Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Debian Software Linux

Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" Released 386

Posted by kdawson
from the waiting's-over dept.
Alexander "Tolimar" Reichle-Schmehl writes "The Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of Debian GNU/Linux version 5.0 (codenamed Lenny) after 22 months of constant development. With 12 supported computer architectures, more than 23,000 packages built from over 12,000 source packages and 63 languages for the new graphical installer, this release sets new records, once again. Software available in 5.0 includes Linux 2.6.26, KDE 3.5.10, Gnome 2.22.2, X.Org 7.3, OpenOffice.org 2.4.1, GIMP 2.4.7, Iceweasel 3.0.6, Apache 2.2.9, Xen 3.2.1 and GCC 4.3.2. Other notable features are X autoconfiguring itself, full read-write support for NTFS, Java programs in the main repository and a single Blu-Ray disc installation media. You can get the ISOs via bittorrent. The Debian Project also wishes to announce that this release is dedicated to Thiemo Seufer, a Debian Developer who died on December 26th, 2008 in a tragic car accident. As a valuable member of the Debian Project, he will be sorely missed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" Released

Comments Filter:
  • by nicc777 (614519) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @06:48AM (#26862103) Homepage Journal
    Still KDE 3.5 - so perhaps this will be the KDE user's distro of choice?
    • by sqldr (838964) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @06:50AM (#26862107)
      I'm using 4.2 here, you insensitive clod!
    • by a09bdb811a (1453409) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:04AM (#26862171)

      Yes, the timing has worked out perfectly.

      I run Debian testing, so I've been on 3.5 for a long time, and very happily I might add.

      Now when sid starts moving again, KDE 4.2 will go in - completely avoiding the earlier, less complete releases that everybody was ranting about.

      Couldn't have worked out better, and is a reminder that you don't always need to be on the bleeding edge anyway.

      Debian has a very good KDE packaging team, btw.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by pabs3 (259410)

        The Debian KDE team would love any help people can give, perhaps from Kubuntu guys!

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The Debian KDE team would love any help people can give, perhaps from Kubuntu guys!

          I hope not. I'm have used kubuntu since 0606 and been happy about it and recommended it to everybody. But I stayed on 0804 with still has kde 3.5, and now I'm looking for an alternative distro.

          It's not the KDE4. I think it at least will be great now with 4.2, but (almost) all the extras that kubuntu put in are gone. No GUI to adjust the clock, no GUI to set up your screens etc.

      • by ultrabot (200914) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:28AM (#26862267)

        Now when sid starts moving again, KDE 4.2 will go in - completely avoiding the earlier, less complete releases that everybody was ranting about.

        Hopefully they will freeze KDE 4.3 with Qt 4.5. Freezing kde at 4.2 would seem like a mistake, when you consider that KDE people mostly focus on fixing bugs for 4.3. Also, Qt 4.5 should bring big performance improvements.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by scientus (1357317)

          a freeze is quite a ways away, we just had a hard freeze and now is long merge time.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Randle_Revar (229304)

          KDE releases every six months, so Squeeze should get 4.3 at very least, and 4.4 is likely. 4.5 is even a slight possibility, I would guess.

    • by pjt33 (739471)

      As a Debian/KDE user I've watched the discussions about KDE 4 on /. with mild bemusement. I'm sure I'll find out in a couple of years whether it adds anything useful (IMAO) to KDE 3.5. For now I'm happy that I can go back to being a Deb stable user, having being forced to use testing for the past year in order to get support for my graphics card.

  • by jamesmcm (1354379) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @06:58AM (#26862141)
    Savor this moment guys, a Debian release is like a Solar eclipse, you are lucky if you get to see one in your lifetime!
    • Re:A Debian release! (Score:5, Informative)

      by wahgnube (557787) <slashtrash@wahgnube.org> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:09AM (#26862193) Homepage Journal

      Huh?

      While it's easy to pile on with the melodrama, the last stable release, Etch, was in the middle of '07. A year and a half is an entirely reasonable amount of time to wait for an operating system release.

      I, for one, congratulate them on and thank them for their timely release!

