Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (r0a) Quick Tour 213
linuxbeta writes "At OSDir there's a tour of the fixed Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (r0a) release. After 3 years we finally get to have a look at the new Debian, including their new installer. Release notes. Only occasionally does this new release differ from Ubuntu."
After 3 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod me troll, but how many GUI's have I seen that look exactly like that?
Why 3.1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Debian should have died long ago (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Without Debian, no Ubutnu.
2) Want a reliable server? -Debian Stable 3) Want the latest and greatest? -Debian Unstable
Re:Graphical Interface looks horrible (Score:5, Insightful)
I tried Debian a few years ago and hated it. Now I love it. Why? I have 2 boxen that *have* to work or I start losing money. If you go for Stable, which is currently Sarge, then, yes, it is behind the times. Problaby none of the major programs in Sarge are the latest versions, but they are stable and have been tested more than almost any software declared stable on the planet. I know I can install Sarge on these systems and not have to worry. That's the point of Debian: to provide a rock-solid and stable distro that is done right -- in a style developers, admins and programers know is most likely to produce stable programs once they are installed.
If you want more "up-to-date" packages, run Testing (currently Etch) or Unstable (always Sid). The packages are still in the process of being tested and migrating to a stable state, but the latest bells and whistles can be found there for you to play with if a pretty GUI is all you need.
The point is not to look pretty. If you like that, Windows has some very nice wallpaper, and a much prettier installer. If all you're worried about is a GUI, then I suggest you try that OS.
As for gaining market share, if it weren't for the way Debian works, we would not see all the Debian based distros out there like Mepis, Knoppix, Kanotix, and Ubuntu. I know there's more, but they charge too much and don't have enough to make the price worth while.
So Debian guys are not behind everyone else. They are, in many ways ahead -- at least to those who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. If you don't like it, go back to Windows or spend a few bucks on Linspire. When you get to the point where you can appreciate more than a need to gain marketshare or pretty GUIs, then look at Debian.
Re:Graphical Interface looks horrible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Debian should have died long ago (Score:3, Insightful)
That's totally beside the point. You do not seem to understand the relation between the two. What Ubuntu is more capable of is managing are *quick, extremely stripped down releases of Debian*. Nothing more. All the grunt work is done by the Debian developers. The reason Ubuntu was able to create a system competitive with established big distributions like RedHat in such a short time, is not that their few employees are geniuses, but that they take all the enormously valuabe work from Debian and just need to add a few little twists to them. It really only shows that Debian isn't lacking nearly as much as it may seem at first look.
Father and son (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh. Wouldn't it rather be appropriate to put it the other way round?...
Re:ubuntu... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny, since I gave a friend Debian (Sarge, with installer), and they couldn't work it, and gave them Hoary and they could. I wouldn't call the differences trivial -- to an experienced user perhaps, but to a novice many of the changes are invaluable. That's not to say they're not small changes, but they are valuable nontheless.
3 years was worth the wait (Score:4, Insightful)
To everyone his/her own distro!!! But Debian is still the best one around. Cheers to the Debian crew, all +1000 of them.
Re:Debian should have died long ago (Score:2, Insightful)
I certainly don't see many people saying that (and for sure not "most"), and on the occasion I do see one, I laugh at them. Ubuntu is ok, but it's Debian Lite. The last release was slow, nobody will dispute that, but there were definitely reasons why that happened, not the least of which was changes to policy which required a good bit of attention in order to move forward. I would also say that the new installer probably ate up it's fair chunk of time. Now, Ubuntu doesn't have to do things like write an installer that will work on 11 different architectures, but they sure have no problem grabbing whatever works at the time and packaging it. I'd say there's a fair bit of difference in the management of the 2 projects, in that one of them does 99% of the work, and the other grabbs a mostly finished product, puts a polish on it and sends it out the door.
"Recently we had an article on
Oh really? Wow, I actually read that, but that's not what it was. It was an article that in fact stated that some users didn't read the release notes, and therefore did not update the *BROKEN VERSION OF APT THAT WAS IN WOODY* before they upgraded as was reccomended, and encounted some difficulties. Don't wanna read the instructions? Maybe Linux is not for you.
"Debian Unstable is rarely the latest and greatest."
Maybe not, but 99% of the time it's certainly closer to that than Ubuntu is.
"Debian should be dead. My crystal ball gives it about 6 more months."
Methinks your magic 8 ball is broken.
Debian has plenty of life left (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Graphical Interface looks horrible (Score:1, Insightful)
Last I looked, XFree was such a beast that time spent on getting a "graphical" installer using XFree would be better spent on other things....
besides, you only install debian once.
Re:debian has somewhat caught up... for now (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us simply don't require the constant barrage of new features a distribution like Ubuntu or Debian Unstable offers. Although any Linux distribution can be adapted to fit almost any market, not all of us require the latest wireless adapters or version of openoffice to fulfill our needs.
um, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:After 3 years... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. Most of the changes in Debian were in system tools and applications side. As in "hey, look at all this neat Apache 2.0 stuff".
On desktop side, Debian has the same stuff everyone else has. The only possible distinguishing thing is that Debian has its own color scheme and even a desktop background image, which (to my understanding) haven't even changed in a while, and it doesn't even default to those...
As for the installer: I've seen the installer once in each Debian machine I've needed to set up. That's three times since 1997. Why should I care what it looks today? Why should anyone care what the installer really looks like? List of changed install features and how smooth the installer is now, that's what I want to hear.
I think Linux distro reviews that focus on screenshots are a bit misguided. It's easy for, say, Fedora newbies go "this sucks, it has GNOME 2.8 and not even a custom background per default", and they never get to discover the sheer joy of make-kpkg. =)
Re:ubuntu... (Score:2, Insightful)
I could do a base Ubuntu install, then sit my dad in front of it with a copy of the Ubuntu guide. Within half an hour, he would be able to play DVDs, MP3s, WMV files, watch quicktime trailers and use P2P software.
Now true, he would'nt have learnt anything. But he probably doesn't want to. He probably just wants to listen to Radio 5 live online.
Ubuntu and the Ubuntu guide are Debian for people who don't care how it works.