Slashdot Log In
Debian 3.0 (Woody) May 1?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat Apr 06, 2002 10:04 AM
from the best-gets-better dept.
from the best-gets-better dept.
dex@ruunat noted that this morning, in a message to the debian-devel-announce mailing list, Anthony Towns, Debian's Release Manager, wrote: "I'm becoming increasingly confident in woody's release
readiness. So, to go out on a limb: Debian 3.0 (codenamed woody) will release on May 1st, 2002."
Congrats to all the debheads putting this thing together. I have a blank
CDR waiting ;)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Yes! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yes! (Score:2, Funny)
Can you recompile you're woody after its been 'released' ?
Still confident about releasing you're woody ?
Hadn't you really better wait till you're girlfriend gets home ?
After all you're woody might be up against 'stiff' opposition...
The only complaint I have about Debian (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong -- this is a minor bitch about an otherwise great distro, and it's very much IMNSHO. I seem to be moving more and more to FreeBSD these days, but whenever I need or want Linux I always pick Debian. It's easy, it's stable, I absolutely love apt-get install/dist-upgrade, and and and...yeah, it's pretty much all great. I think I'll be waiting w/CD-R in hand, too.
(One other minor complaint, something I found on my box at work: why the hell does suidperl conflict with lynx? I had to install lynx from source, because Debian kept removing it when I installed suidperl for a webmail package I was testing. Anyone?)
Re:The only complaint I have about Debian (Score:5, Informative)
This is the package management interface that debian's been waiting for, IMHO.
[another alternative is `deity' (ne `console-apt'), but though it's rather colorful, the UI basically sucks; aptitude is much better.]
Parent
Re:The only complaint I have about Debian (Score:5, Informative)
- It tracks which packages were installed `automatically' (e.g., to satisfy a dependency). If such `auto' packages later become unnecessary because nothing depends on them anymore, they will be uninstalled automatically.
- It has a powerful and useful search system -- you can search not only for package names, but for descriptions (and other package fields), various special attributes, and boolean combinations of these things. For instance, the search string `(lib)~i!~M!-dev' will find packages who's name matches the string `lib', and are installed, and were not automatically installed (see above), and who's name doesn't match the string `-dev'.
- These search expressions can be used not only in interactive searches (which, incidentally, are incremental, like Emacs's isearch), but also to limit the set of packages displayed, or to perform various operations in command-line mode. I could use the command `aptitude remove "(lib)~i!~M!-dev"' to remove all packages matching that expression (but I won't, since that it happens to match libc6).
As you can see, although aptitude is great for the non-expert user, because of the simple and intuitive interface, it's not just for them. Even when I want to install something from the shell, I now always use aptitude's command-line interface instead of apt-get, because of the above features.Parent
Does anybody know what happened to the pine src? (Score:2, Interesting)
For the rest, it runs quite well, but I still prefer debian/unstable because of the more recent packages.
Re:Does anybody know what happened to the pine src (Score:3, Informative)
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/editors/nan
"GNU nano is a free replacement for Pico, the default Pine editor. Pine is copyrighted under a slightly restrictive license, that makes it unsuitable for Debian's main section. GNU nano is an effort to provide a Pico-like editor, but also includes some features that were missing in the original, such as 'search and replace', 'goto line' or internationalization support. As it's written from scratch, it's smaller and faster.
"
Re:Does anybody know what happened to the pine src (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does anybody know what happened to the pine src (Score:3)
apt-get build-dep pine
apt-get source --compile pine
dpkg --install *.deb
There's also a pine-tracker package, which apparently reminds you to upgrade when appropriate. I hope the standard tools make this unnecessary some day.
Re:Does anybody know what happened to the pine src (Score:2)
Let's say you want the sources for six different packages. Let's also say you want to keep them current.
With Debian source packages, you use "apt-get" or some other tool to subscribe to those packages, and then every time you update your system, you get the latest versions of those packages. (The latest versions in Debian, of course.) I update my system at least once per week; would you prefer to run an updating tool once per week, or would you prefer to visit six different FTP servers once per week?