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by timmarhy (659436)
        care to mention how long it took for them to get to etch?
        • Re:A Debian release! (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:25AM (#26862261)

          Etch took one month less than lenny. [debian.org]

        • Re:A Debian release! (Score:5, Informative)

          by petermgreen (876956) <plugwash@p10l[ ].net ['ink' in gap]> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:31AM (#26862281) Homepage

          note: theese lengths only take account of the month not the time in the month so they may be a little off but they are good enough for the purpose

          buzz->rex 6 months
          rex->bo 6 months
          bo->hamm 13 months
          hamm->slink 8 months
          slink->potato 17 months
          potato->woody 23 months
          woody->sarge 35 months
          sarge->etch 22 months
          etch->lenny 22 months

          • Re:A Debian release! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Kjella (173770) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:03AM (#26862391) Homepage

            Sarge really was the source of these endless jokes. Almost three years, on a Linux that was considerably less mature than it is today was forever. Remember that all releases are tested and mature by the time they are included in stable, so they were at the worst more like four years behind the bleeding edge. Obviously you don't want a server anywhere near the bleeding edge, but damn do I understand all the application developers that said "You're running THAT?! We stopped development on that branch years ago, nobody backports anything not even security fixes anymore". A distro has to be a team effort with the people developing it - you can't expect Debian people to fix 20000 old packages alone. The current situation is just fine for a server OS, though I wouldn't run my desktop on it. I used to run testing until early 2007 but for all the faults Ubuntu has, having semi-annual "packs" is better than the constantly changing flow that testing is.

            • by rbochan (827946)

              Sarge really was the source of these endless jokes. Almost three years, on a Linux that was considerably less mature than it is today was forever...

              Sure, the release time from Woody to Sarge was funny until you realized that even with the umpteen thousands of packages included with Sarge, the Debian team still beat release times between Microsoft's bare-bones desktop OSes Windows XP [cnet.com] and Vista [pcpro.co.uk].

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by drinkypoo (153816)

                I don't want to give Microsoft free defense or anything, but that's because Windows XP was getting better over that time and still ran all the new software. Debian Sarge stayed trapped in antiquity for eons and was helplessly behind the times. I think that was the time when the community decided that Debian was a server OS, and that someone else would have to provide a desktop Debian.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by petermgreen (876956)

                There are three reasons why 3 years for debian was far worse than 5 years for windows.

                The first is that linux was pretty immature at that time. IIRC woody didn't even have X autoconfiguration and asked you scary questions about your monitor rather than just defaulting to safe settings and letting you crank it up later.

                The second is software authors have different attitudes towards windows and linux.

                Windows developers tend to assume you will be running a stable release of windows that was current sometime in

          • by DrYak (748999)

            To put things into scale :

            WinME->WinXP home 13 months (but at least it got home users rid of WinME)
            Win2k->WinXP pro 20 months
            WinXP->Vista 61 months (yup) (+2 if you count when it hit the shelfs)
            Vista->Win7 announced for 2010, so that would put it at least 37 months
            (that it before, delay get inevitably announced)

        • by novakyu (636495) <novakyu@member.fsf.org> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:53AM (#26862369) Homepage

          Etch just looked longer because *a lot* of improvements to the GNU/Linux was being made during that time in terms of the kernel hardware support and the desktop stuff, and whoever was using Debian stable during that time couldn't take advantage of those developments.

          They always had the option to go "testing", which is surprisingly stable, compared to other GNU/Linux distros or, God forbid, Windows. The only downside is that the security patches usually come first to the stable release.

          • by Trepidity (597) <.delirium-slashdot. .at. .hackish.org.> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:18AM (#26862441)

            Unstable is unstable in the sense of changes happening semi-frequently, which you may not want on your production servers. But if your primary problem with Debian stable is that it doesn't get new software often enough, then presumably changes happening semi-frequently is precisely what you do want. And it gets bugfixes and security fixes first.

            Despite the name, it's not where totally crazy experimental stuff that is more-likely-broken-than-not happens. There's a separate area, aptly named "experimental", for those packages. For example, the xf86->xorg change was staged in experimental for several months before being pushed to unstable after getting put into pretty good shape. OpenOffice 3 is undergoing a similar process currently, and will presumably be in good shape by the time it gets into unstable.

            There is admittedly sometimes breakage in unstable, usually of specific packages, just because it's the newest widely used distribution: something'll never get to testing if it breaks in unstable. You can avoid even that, unless you really are the first person ever to encounter a particular bug, by using apt-listbugs to warn you of packages with major bugs filed against them, and delay upgrading those.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Experimental is also where KDE 4 has been living all this time. It'll be good to have experimental back to be something I rarely get a package from, rather than half my GUI systems :)

            • You get world-class support for bugfixes, reasonable enhancement requests, package-interaction issues, and so on, often with new versions available within days of filing a good bug report. You get some of that in stable, but with a less satisfying lag until the next point release (or with more minor issues until the next major release).

