Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 Set for December

dolson writes sends in a heartening update straight from the Debian project's news page: "The Debian project confirms December 2006 as the date for the next release of its distribution which will be named Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 alias 'etch'. This will be the first official release to include the AMD64 architecture. The distribution will be released synchronously for 11 architectures in total. At this stage, the upcoming release will ship with Linux 2.6.17 as its default kernel. This kernel will be used across all architectures and on the installer. A later version may be selected during a review in October. New features of this release include the GNU Compiler Collection 4.1 as default compiler. X.Org will replace XFree86 as implementation of the X Window System X11. Secure APT will add extra security by easily supporting strong cryptography and digital signatures to validate downloaded packages."

OK, but...

[SchwarzeReiter (894411)]

does it run... Oh, never mind.

Re:OK, but...

[KiloByte (825081)]

does it run... Oh, never mind.

Don't laugh so loud, grasshopper. This question is adequate.
And the answer is: yes. K*BSD arches are in good shape, but none of them are release candidates for Etch. Nexenta (OpenSolaris kernel) gathered so much bad karma because of Sun's CDDL's intentional incompatibilities with GPL causing problems that Nexenta isn't going to be an official arch anywhere soon. Debian/Hurd isn't that bad, but too bad, Hurd remains just a toy for now. And Debian/Minix stays at the level of talks for now. It's only Debian/win32 which died completely.
So yeah, Etch does run Linux, but most likely Alien/Lenny/??? (Etch+1) will have K*BSD variants.

Debian turns me on.

[Reverend528 (585549)]

Reading about this release is giving me a Woody!

Just in time for Christmas

[Elros (735454)]

I wonder if anyone will buy it for me...oh...wait

Debian running current software?

[Martin Blank (154261)]

OK, I know that the various testing levels have had updated software for a while, but pushing this volume of changes to the mainstream distribution does seem like something of a shock. Debian's historic reliance on "tried and true" versions seems to be giving way (at least partially) to the realization that many people don't want to use it because it lacks significant feature updates.

I'm impressed.

Re:Debian running current software?

[frovingslosh (582462)]

They are not pushing a volume of changes into the distro all at once. They are just saying that in December, Etch, which you can download and install right now (or better yet, do a "net install") will be called the official Stable release. Sarge, the current stable release will be retired (well past time). Newer versions will become "testing" and "unstable". I've been using Etch, it is pretty nice. But I expect that with it's "release" in December I'll stop using it and move on to the new "testing" version. The official Debian release tends to show it's age too much and the testing version is actually very stable.

Re:Debian running current software?

[shawn443 (882648)]

Depends on what you call a feature. I don't care if my ssh gateway can easily mount a digital camera. I think the best feature is the stability for my servers. Sometimes the cutting edge software is too cutting edge and not necessarily better. I don't second guess their methods when I can apt-get in total confidence. In my opinion, Debian is probably the best OS for serious server duty. I would stack it up against OS/2 or any of the other proprietary server OS's. I also use Debian for my desktop (XFCE). I wouldn't install it on a newbies machine though, so I readily concede that point.

Preview Release

[marciot (598356)]

Preview release is here [ubuntu.com]

(with apologies to the debian developers... I couldn't resist)

Re:Preview Release

[creepynut (933825)]

You know, funny you should mention that. I've been using Ubuntu for at least a year, first tried it about 2 years ago. When Dapper came out I was amazed, all the configuration tools, menu editor, update manager and such.

I'd used Debian before, but not a lot, probably around GNOME 2.6 and lower. That all certainly wasn't there. Then, I decided to fire up VMWare and install Debian Etch just to see how things are moving. It was practically Ubuntu without the splash screen and Add/Remove Programs in the Applications menu.

Now, granted, I know that is certainly not the only thing the folks at Ubuntu have been up to, but it goes to show that Ubuntu isn't the only one making progress in the Linux world. Debian is still chugging along, faster than ever it looks to me, and Ubuntu is benefitting from that more than anyone.

Re:Preview Release

[Brunellus (875635)]

Flamebait, pure and simple. Listen up, Debianistas: the only hard and fast requirements are encoded in the licenses under which software is released. So, comrades, point to me how the ubuntu project (or any of the other Debian daughters, like, say Xandros) violate the terms of the licenses under which software in the Debian project is released?