And the source packages always reflect the source used to build the matching binary packages. If there were no source packages, and you wanted to build a package yourself, you would need to seek out the exact version on your system. Maybe you just want the newest version, so it may be no problem, but what if you have a computer running an older version and you just want that source version?
Debian's "stable" version has stable packages. If the "raw, unadulterated version from the official site" has a bug introduced in a new version, you will get that bug if you get the new version; with Debian, you won't get that bug in the "stable" version of the system because people will check it out and will not include it. (If you really want it, you can pull it in from the "unstable" version of Debian. So there is no down side.)
steveha
Re:Does anybody know what happened to the pine src (Score:2)
What you won't get in woody... (Score:3, Informative)
-KDE 3.0
-Apache 2.0
-XFree 4.2
Not good, eh?
Re:What you won't get in woody... (Score:5, Informative)
KDE3 is not yet tested enough for a Debian stable release, trust me. Neither are the debs, packaging issues can play a significant part in some problems. I'm personally waiting for 3.0.1 or 3.0.2 before I start deploying it throughout work, although I tracked KDE3 CVS for some time at home (I can deal with segfaults, and it makes it easier to package if you only have to make slight changes every time, instead of being hit with one big lot in the tarballs).
apache2 is NOT NOT NOT ready for prime time. I would not deploy this in a Debian stable release; luckily, neither would Thom. When I maintained it, I always said it would wait until after woody, and luckily it will. The GA was only announced today, and so Thom would have to upload it as NEW, which means it wouldn't make it into woody, even if it could. Even offering it side-by-side with Apache 1.3.x in a stable series is irresponsible.
As for XFree86 4.2, Branden's been too busy with fixing up 4.1.x to do 4.2.x well. XFree86 is one of those dead core packages that need to just WORK every single time, and cannot screw up. There was never enough time to give it the thrashing it needs; I think that having XF4.1.x in a stable series is a pretty sweet effort; Branden deserves a pat on the back. He has a reputation for quality, well-tested packages, and I somehow doubt he'd shatter that this close to a release. Plus, we'd all rip his arms off and beat him to death with the limp end if he did.
Thanks for listing the good points of Woody.
Parent
Re:What you won't get in woody... (Score:5, Informative)
As for XFree86 4.2, Branden's been too busy with fixing up 4.1.x to do 4.2.x well. XFree86 is one of those dead core packages that need to just WORK every single time, and cannot screw up. There was never enough time to give it the thrashing it needs; I think that having XF4.1.x in a stable series is a pretty sweet effort; Branden deserves a pat on the back.
Well, I myself am not exactly thrilled that woody won't have 4.2 in it, but:
So, that's why XFree86 4.2 isn't in woody.
Parent
Re:What you won't get in woody... (Score:3, Informative)
Slackware, on the other hand, compiles XFree, tars it up, and puts it on the CD. It does not have to be maintained, patched, updated, or tested. This is ok, if that's what you want, but Debian does a lot of work and a lot of changes, and it can require a lot of testing.
This is why Debian is widely regarded as a quality distro. No releasing alpha software in stable releases, no jumping version numbers to look competetive, just code, quality code, quality distro. Slackware lets you worry about that on your own.
--Dan
is Woody still using a 2.2.x kernel?` (Score:2)
(I've sinced moved on to Unstable and use my own kernel)
I want journalled filesystems on Debian! (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been patient with Debian. I have been persistent with Debian. I come bearing the news to Debian webmasters everywhere that the "bf-something Woody install" is not obvious. Not only in name obscurity when a Debian newbie would only know to look for 2.2 or 3.0 disc images, but also in placement on the website.
I have gone searching in vain for this bf-something install. I have looked in all of the obvious places on the website under such topics as "Getting Debian," "Debian on CD," and ""Download with FTP." This is bullshit. If this is everyone's definition of publically available, I must have missed that day of class. I even download some of those potentially nifty netinstall CD images in the hopes that they simply weren't labelled correctly with the magical bf- prefix.
