Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Debian Software Upgrades Linux

Debian 3.0r6 Released 297

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the old-favorites dept.
Polkan Garcia writes "The Debian group has released an update to the 'Woody' distribution of the popular GNU/Linux OS. From the site: 'This is the sixth and final update of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (codename 'woody') which mainly adds security updates to the stable release, along with a few corrections to serious problems. Those who frequently update from security.debian.org won't have to update many packages and most updates from security.debian.org are included in this update.' More good news: r6 is the final update of woody, the new stable release is coming."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian 3.0r6 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by c0d3h4x0r (604141) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @07:39PM (#12709963) Homepage Journal
    ...is YOUR woody secure?
  • Ahem... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by niko9 (315647) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @07:40PM (#12709965)
    before the usual rants about debian begin....

    let he who has donated at least one line of code, cast the first stone...
    • Re:Ahem... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Umbral Blot (737704) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @07:44PM (#12710000) Homepage
      Sure in theory we should all contribute before criticizing. However this is not practical. Want to criticise MS, go work for them. You hate SCO, go work for them too. BSD not what you want, go fix it. In my opinion it is OK to criticize something that you aren't a part of, as long as you make reasonable points.
      • Paid for an MS product? Then you've contributed - you've bought 1000th of a programmer's salary.
      • No. I have _PAID_ MS for their software product so when things don't work, it's my right to complain. I have paid nothing to debian yet I have used their software. I have no right to complain.

        If folks want to complain about debian, they should either contribute, or pay someone for support and compain to them. (eg, get one of the commercial debian based distros)
        • Re:Ahem... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Psiren (6145)
          There's a difference between constructive criticism and complaints. The former can be useful, the latter just tends to get peoples backs up. Having said that, I'm going to complain.

          I am a fan of Debian, using it on all my home machines and the servers here at work. However, I'm in a somewhat foul mood this morning after spending ages trying to get an HBA FC card to work with debian Sarge, only to (eventually) find they've ripped the code out of the kernel because it contained non-free binary firmware.

          Yes,
          • Yes, I understand Debian is all about Free software. But dammit, I need the card to work, and now I have to compile my own kernel to do it.

            This is a freedom versus convenience choice. You picked freedom (by running debian) and you seem to be compaining that it is inconvenient. If convenience is more important than freedom for you then you picked the wrong OS. If not, then you have to take some pain of the inconvenience.
            • You are correct of course. This is the first case in 5 years of using Debian that it's been an issue for me, so I think I made the right choice. I just had to vent because I was wound up about it. I don't blame
              Debian for doing it, although it would perhaps be nice to have a non-free version of the kernel for people like me who want it all ;)
    • *throws the first stone*
    • Do monetary donations count?

      Debian is moving so slow, future versions will be derived from Ubuntu. It'll become its own grandpa.
      • So after "Sarge" comes Debian "Fry?"
        • Hey, did you ever get your updating thing resolved?

          After shifting jobs I ended up moving to Ubuntu at work and home. That would -- rather, will change at home as soon as I get a fast connection.

          Using both chagrins me immensely, but for different reasons. They are the best of a marginally less-frustrating lot ... Debian still takes too long to configure correctly, and Ubuntu still has some fit-and-finish issues that drive me nuts.

          Cheers
          t30
    • I'm not casting any stones. Stoning is a form of execution. But complaining, bitching, ranting, or even joking about Debian's lethargic development process is not an execution. If you don't like it, bitch back.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    An employee suggested to me that we install Debian on a few machines here as an evaluation. I was skeptical at first but he explained the benefits of using Debian instead of having to buy Windows XP. I decided to let him install it on 5 machines to see how the employees got on. Besides, our IT manager had been using Debian at home and he hadn't reported any problems - why not try it on our employees?

    Once he'd got the employees up and running with Debian we let them try it out. It all seemed fine to start

    • An employee suggested to me that we troll on a few Slashdot topics as an evaluation. I was skeptical at first but he explained the benefits of trolling on Slashdot instead of wanking off in a dark closet. I decided to let him troll in 5 topics to see how the trolling got on. Besides, our IT manager had been trolling Slashdot at home and he hadn't reported any problems - why not try it on with our employees?

      Once he'd got the employees up and running with Slashdot trolling we let them try it out. It all seem
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:02PM (#12710104)
    As much heat as Woody gets from the Slashdot crowd, I think it is a good idea to have a stable release that doesn't update very quickly. Keep in mind that, as "old" as Debian is, it was released in 2002. It is no older than Windows XP (2001-2002 release) and is a good deal younger than Windows 2000 (1999 release). One of the servers I have an account on is a RedHat 7.2 machine, which is of the same era as the first Woody release. While I develop on Fedora Core three, I make sure my software compiles as is on a RedHat 6.2 system (2000 era).