              That was really what blew me away when I switched in 2002 from running Windows 2000 full-time to running Debian sid/unstable full time. Complex issues like some program depen

      • by risk one (1013529) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:57AM (#26862575)

        A year and a half is an entirely reasonable amount of time to wait for an operating system release.

        I run Vista, you insensitive clod!

    • by gardyloo (512791)

      If you mean total solar eclipses, maybe. Partials are a dime-a-dozen.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I'd savor the moment more if I didn't just install the last 4.0 release two days ago. At least it was just a minimal install for a server. Off to download the new netinst...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:10AM (#26862203)
    Some first impressions on the release, screenshots and an explanation of the delay from Steve McIntyre, the Debian Project Leader, here: http://tuxradar.com/content/lenny-has-landed [tuxradar.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zsau (266209)

      Screenshots of Debian? I can't think of anything more useless. You might as well try taking photos of life-forms there's such a huge range. No-one but me has a computer that looks+works the way mine does. (Albeit I've changed the feel more than the look, so any non-Gnome Crux screenshot will be reasonably close.)

  • Thiemo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by emj (15659) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:19AM (#26862231) Homepage Journal

    He was a great hacker [lwn.net], it's nice to know that more people will remember him.

    • Re:Thiemo (Score:5, Funny)

      by bap (75675) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:10AM (#26862623) Homepage

      Yes, it is a shame he died in a tragic car accident, instead of one of those non-tragic fatal accidents.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Well, if you're like 99 and dying of pancreatic cancer, pass out and hit a phone pole, it's not all that tragic, though it is a bit sad. Of course, that's a matter of perspective, I guess. But if you did think that was a tragedy, you'd probably fucking explode if you realized what kind of shit really was going on in the world.

        On the flip side, people die all the time and we don't know if it's a tragedy for them or not. (Well, some people claim to know...)

      • Re:Thiemo (Score:4, Informative)

        by ColonelPanic (138077) <pmklauslerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @10:51AM (#26863147)

        The word "tragic" has an actual meaning, you know. If the accident were the ineluctable consequence of a character flaw -- and I do not suggest that this be the case -- then the usage would be correct and informative.

  • Blu-Ray? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Maybe I'm just overlooking the obvious, but where IS the Blu-Ray ISO image? I can see it mentioned in the SHA1SUMS file [debian.org], for instance, but it doesn't appear to be on the cdimages server, neither as an ISO nor as a .torrent.

    • Re:Blu-Ray? (Score:4, Informative)

      by sinan_imam (536383) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:45AM (#26862333)

      It is not going to be in the archives because it would waste a huge amount of space. You may build it yourself using jigdo.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816)

        It is not going to be in the archives because it would waste a huge amount of space. You may build it yourself using jigdo.

        So what you're saying is that they are doing their best to prevent it?

        (Maybe the thing has changed substantially, but last time I tried to use jigdo I actually ended up using a different Linux in protest.)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by petermgreen (876956)

          it is indeed unfortunate that afaict there is STILL no decent client for jigdo.

          The main jigdo gui plain doesn't work. There is a script called jigdo-lite that "works" but provides no progress indication and fills your console with garbage and gives no clear indication of whether it is resuming or starting again from scratch.

          anyone here familiar with the source for a linux download manager and fancy adding jigdo support?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pabs3 (259410)

      IIRC you need to use jigdo to assemble them from the packages. This page hints at that:

      http://www.debian.org/releases/lenny/debian-installer/ [debian.org]

    • Re:Blu-Ray? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:05AM (#26862403)

      Don't forget the 'best' install out there: NetInstall [debian.org]. Unless you actually want to download 31 CDs or 5 DVDs worth of stuff. The best part about Debian is the mix and match of installing what I want. I honestly can't fathom trying to download 20Gigs of stuff just to make a desktop unless I plan on installing in middle of nowhere.

  • by Qbertino (265505) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:47AM (#26862343)

    Just reading this (Note I am not a Debian User anymore) has me noticing just how much the quality is in the FOSS field compared to MicroSuck, Adobemedia and any other company that's just in it for the money and not the technical perfection. Despite all marketing gibberish to the contrary.

