to drive personal agendas rather than help with the release of sarge.
"Testing has no security updates, which basically makes it worthless for anybody else than developers."
This was possibly correct but as the article we're supposed to be discussing says:
3 May 2005
~85 RC bugs
testing-proposed-updates, testing-security working for all architectures
Official security support for sarge begins
Freeze time!
Joey Schulze of the security team has given the thumbs-up for official security support for sarge as of the time of the freeze. Which is now
"The name "Sid" is completely redundant. As everyone is quick to point out, Sid is always unstable. I understand that it has become a historical part of Debian's structure. But that doesn't make it less silly." Silly? Sid "will never be released" (Sid was the evil villan in the movie), me thinks you just didn't get it...
If you upgrade from woody to sarge you don't get exim4, the exim package will continue to be installed (which is exim3 and dead upstream). Exim is the default debian MTA.
"Electronic Pearl Harbour" used to be all the rave a couple of years ago, now it only collects 553 hits on google. The names change but crying wolf won't go out of style anytime soon. I read somwhere that Tom Daschle refered to the Shavio situation as medical terrorism, can't find a reference to it though. It might have been a bad joke but how are you supposed to know?
First, he's talking about free as in freedom, not gratis. Stallman also feels that code is a special case and that not all forms of expression should enjoy the same freedoms (see gfdl vs. debian), so the engine, artwork and story would all be separate. The quite trivial insight that it probably costs money to get good games isn't the showstopper you think it is. And with a gaming industry that has prospered for decades, now overtaking Hollywood, inspite of an abundance of cracks, I wouldn't be overly worried.
At the moment we don't have anyone to replace me. We're actually thinking about how we we could try and develop people who could do this, so that I will not be indispensable.
He's apparently working on a technical solution. I, for one welcome our GNU/people... naaah
You can't mean to say that, not caring about sections of the gpl is "legally well", becourse it still is gpl. How do you make something gpl without complying with it's terms? Just stating that it is won't make it so. *Note that your copyright (since that's probably what it boils down to) will outlive you in any jurisdiction i know of. So I do care if your name is in the header for every little fix you make, whether you do or not. It is hard to rectify such slips.
"What if it was a closed source project that had just been GPLed, and so had no changelog as yet?" They used other peoples gpl code, thus it is a problem.
Section 2a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Is by some interpreted as a demand for a changelog. (check the debian-legal archives for more info on this with regards to mplayer, it's the remaning showstopper as I remember).
Upstream wanting distros to mark their versions so that they don't have to support anything but the latest version downloaded directly from them, or compiled from their sources are beginning to get more and more common. This imho is a good thing, distros should handle their own problems and the maintainers of that distro would then communicate with upstream to reduce the signal to noice ratio. Gentoo users may feel that they are somehow exempt as they compile from source but I have no reason to belive Sean is complaining unless he has valid reasons, I simply fail to see the problem. For a real asshat check what happend to debian with the mirc package when the package maintainer refused to do a similar thing (the package maintainer was wrong but the reaction was far worse). lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/02/msg00771.htm l
(there are other threads discussing this but this was the one i found first)
Slashdot Mirror
No they should use ther business card cd. netinst will only install the -i386 kernel, while business will pick the right one (-686, -k7 etc).
AMD64 will be unofficialy released with sarge, and with security support. The reason it's not official is that the archive have grown quite considerably and ftp-masters are worried but the size of the full release (all archs), I'm not totally convinced by that, but they know a lot more than I do. Other reasons are that the port came quite late in the release cycle (it's late enough as it is), and waiting for the planned biarch support. As for which archs will be supported in the future see the Vancouver proposition http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005 /03/msg00012.html and the debate following that on debian-devel (there's nothing conclusive).
Netinst gives you the base packages on the cd, but it won't pick the correct kernel for your processor, on x86 you'll only get -i386. Business card will pick the correct kernel and pulls base from the net.
Testing aka Sarge is supported by the security team since May 3. KDE 3.4 is packaged by the debian maintainers at alioth.debian.org, X.org I'm uncertain about.
The netinst flavor won't pick any kind of kernel it just defaults to i386, the businesscard version does atleast pick different processors, don't know about smp though. (That the recomended install is supposed to be netinst is such a wildly spread myth that it infact has become the most recomended way to install).