    For servers and corporate desktops, an update every three years is a frequent update. I am glad that Debian has been current with security updates on this three-year-old release; I would rather have that than the updgrade treadmill Fedora has me on. (The Fedora Legacy [fedoralegacy.org] project seems to be comatose) In fact, I'm going off of the treadmill--my next Linux will be CentOS [centos.org] (a no-cost generic clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux) which will allow me to have sane updates--once a year or two instead of once every six months.
    • by Elf-friend (554128) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @11:37PM (#12711412)
      XP wasn't eighteen months obsolete when it released. Yet that is just about how far behind everyone else Woody was when it shipped. Some people were willing to cope with that, since the project leaders promised a short turn around on Sarge (IIRC, they said they were aiming at under a year). Instead, here we are three years later, with Sarge still somewhere "out there" on the horizon, with packages even further behind than Woody's were when it released. I don't feel like waiting until 2008 before I can migrate to tools that other users have now.

      An additional point about the XP comparison: nobody shipped software requiring Windows XP in 1999, but that's exactly what happens with Debian. When the Linux version of Neverwinter Nights shipped in 2003, I couldn't install it on Woody, (and still can't, AFAIK) because of Woody's ancient version of gcc. I need Sarge to run that on a stable version of Debian. Here we are, two years later, and still it won't run on Debian stable. It will run on nearly any other distro's latest stable release (and on BSD), but not Debian stable.

      The Debian release cycle just keeps getting worse, and I see no end in sight for that. An update every three years might well be fine if the updates weren't falling further behind with each one.

      • The Debian release cycle just keeps getting worse, and I see no end in sight for that.

        I think you haven't been paying attention. The Debian project has planned many changes to the process after Sarge is released, perhaps the largest is that they're going to reduce the number of supported platforms.

        It's possible that the changes won't speed up releases, but there's good reason to think they will. If you disagree, fine, but you should explain why you disagree.

      • Sounds like you want to use Linux for your desktop. Debian stable wasn't meant to be a desktop distribution. Go use unstable. In spite of its name, it's not that unstable.
      • by nihilogos (87025) on Friday June 03, 2005 @01:01AM (#12711726)
        The thing is, Debian stable is actually really, really stable. The uptime for a file / intraweb / domain server at a busy record store I part-time admin for is 454 days. It was installed 454 days ago. If this server goes down, the crappy stock system freezes (possibly corrupting data if someone is doing an order or receiving stock) all the checkout staff have to logout of their machines while large queues form at the counters, and generally it's a bit stressful for people.

        Why the heck should Debian compromise on its definition of 'stable' for people who want to play neverwinter nights? Especially as, like you say, you can just run sarge anyway?

        A big thankyou to all the Debian maintainers. May all your beers be cold.
      • When the Linux version of Neverwinter Nights shipped in 2003, I couldn't install it on Woody, (and still can't, AFAIK) because of Woody's ancient version of gcc.

        I'm sorry, but knocking an extremely reliable and stable OS that is not known for its bleeding-edge packages vs known stable ones, and an OS that is more meant to be a server vs a game console, I don't even consider your troubles with the Neverwinter Nights game informative or even any kind of a datapoint besides Debian is not meant to run games (
    • One interesting thing about Linux vs. Windows as far as age of the OS goes... Windows 2000 will almost always run the latest greatest software. Maybe you have to update DirectX or whatever, but the API is pretty darn stable. I can run most current software on NT 4.0 from 1996!

      I have many Woody systems around and getting the latest greatest software packages running on them can be a real pain... especially desktop stuff.
      Although any desktops I build these days are sarge. If someone hasn't gone through the
    • As much heat as Woody gets from the Slashdot crowd, I think it is a good idea to have a stable release that doesn't update very quickly. Keep in mind that, as "old" as Debian is, it was released in 2002. It is no older than Windows XP (2001-2002 release) and is a good deal younger than Windows 2000 (1999 release).

      Windows XP is at service pack 2, which is a whole new dot release, adding lots of new features.

      Windows 2003 is the successor of Windows 2000. AFAIK both have service packs, aka dot releases.

  • I've used Debian since RH sold its soul to the Devil. Debian is the most well-designed OS I have ever used... and I've used a lot. apt-get is simply amazing. Dozens of distros are based on Debian... why? Because, it's the most well-designed OS in the world. It just screams of good, thoughtful design that just works. I can install Debian and have a useful machine for 5 - 7 years (that's how good apt-get is).
    • I dropped RH as well.

      They would not even provide decent academic pricing for official versions. WTF? I don't want to pay every year for support.

      Debian works, works well, and is free. Knoppix is painless for install, and apt-get is great.

      Some utils are not as friendly as they could be, but things are ok.
  • Any one know if or when Debian will transition away from xfree86? I know that 4.3.0 version is in Sarge (and Sid) and getting bug fixes. But what is the long term plan for X on Debian?
  • Is there any chance of Debian adopting autopackage http://autopackage.org/ [autopackage.org]? I wish they did because though it (autopackage) might have its quirks, the best implementation to package manegement will not necessarily help in World domination. I undertsnd that M$ also is relevant here.
    • As far as I know, autopackage supports Debian, so an autopackage package will work. There is no reason for Debian to use it as their primary packaging system, they already have apt and it works fine*. You are right when said that autopackage have its quirks. Not being good for a distro management is one of them. The system is designed to make single programs install easily on multiple distros, not to base a hole distro on it.