Believe me, I have gone through a lot more effort than most casual visitors to the Debian site would have gone through. Unfortunately this is one area that Debian could learn from RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, et al in that the others provide an iso image, you download it, you burn it, and off you go. If the newer install with the updated kernel works so well, why hasn't the old installer been mothballed? Why would the old installer be offered? If the new installer has problems that preclude its replacement of the old installer, then the appropriate answer to my previous post would have been "they're working on it and it should be ready when 3.0 is released."
Is it a work in progress? Sure! I acknowledge that. I am used to that. I have no illusions that any Linux distribution is without its rough edges. But how much effort is it really to have in the download area, clearer instructions for creating a up-to-date install disc? All I see is the same old crap that makes me jump through hoops and auto-detects nothing (another gripe that I will forget for now simply because I know my hardware well enought to answer the endless series of questions) while making use of journalled filesystems far from the simple case it should be.
By all means, prove me wrong. By all means, show me an obvious link that demonstrates me to be a dullard who cannot read a web page. I am not above humility. Otherwise I will assume that a clean and complete Debian install is bullshit, must first be excavated by a Debian veteran who knows how to find it, and/or is of no use to the general public. Debian may be a great distribution, but that's pointless if most people can't install easily without sacrificing popular features (like journalled filesystems) or hunting through mailing list archives without really knowing for what they search.
Re:I want journalled filesystems on Debian! (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the url to take you directly to the bootable 2.4 disk images.
http://http.us.debian.org/dists/woody/main/disks-
ISO images for woody aren't provided yet since the package list is currently changing; however, the instructions on the debian CD site and the scripts there will make you an ISO of this unrelased software easily. If that's not enough for you you can try some premade images from a source like http://www.linuxiso.org/debian.html [linuxiso.org] Hell, there's even DVD images floating around. You can buy a preburned one here: http://www.linux-cd.com/store/cgi/store.cgi?clien
Premade ISO's won't be available for woody until it is released. "Official" ISO's are available for previous relases from the official site at http://www.debian.org/CD/ [debian.org]. Minimal images designed to replace a set of boot floppies, "netinst" cd's, are also linked to from that site at http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/ [debian.org]
I find it ironic that you seem to be capable of writing a novella about how inept you are at reading. You seem to know exactly what you want, but since www.debian.org doesn't show it to you in big bold letters on the front of the page, why you didn't click on the search button is entirely beyond my comprehension.
I will give to one of your points: that the default installer can be improved. For the woody release, it was decided "if it ain't broke don't fix it." The next release will contain a better one. If you really can't wait, make a woody netinst cd with the Progeny installer. Or can you not type "apt-get install pgi" successfully? Someone will probably make one of these available with the progeny installer after woody's release.
Think you can put together a better debian website? Why don't you sign up [debian.org]?
Parent
Re:I have used ext3 for months now in Debian. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now let's look at Debian: install must be manually performed for each workstation/server and an extra setup tax is imposed to get it working with a journalled filesystem (to beat a dead horse). Therefore Debian doesn't support journalled filesystems. Linux supports them and Debian tags along for the ride.
With regard to Ext3 being "safer." How do you figure? Have you come across more failures (catastrophic or otherwise) with ReiserFS or XFS vs. ext3? Is it safer because you can revert back to ext2? I have not seen the former and don't consider the latter to be an advantage or inherently safer. FWIW I used XFS for months on several boxes both at home and at work and never had any problems. Why did I even try XFS? Because it was easy to setup with SGI's custom installer for RedHat.
And as the AnonCoward mentioned, what does recompiling a kernel have to do with the quality of install programs or a person's choice of distribution? For the record, I can and have patched and recompiled my kernel. I can also program in C, C++, Perl, Java, and a few others. I am well versed in multi-threaded and multi-process programming as well as distributed programming. What are your credentials?