How about "Not at all?" Take your bitterness, compact it into a pill, and swallow that.

The whole Debian/Ubuntu internecine bitchfest reminds me a lot of the communists I knew on campus--the Maoist faction couldn't even be seen with the Stalinist faction. Did anybody but them care? No. But I'm sure they had a lot of fun in their respective cell meetings, counting the meagre takings of their pamphlet sales (which had to be on alternate days, lest they have to share space with the traitors from the other side)

Why?

[Espectr0 (577637)]

The world needs a stable distribution for servers. Seems Debian is risking its default model for stability in order to appear being updated often.

I wonder if Ubuntu has got something to do with it...

How many years passed between debian 3.0 and 3.1? The changes were big, and now in so much less time a whole number (4.0) gets released.

What are the differences besides using a recent kernel for the first time?

3.1 is the new 4.0

[XanC (644172)]

There were major changes for Sarge, aka 3.1. Somebody pointed out that it should be 4.0, and everyone agreed, but it was too late in the release cycle to change it. They figured as long as it was higher than 3.0 it didn't really matter.

Merry X(windows)mas

[by Anonymous Coward]

and a Happy GNU Year!

is there an election or something?

[mathx (988938)]

I thought debian only released in presidential election years...?

-math

Re:is there an election or something?

[elzurawka (671029)]

Sometimes, when there is avery bad president, they choose to do it durring the congressional Elections

Big improvements

[phorm (591458)]

I found that 2.6.17, with the improved IO handlers, definately added a performance boost to my machines. The main headaches I've had with testing have revolved around X.org 7.x being quite a bit different from previous versions (more componentized) and issues with getting it to work with the NVidia stub (you need to tell it where to find the new lib location), etc.

However, all-in-all I've found that running Debian/testing has gone pretty well, and Debian/stable+backports has worked pretty well too. I'll be looking forward to when the features in testing happily merge back into stable.

Oh, and hopefully the rather-cool FPS Nexuiz [nexiuz.com] will merge into stable as well, as it's pretty impressive to see something like that ending up open-source and available in the standard repositories (it's available in testing [debian.org]+ right now). It's also the first OSS app that's really given my graphics card a run for its money.

Newer GCC than Gentoo stable

[makomk (752139)]

Hmmm... so they're moving to GCC 4.1? Hmmph - Gentoo stable is still stuck on the 3.4 series, at least on x86 and most architectures (mind you, it is a source-based distro, and moving to a new GCC major version is a big thing). I thought Debian was supposed to be behind the times, and Gentoo was supposed to be bleeding-edge?

(Seriously, I run Gentoo unstable, but I've deliberately taken measures to avoid upgrading to GCC 4 - still not worth it IMO, at least until I can be sure most software will actually build successfully with it.)

The relase cycle is speedy!

[dastrike (458983)]

At least when compared to MS. Three Debian releases between XP and Vista. And people say Debian is a slow mover.

Well, at least assuming that both "Etch" and Vista will hold their target dates... Is this a too bold assumption to make? Perhaps.

Re:process

[frovingslosh (582462)]

Sure. You can get Etch now. It's also called testing, and is very stable. There is also a newer "unstable" version that you can download and use, it is changing almost daily, but overall it is pretty stable in spite of the name. So by the time a version like Etch is officially "released" it is extremely stable, and somewhat out of date. I find that unless you are building mission critical process control systems that need to be extremely bug free, you are better off using the Debian testing version than the official release, particularly if you have newer hardware that you want to be able to use.

Re:process

[A.K.A_Magnet (860822)]

"Stable" is a reference to the packages. Debian stable means you won't get 20 new packages or packages updates every week (and that's optimistic, on testing or unstable, you get that much on a daily basis). You only get security updates. It has nothing to do with software stability, except that the process makes the software in Debian stable .. well very stable! For example, Ubuntu is Debian testing made stable: they get a snapshot of Debian testing every 6 monthes, they fix some of the bugs (critical, hindering normal usage), and then they freeze it (the only updates are security updates, just like with Debian Stable; to be fair, Ubuntu's work isn't that simple, the main part of their work is to make the distribution the way they want with a top-down approach, ie they want some feature or something to look different and they do it). The difference is that Ubuntu's stability process is very weak compared to Debian's, but certainly good enough for most desktop users. That's what "stable" means in the "Debian Stable" sense (that's the same meaning in a "stable" API, ie an API that won't change anytime soon), and it's needed on production systems (you don't want daily updates that can break everything). Great for desktops, mandatory for servers. Debian Sid (to be Etch) is primarily meant for Debian developers.