      * Try apt before complainning... Really, try it!

  • As much as people may complain about the age of packages that make up Debian stable releases, they serve a niche well and the project sticking to its goals on supporting many platforms and keeping the stable distribution static has provided a good alternative for those not willing to climb the upgrade ladder with distributions like fedora or ubuntu, or deal with any issues that arise by running unstable or newer debian branches. To each their own, and every release is a positive move for the stable users ou
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02, 2005 @08:48PM (#12710365)
    More good news: r6 is the final update of woody, the new stable release is coming.

    That sounds good, but I hope that they're not just succumbing to deadline pressure and shoving this thing out the door half baked.

    • debian point releases don't really change a great deal anyway they replace a few packages that are really badly broken and rollup the security updates into the main tree but thats about it

      this one also rolled in a certain update that will prevent a possible major problem for those who try and upgrade from woody-sarge without following the instructions.
  • I switched from Debian to Gentoo when I bought my first Athlon chip a few years ago. My reasoning was, why use a distribution optimized for a 20 year old architecture, when I can use one that takes advantage of my CPU's capabilities?

    I saw this article and thought I'd look into Debian again, just to see what it's like. I figured since I've always liked apt just a tad better than portage, and I'm now switching to a new architecture (AMD64), the Debian packages for that architecture would be optimized for m
    • There is Debian support for AMD64; it's currently waiting to be included into the official Debian archive once Sarge has been released (probably next week). Currently, the AMD64 port consists of an unofficial archive containing a complete 64bit binary port of both unstable and testing distributions. The AMD64 Debian site has even netinstall iso's. See http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ [debian.org]
    • Don't worry about it. Debian will include AMD64 support when etch is released in 2012. Of course everyone else will be using 128-bit machines, but that's not the point.
    • iirc the situation with amd64 is that thier are some technical issues keeping it out of the main archive but they are doing a sarge release through a seperate archive and there will be security updates and cd images made for it through the normal debian processes.


  • I've been running on debian unstable for about the last 7 or 8 months - at home and at work. It is exceptionally solid.

    Debian unstable for me has been more stable than either Fedora (both 2 and 3), and Mandrake. Dunno about other distros.

    Debian packages break a lot less frequently than packages for most other distributions I've played with (slak, RH, Mandrake). Also, the scope of debian's package system is unmatched.

    I was amazed when I was trying to install 'bioperl' at work (a somewhat esoteric perl
    • Debian unstable for me has been more stable than either Fedora (both 2 and 3), and Mandrake.

      I think you're confused about the meaning of the word "Debian unstable". The unstable distribution is called so because it is changing, it is work a progress. In this sense Debian unstable is indeed unstable and Fedora Core is stable. Only bug fixes and security updates are making into Fedora while with Debian unstable new versions of packages are making into distribution all the time. Maybe that's fine for a devel
      • I think this is indicative of a greater problem with the stable/unstable labelling of Debian.

        I use an 'unstable' build of debian, and it's the most stable OS I've used, yet for an approaching user facing, a copy of an up-to-date-but-'unstable' debian, a two-year-old-but-'stable' debian or Fedora Core, guess which one's going to get picked. Naming is everything and the debian brand is being hurt by it's semantics.
    • I was amazed when I was trying to install 'bioperl' at work (a somewhat esoteric perl library for handling biology data). I was just joking around and typed 'apt-get install bioperl', thinking to myself "if only life could be that nice". I couldn't beleive my eyes when I realized that bioperl was actually in the package repos. It blew me away.

      And even if a particular Perl module isn't included, you can build a nice Debian package of it from source or right off CPAN with this handy Debian Helper script:

      d

  • See:
    1. From the site: 'This is the sixth and final update of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (codename 'woody') [..]

    And this:
    2. [..] More good news: r6 is the final update of woody [..]

    3. ???
    4. Profit!
  • I'm a little confused about Debian versions. There's "Woody" which is "Stable", and "Sarge" which is "Testing". OK.

    When 3.1 comes out next week or whenever, will Woody go away or will the existing package list that is Sarge just start to be called Woody? Or will they start calling Stable Sarge, testing Sid and unstable something else?

    I'm installing linux on a new server and want to try out Debian. I installed Ubuntu last night which seems fine, except it doesn't seem to include some software I need

    • unstable is always sid

      testing is the current testing distribution currently pointed at (symlinked to on the servers) sarge

      stable is the current stable distribution currently pointed at woody

      oldstable is the previous stable distribition currently pointed at potato

      when sarge releases testing will be pointed at the new testing distribution (etch) stable will be pointed at sarge and oldstable will be pointed at woody
  • I imagine in the near future a commercial:
    For the sexy salesman in you, it's Oxy Toe Sin, because you want them to do your bidding.

    It will be sold in little displays by plaid jackets everywhere. Or next to Rufees.

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...