    While I've been using Ubuntu for it's ease of use in recent years and see Debian more as a kind of building kit when I need a more customized Linux setup, it is none-the-less a terrific feat to wrap up a product that meets Debians quality standards, as opposed to those of - let's say - Windows Vista.

    Even the slashdot post on the new Debian has more content that a MS press release.

    That all observed and said, congrats to the Debian crew for yet another release of a great OS and Software kit.

    • by heffrey (229704) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:25AM (#26862683)

      You can't beat the fantastic quality of Debian, especially when it comes to the fantastic work done with Valgrind and Purify to remove some of the bugs in the OpenSSL seeding code used to generate encryption keys. Obviously no closed source code could possibly live up to those marvellous standards. It's just not possible to write high quality closed source code. In fact the mere act of releasing previously closed source code under the GPL makes it high quality.

      • by fritsd (924429)
        You're mean!

        Anyway, besides the necessary <sarcasm> tags, you forgot the informative link:

        Cryptographic weakness on Debian systems [lwn.net]

        I think it was fixed 2 years ago, BTW. But feel free to verify it--you have the source.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by heffrey (229704)

          The bug was introduced September 2006 and fixed in May 2008. I think there were many very troubling issues relating to this bug that everyone who is works on and relies on OSS should be concerned about. The main point, in my view, is the lack of process. This is a bug that was introduced by the downstream packagers of OpenSSL. So, the distro supplies something that you think is OpenSSL, but in reality it isn't. It's the downstream packagers' version of OpenSSL. I'm afraid any trust evaporates at that

          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2009 @11:56AM (#26863527)

            Oh ffs, the OpenSSL developers were just as responsible for the snafu as Debian was. More so I'd say since the Debian developer asked on the openssl-dev list about his patch and whether anyone had any objections to it. Here's the response he got from a OpenSSL developer:http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=114652287210110&w=2/ [marc.info]

            List: openssl-dev
            Subject: Re: Random number generator, uninitialised data and valgrind.
            From: Ulf_Möller
            Date: 2006-05-01 22:34:12
            Message-ID: 44568CE4.9020906 () openssl ! org
            [Download message RAW]

            Kurt Roeckx schrieb:
            > What I currently see as best option is to actually comment out
            > those 2 lines of code. But I have no idea what effect this
            > really has on the RNG. The only effect I see is that the pool
            > might receive less entropy. But on the other hand, I'm not even
            > sure how much entropy some unitialised data has.
            >
            Not much. If it helps with debugging, I'm in favor of removing them.
            (However the last time I checked, valgrind reported thousands of bogus
            error messages. Has that situation gotten better?)

            Got that? He was given the ok by a OpenSSL developer. They're every bit as responsible as Debian.

            • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:43PM (#26866587) Homepage Journal

              Got that? He was given the ok by a OpenSSL developer. They're every bit as responsible as Debian.

              Not quite. The openssl developer was right that the change didn't cause a significant problem when applied to the lines the Debian dev asked about. The Debian dev then applied the change both there and to another bit of code, and it was that second -- unreviewed -- change that did the damage.

  • by stonedcat (80201) <hikaricore [at] gmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:49AM (#26862349) Homepage

    Duke Nukem Forever

  • Oblig. (Score:3, Funny)

    by dangitman (862676) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:49AM (#26862353)
    Not Lenny!
  • No OpenOffice 3.x (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Satri (609291) <alexandreleroux@nOsPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:04AM (#26862401) Homepage Journal

    I'm obviously very happy about the Lenny release since my employer (part of Environment Canada) makes us use Debian. However, I guess there are "good" technical reasons, but I'm sad OpenOffice 3.x could not make it. One of our tech allowed us to install OO3 on our Etch machines. The result: 003 makes my Etch crash (the full OS, not just the app, to my entire surprise!). I'm not saying it's the same for everybody else, but it's a sad thing for me. (in fact, even 2.4.1 can crash Etch since I installed 3.0... and I'm no way knowledgeful enough to fix that problem :-/)

    Why does computers have to be that complicated? ;-)

    • by thermian (1267986)

