Except for use by those who either want to develop a distribution, build software, or manually configure their distribution beyond what's worthwhile in most other distributions?
Sounds like more of the same to me. Anywhere that I see Ubuntu cropping up, Debian wasn't there to begin with.
I have witnessed Ubuntu replace most of the SuSE installations I was aware of. That's a big win for Debian on the desktop market.
And I've yet to see anybody try to use Ubuntu as a server. Really, I don't get what they're going for with that "server" branch. I guess they want to make it just like using Ubuntu... only not? Kinda sounds like Debian making a desktop fork to me.
Maybe I'm just weird. See, I'm not on the consumer end. I tend to witness a lot of cooperation when browsing around for software. Some of the most productive users of Debian seem to be the developers of other distributions. So long as Debian remains a valuable asset to them, I don't think it's going to vanish anytime soon.
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.
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.
First off, no shares were harmed in the process this advent.
Debian has always been able to run on these 32-bit compatible AMD processors. Even the primary benefit of being able to use a 64-bit kernel was already there. Hell, Debian Stable has even been able to run 64-bit applications with the installation of appropriate 64-bit library packages!
The announcement is that Debian Stable will now be able to fully operate in the native 64-bit architecture, meaning that no 32-bit code will be used. This is great news for progress into the 64-bit era, but means very little in terms of business application.
Second, always remember that most distributions par-up to Debian Unstable; They have the same number of "experimental" features, and about the same packaging stability. Debian Unsable has had an x86_64 branch for quite some time now. So no, Debian was hardly behind on this wagon.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for use by those who either want to develop a distribution, build software, or manually configure their distribution beyond what's worthwhile in most other distributions?
Sounds like more of the same to me. Anywhere that I see Ubuntu cropping up, Debian wasn't there to begin with.
I have witnessed Ubuntu replace most of the SuSE installations I was aware of. That's a big win for Debian on the desktop market.
And I've yet to see anybody try to use Ubuntu as a server. Really, I don't get what they're going for with that "server" branch. I guess they want to make it just like using Ubuntu... only not? Kinda sounds like Debian making a desktop fork to me.
Maybe I'm just weird. See, I'm not on the consumer end. I tend to witness a lot of cooperation when browsing around for software. Some of the most productive users of Debian seem to be the developers of other distributions. So long as Debian remains a valuable asset to them, I don't think it's going to vanish anytime soon.
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.
First off, no shares were harmed in the process this advent.
Debian has always been able to run on these 32-bit compatible AMD processors. Even the primary benefit of being able to use a 64-bit kernel was already there. Hell, Debian Stable has even been able to run 64-bit applications with the installation of appropriate 64-bit library packages!
The announcement is that Debian Stable will now be able to fully operate in the native 64-bit architecture, meaning that no 32-bit code will be used. This is great news for progress into the 64-bit era, but means very little in terms of business application.
Second, always remember that most distributions par-up to Debian Unstable; They have the same number of "experimental" features, and about the same packaging stability. Debian Unsable has had an x86_64 branch for quite some time now. So no, Debian was hardly behind on this wagon.