That's a nice way of looking at how it all turned out, but I don't agree with as reason as to why things are as they stand. The late release of sarge is in no way intentional. After woody was released everyone agreed that the old installer simply had to go (aka "boot floppies"), but no one was working on the new installer, and when development finaly begun it was a one man show and the effort involved was greatly underestimated, atleast by all those not involved. This delayed the even possible release by atleast two years. When the new installer started to show promise it was then discovered that debian needed a completely new infrastructure for auto-builders to provide security support to sarge, this last thing is what we've all been waiting for (it's been nearly a year now i think) and that has now been fixed (It's in the article) prompting the freeze and subsequent imminent release of sarge. I know a lot of people say it's either supposed to take his long for a new release (like you seem to say), claiming that desktop users are supposed to run testing, (although it was made to keep archs in sync and didn't have infrastructure to provide security updates), or blame the internal bickering, number of supported architectures, anal licence requirements, alledged mass resignation of developers etc. Those reasons have imho been used to drive personal agendas rather than help with the release of sarge.
"Testing has no security updates, which basically makes it worthless for anybody else than developers."
This was possibly correct but as the article we're supposed to be discussing says:
3 May 2005
~85 RC bugs
testing-proposed-updates, testing-security working for all architectures
Official security support for sarge begins
Freeze time!
Joey Schulze of the security team has given the thumbs-up for official
security support for sarge as of the time of the freeze. Which is now
Testing now has security support.
"The name "Sid" is completely redundant. As everyone is quick to point out, Sid is always unstable. I understand that it has become a historical part of Debian's structure. But that doesn't make it less silly."
Silly? Sid "will never be released" (Sid was the evil villan in the movie), me thinks you just didn't get it...
If you upgrade from woody to sarge you don't get exim4, the exim package will continue to be installed (which is exim3 and dead upstream). Exim is the default debian MTA.
"Electronic Pearl Harbour" used to be all the rave a couple of years ago, now it only collects 553 hits on google. The names change but crying wolf won't go out of style anytime soon. I read somwhere that Tom Daschle refered to the Shavio situation as medical terrorism, can't find a reference to it though. It might have been a bad joke but how are you supposed to know?
They might have been in compliance at some particular point in time, but now it seems again, that they are not. http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/20 05-March/000008.html
http://merkel.debian.org/~joeyh/testing-security.h tml
linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html See bottom of page. linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html#tx2 Would that be your card!
Try stock debian 2.6.10 from unstable, module-assistant and rdonalds repository. It's easy as cake (easier even).
First, he's talking about free as in freedom, not gratis.
Stallman also feels that code is a special case and that not all forms of expression should enjoy the same freedoms (see gfdl vs. debian), so the engine, artwork and story would all be separate. The quite trivial insight that it probably costs money to get good games isn't the showstopper you think it is. And with a gaming industry that has prospered for decades, now overtaking Hollywood, inspite of an abundance of cracks, I wouldn't be overly worried.
At the moment we don't have anyone to replace me. We're actually thinking about how we we could try and develop people who could do this, so that I will not be indispensable.
He's apparently working on a technical solution.
I, for one welcome our GNU/people... naaah
You can't mean to say that, not caring about sections of the gpl is "legally well", becourse it still is gpl. How do you make something gpl without complying with it's terms? Just stating that it is won't make it so.
*Note that your copyright (since that's probably what it boils down to) will outlive you in any jurisdiction i know of. So I do care if your name is in the header for every little fix you make, whether you do or not. It is hard to rectify such slips.
"What if it was a closed source project that had just been GPLed, and so had no changelog as yet?"
They used other peoples gpl code, thus it is a problem.
Section 2a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Is by some interpreted as a demand for a changelog. (check the debian-legal archives for more info on this with regards to mplayer, it's the remaning showstopper as I remember).
knx-hdinstall is not maintained and should no longer be used. knoppix-installer is the way to go. www.knoppix.net/docs/index.php/HdInstallHowTo
Check again, the SimplyMEPIS-2004.03.iso is nowhere near a year old.
That of course should have been micq and nothing else.
Upstream wanting distros to mark their versions so that they don't have to support anything but the latest version downloaded directly from them, or compiled from their sources are beginning to get more and more common. This imho is a good thing, distros should handle their own problems and the maintainers of that distro would then communicate with upstream to reduce the signal to noice ratio. Gentoo users may feel that they are somehow exempt as they compile from source but I have no reason to belive Sean is complaining unless he has valid reasons, I simply fail to see the problem. For a real asshat check what happend to debian with the mirc package when the package maintainer refused to do a similar thing (the package maintainer was wrong but the reaction was far worse). lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/02/msg00771.htm l
(there are other threads discussing this but this was the one i found first)
radeon 9200
Branden ROCKS!