Now that the big-dick thing is out of the way, I feel it necessary to point out that Debian's big advantage over RedHat (aside from being completely volunteer-driven) is maintenance after install while RedHat is historically easier to install. Recently with utilities such as up2date and red-carpet, RedHat has become much easier to maintain. So what is Debian offering me other than a warm, fuzzy feeling? People in general don't start or stop using a particular distribution (or Linux or BSD) because of a warm, fuzzy feeling.
RedHat (and others) are finally catching up with maintenance. If this "if you can't recompile a kernel" crap continues to be spewed from the Debian community, you may find that it gets ignored not because of technical inferiority but because most people don't care about comparitive excellence as long as the job gets done. An easy install program is the first step in making sure you keep people's attention long enough to demonstrate technical excellence.
May Day (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Version numbering? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mandrake 8.2, RedHat 7.2,
Release numbers for packaging distributions are, and should be numbered by the people maintaining the distribution, to reflect their own perception of whether the release is a major, or minor improvement over the previous release.
For Linus and co, the enhancements to the kernel that moved it from 2.2 to 2.4, were minor changes, things like adding USB support, do not warrent a major version number. If the scheduler or virtual memory manager gets a major improvement, that would probably warrent a version 3.0, or so.
With Debian, the kernel is not the only thing that gets improved by moving from potato to woody. Updates to the user interfaces; Gnome and KDE; many packages, OpenOffice, ssh, and others; as well as the improvements to the kernel, moving from 2.2 to 2.4; suggest that this will be a Major improvement to the Debian Distribution.
Then again, they may be looking at other distribution version numbers and thinking that the public will percieve Debian 2.4 to be less "market" friendly than Debian 3.0.
After all, I wasn't in on the decision to version the software, and these are only my opinions. I could be wrong.
-Rusty
Parent
Re:Version numbering? (Score:3, Funny)
If the scheduler or virtual memory manager gets a major improvement, that would probably warrent a version 3.0, or so.
Which is why they changed the VM in the middle of the 2.4 series :)
Re:Version numbering? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Version numbering? (Score:2)
A distribution such as Debian, Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE, Slackware, or any of the dozens or even hundreds of others in existence are a combination of one or more kernels, with a collection of software that sits on top of the kernel to make a potentially useful collection of software for users or server administrators.
What that collection consists of will depend upon the maintainer of that package.
The User Interface may be anything from terminal interfaces such as supporting vt100's attached to serial ports, through complete desktop interfaces consisting of Gnome, KDE, BlackBox, WindowMaker, or other Window Managers riding on X, or any other Windowing system that the package maintainer chooses to use.
There are efforts to port the BeOS ApplicationServer interface to run on the Linux 2.4 kernel. The collection of software that runs under such a port would generally be different from that which will run on a Mandrake distribution using X11r4.x, with a KDE or Gnome window manager.
Likewise if someone really likes the BeOS interface that has been ported to Linux, but does not like the Linux 2.4 kernel for some reason, they are welcome to port it to a BSD, or Hurd varient kernel, or whatever kernel they choose to use.
Just because the latest version of some software may be available from some official web site does not mean that that version will play well with the collection of software you already have on your system. A package is a collection that the people distributing that package included it in the distribution was found to work at a satisfactory level with the other software included in the distribution.
These decisions are far from perfect, and users are generally considered welcome to roll their own distribution by building a boot/root disk and downloading and compiling from source, the software that is available from the official web sites.
Another reason that people chose to use packages is that the developer can indicate in the package what software is required to make this software work, as well as providing recomendations as to what software and documentation might be handy to have around when installing, setting up, and using the software in the package.
If an individual was required to review the offical web site for every package to verify that they had all the required or recomended software, it is unlikely that more than a handful of people would have a system running at all.
On top of this as the "latest version" that is not in a package is generally considered to be bleeding edge software, is is probable that the system would be continuously in a very unstable state.
Then again, if you choose to build and run your system with the latest version of everything, that's your choice and I happen to think that you deserve the respect you will get for a stable system, or the lack of respect you might get from an unstable system.
That's my opinion, I could be wrong.