      I'm obviously very happy about the Lenny release since my employer (part of Environment Canada) makes us use Debian. However, I guess there are "good" technical reasons, but I'm sad OpenOffice 3.x could not make it. One of our tech allowed us to install OO3 on our Etch machines. The result: 003 makes my Etch crash (the full OS, not just the app, to my entire surprise!). I'm not saying it's the same for everybody else, but it's a sad thing for me. (in fact, even 2.4.1 can crash Etch since I installed 3.0... and I'm no way knowledgeful enough to fix that problem :-/)

      Why does computers have to be that complicated? ;-)

      Sounds more like a hardware issue to me, or perhaps a really badly configured Linux install.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:06AM (#26862409)

    I might be missing something here, but aren't there still 84 release-critical bugs [debian.org] open on lenny? I understand a number of them have been deferred to lenny.1, but I had expected this number to drop further before a release was made. Has Debian changed their release policy?

    [captcha: prudence]

  • FHS 2.3? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The debian press release on http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090214 mentions:

    It also features compatibility with the FHS v2.3

    (The press release for 4.0 did the same.)

    However:
    http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIB64 tells me that

    The 64-bit architectures PPC64, s390x, sparc64 and AMD64 must place 64-bit libraries in /lib64, and 32-bit (or 31-bit on s390) libraries in /lib.

    What insensitive clod does break a lot of older software and claims to be compliant with standards when they aren't?

  • "A single [...] media" - what language is that?
  • OT question ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jopet (538074) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:05AM (#26862605) Journal

    will there ever be a way to watch blue-ray movies legally on a Linux computer?
    I have been using Linux on my desktop for years now, but I am getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of drivers for all the things that get more and more "normal" in the Windows world: synchronizing mobile phones, loading maps into a GPS device, playing Blue-ray disks, operating TV-cards, security devices (e.g. chip-card readers) and other special hardware.
    So it is not only a lack of game playing software or professional graphics software like Photoshop ... it is simlply a major *effort* for the average user to ignore or work around all these problems.
    And it seems for some of these problems there are major legal or other obstacles which I cannot see getting solved in the future.
    Opinions?

    • Re:OT question ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @10:02AM (#26862871) Journal

      There's no legal way to do many worthwhile things in this world. Don't worry about it. You're here to live your life, not obey laws.

      • by jopet (538074)

        Thats true but not quite the point. In some cases you can simply ignore the laws. However in cases like this, the consequences will, in my opinion, be quite harmful for the broader acceptance of Linux. Unlike with DVDs I do not see an easy "grey" solution.
        That is what worries me, because I know that I will only get more special hardware support for Linux if it will achieve broader acceptance, which will depend on more special hardware support etc.

        I am raising this issue here because I do not have an idea ho

        • Re:OT question ... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Helmholtz (2715) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @11:48AM (#26863477) Homepage

          There's nothing "grey" about the DVD solution. Using libdvdcss in the USA is a violation of the DMCA, and consequently is illegal at a federal level.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by daveewart (66895)

            There's nothing "grey" about the DVD solution. Using libdvdcss in the USA is a violation of the DMCA, and consequently is illegal at a federal level.

            So why not release Debian with all the nice goodies included, but have the final stage of the installer ask "Are you in the US?" ... and if you answer "Yes", then it removes anything that cannot be distributed there.

  • Hardware donations (Score:5, Informative)

    by wikinerd (809585) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:25AM (#26862687) Journal
    Also do not forget that Debian currently seeks hardware donations [debian.org].
  • by wvmarle (1070040) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @10:53AM (#26863157)

    Today I just decided to do an upgrade of my Debian server, to have the latest security and bugfixes. Instead I suddenly got hundreds of packages to update... well this explains why. I jsut have my sources pointing at stable, so that is updated now automatically.

    A complete new stable release, interesting.

    Not sure whether I should be happy with this or not. On one hand great to have a major update of some software, on the other hand I hope I'm not going to break anything.

    And the only thing I was actually planning to do was install ldap and authentication over ldap!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by RichiH (749257)

      Point your sources to oldstable if you want to keep etch :)
      Or point them to etch, which will work as well.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcubed (556032)

      Generally speaking, it's a good idea to use the nicknames in your /etc/apt/sources.list, rather than the generic names. So use "lenny," "squeeze," "sid," rather than "stable," "testing," "unstable." That way you won't be surprised by a release.

      Though, really, Debian releases are so few and far between, it's a pretty infrequent "surprise."

      Check the release notes in advance of upgrading to be aware of potential issues. If you just change your current list from "stable" to "etch," you won't have any of the

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.

Working...