Re:process

[JohnnyBigodes (609498)]

MORE TIME TESTING = MORE STABLE PRODUCT

Or an outdated product, as I've come to realize. I have a rented server running Debian, which has given me nothing but headaches because some of the packages are horribly outdated, namely PHP5. I mean, PHP 5 is what, over two years old now, how come they didn't think it was stable nor tested? This is one of the reasons why the next server I rent will be running something else. Better to have "untested" (use that word carefully) stuff working than no stuff at all. Must be that "security-through-obsolence" paradigm rearing its head :)

Re:Improved install?

[frovingslosh (582462)]

I like the Etch installer, greatly improved over Sarge. You can try it now, just install "testing". Only problem that I had with it was that on a 4 partition system it refused to install Grub to the Linux partition where I wanted it and insisted in putting it in the MBR (clearly no good reason for this, since the older Debian Sarge install it replaced had Grub where I wanted it).

Re:kernel

[HighOrbit (631451)]

i hope they didn't remove drivers from the kernel.... again.

I don't know if you are trolling or not, but I'll bite

As explained in this pdf file about the debian kernel here [vergenet.net], they remove non-free drivers. I understand why they do it, but I could see where it would be annoying if your hardware was effected. Here is a quote from the pdf:

As the kernel is a core part of the Operating System it is in main And thus must comply with the DFSG Because of this, some source files are removed or modified This generally means the removal of drivers that include binary firmware blobs

On a related note, I sometimes get the feeling that they don't spend as much time polishing some of the rough edges off the kernel the way the Redhat people do with kernel patches and backports. But that is probably to be expected since they are (i'm guessing) mostly volunteers and not paid (like I'm sure the redhat engineers are). Regardless, I'm not looking a gift-horse in the mouth and I am thankful for their efforts. I'm a happy debian-stable user and look forward to etch.

Re:Architectures.

[delirium of disorder (701392)]

I don't know about VAX, but Debian runs great on MIPS and many other platforms. I installed and used it on several Sgi Indys and X worked fine, as did sound, networking, and all the hardware features I had used under IRIX. Some software was slower (gcc is notorously less optomised for MIPS then the commericial Sgi c compiler MIPS Pro), but more modern software was available. Most Debian packages are available for most architectures.

I also run Debian on PA-RISC for my shell server. [no-ip.org] Add an account for yourself and do a few apt-cache searches to see which packages are available. All the major desktop and server packages are there (various apache mods, firefox, gaim, amule, etc). I found Debian to provide more modern software then HP-UX or BSD for PA-RISC. Even most of the somewhat obscure Debain provided applications are available. I run Debian and Ubuntu on x86, OpenBSD and Solaris on SPARC64 (Solaris is better for SMP systems), IRIX and Debian on MIPS (IRIX is better for newer Sgis like the Octane2), and HP-UX and Debian on PA-RISC. Overall I've found Debian to be the most portable complete Operating Environment. I have not used NetBSD that much so I am not aware of it's current state. It has a reputation for portability, but seams to lag behind in terms of real world testing (many of the ports apparently consist of cross compiling code), and also doesn't seem to have as many packages as Debian. Overall it just looks less up to date then Debian or OpenBSD.

Re:Welcome

[baadger (764884)]

An "emerge -pve gnome" shows a total source code download of 592,129 kB atm (For a Gnome 2.14.2/Xorg 7 environment)
An "emerge -pve kde" shows a total source code download of 541,705 kB atm (For a KDE 3.5.2/Xorg 7 environment).

There are fewer packages for KDE in the Gentoo portage tree but thats because it's much more monolithic, there is however a modular set of packages for KDE. Either way the downoad size is almost the same, and i'd say their just as bad as one another to maintain.

I haven't run into many GTK apps that require Gnome libraries except maybe libgnomeui (provides additional widgets I think), which is small.

So quit trolling and think up something better than "make a poo proud" next time.