-Rusty
Re:Version numbering? (Score:3, Interesting)
Point for point:
In the case of the Debian Operating System, they are more significant than the fallacious significance of a kernel to the entirety of an OS. Some reasons include the desire for permanence and local reproducability of an instance of an OS enviroment, as well as potential scarcity of Web connectivity. The final statement is not a question. If you are referring to AI, then I am amazed that there are "Linux people" that are beyond the comprehension of the average HomoSapiens Technophilia. If you express puzzlement over the preferences exhibited by Linux-based OS bigots, then perhaps I can help point you in a direction to enligtenment. If youd rather remain Linux segregated, then go in peace; we are done here.
The confusion over the importance of UIs to OSes in my experience indicate an affinitty for Unix. Perhaps it would be a better world if an OS were naught but embedded daemons. There was a revolution, for better or worse, in which the "Personal Computer" lead the forefront, resulting in the sanctity of computer becoming debased. Now computing is a public phenomenon, and has at the very least benefitted from economies of scale. Your elitism against common "lusers" seems naive.
As for "packages", I can only assume that that you are a BSD fan. You already implied that you don't use a package independant Linux distribution, and I infer from your championing Web downloads that you aren't likely a commercial Unix weenie. Commercial Unices do tend to be use packaging systems in my experience. If I am correct in considering you a BSD fan, then statstically I can consider you a FreeBSD user.
Why exactly do you find Linux people inferior? Unless you are among the minority of kernel hackers, you likely find the userland inferior. UIs differences between BSD and Linux based "Unices" being as trivial as the are, the only deficiency apparent from your message is that of many packaging systems associated with Linux. In that case, May I suggest that you give Rock Linux [rocklinux.org] which doesn't use packages, but rather compiles binaries from officail sources, much like FreeBSD ports. It isn't makefile based, but maybe spending time with it will enlighten you, or at least elucidate your perceptions of Linux's apparent shortcomings. Note that FreeBSD also offers packages, so your criticism isn't very valid as it stands. Perhaps you have more fruitful criticisms to offer. Most likely, IHBT, IHL, HAND.
In any case, Debian news items should contain a disclaimer that Debian is not Linux! Debian is a very modular and comprehensive system that offers Linux, just like it offers GNOME and Emacs. Debian needs GNU, but it doesn't need Linux, and there are plenty of Debian users that aren't "Linux people". Debian can just as easily look like VIM running over the Hird. I look forward to a stable Debian/NetBSD running on SGI MIPS R5K hardware, hopefully decades before Debian "Soldier" release 4.0.
-castlan
Kernel :Version numbering? (Score:5, Insightful)
Facetious, perhaps, but you fail to acknowlegde that Debian is a "kernel independant Operating System" that is popularly based on Linux. There is nothing stopping debian users from chosing KDE if that is their preferred desktop environment, just as there is nothing stopping x86 users from choosing The Hurd if their hardware supports it.
Debian has a larger scope then you seem to realize. Distinction from the Linux kernel is the best reason I can see for supporting a Major release increment to 3.0, as otherwise I would much prefer a more conservative path better utilizing the range of our decimal counting system under the auspices of 2.x.
While I hope my post has contained a modicum of sensibility, I fear that this is not the case.
Parent
Is the kernel really that important? (Score:2)
From a technical point of view, the most important single package is probably glibc, as that is what most other packages talk to.
If they should name it for my convenience, they should call it Debian 21. It will be the first stable Debian featuring Emacs 21, which is my primary interface to the system.
Re:Version numbering? (Score:2)
One argument is of course that the size of the distro has about doubled since 2.2, but I'm kind of curious about the version numbering nevertheless.
That being said, Debian is my favorite distro, and woody's going into my machine regardless of version numbers.
Re:Blank CD-R? (Score:5, Informative)
Why bother downloading 8 images when most of the stuff isn't going to be used? Well, I speak for myself there... I need a portion of the distro. Use 1 disk to boot from, and then apt-get what I need. Which reminds, I need to clean out some 530MB from
Parent
apt-get is nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
on a side note. many people say with respect to debian: just apt-get blah and it will install it. they never say apt-get blah and if it fails try apt-get -f. if that fails try touching the file it's looking for, etc. point: apt-get doesnt work 100% of the time-especially when you're not using potato. when it fails, a new user will find it confusing and might be turned off by all the posts where people say: oh well that always works fine for me.
this is not a troll, but a serious comment. apt is a great thing, and when it works correctly it is wonderful. this is also not ment to slight the debian developers. they work hard to make sure all the packages work together and all of the dependancies are met.
Re:Blank CD-R? (Score:3, Informative)
The first netinst cd for debian that I ever saw was here [debian.org]. Now, we also have this one [debian.org] and this one [sourceforge.net].
Use a Netinst Image! (Score:4, Informative)
It's about 30MB, and only retrieves the necessary packages off of the internet / other sources.
Parent
Re:I have the way out! (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and you missed a step
3.5 - Go to local PC shop, and buy a copy of Windows XP Professional for the princely sum of $296.99 (not the upgrade).
Alternatively you could spend the same money on Blank CD-R's (going by Amazons prices, I estimate you could get about 740) and burn many many copies of Linux for you and your friends
If you were REALLY against free software, you could even sell them at $1/CD and you would make a tidy profit.
Re:I have the way out! (Score:2, Funny)
Oh and also, will it run on my two Apple machines? I might look into it.
Re:way out necklace for ya! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:way out necklace for ya! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Kde (Score:2)
Re:vs Mandrake ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:vs Mandrake ? (Score:3, Informative)
Debian is different in that:
I started with RedHat and Mandrake back four years ago. Went to Slackware so I could get things configured the way I wanted them. And ended up at Debian because it was the best of both worlds.
Generally, if Debian-Stable is too slow for you, run Testing or Unstable. That will get you the very best of the bleeding edge software, along with all the bloodshed that goes along with it.
I have been running with Testing for about a year plus. Last month I was really disgusted with Debian. After looking at the other Distros out there. Debian still rocks!!!
Parent was poorly moderated. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd remove all of the political/economic theory references in the first point, and maybe just illustrate how Debian quality isn't compromised by profit-motive based considerations, or externally imposed deadlines.
Also worth mentioning is that Debian is not Linux, unless you want it to use Linux. If it can be phrased lucidly and marketably, a bullet might be spared for the "Open Organization" of the Debian Project, with it's clear policy and democratic operation which gave rise to "Open Source" as we know it today. That last bit might not be worth mentioning, as this document would ideally be less propeganda than a premptive strike against ad Nauseam misguided advocacy and "Linux" postings in Debian topics.
If such a document were to be made, would there be any way to float it by the Slashdot powers that be? If I weren't wasting my time, I'd gladly write it, and submit it to Debian Proper for approval. Is there any red tape trail that might end with an automatic footnote/link to Debian related items on Slashdot?
Re:vs Mandrake ? (Score:4, Informative)
The ideal is to have both Debian and Mandrake. That way you can take your time learning Debian.
Parent
Re:vs Mandrake ? (Score:3, Funny)
That can't be good for the drive.
Re:vs Mandrake ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hurry! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hurry! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I can say one thing for them (Score:2)
I hardly consider a version jump to be a "dark spot." Version number schemes have absolutely DICK to do with the quality of the distro. I'm still a happy Slackware user, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Re:I can say one thing for them (Score:3, Informative)
Try here [linuxpackages.net]. They have a good repository of recent stuff bundled as Slackware
Re:but when will we see.. (Score:2, Insightful)
KDE 3.0 - See above.
Mozilla 1.0 - See above.
Apache 2.0 - See above.
XFree86 4.2 - See above.
Linux 2.4 - It's in woody. If you want it, just run testing instead of stable. It'll be in stable on May 1, according to the above article. Or did you read it?
If you really want the above software, get it from sid/unstable. And don't bitch if it breaks.
Just add slackware, the compilers work fine. (Score:2, Insightful)
Non-X86 ports are the major holdup (Score:2, Informative)