Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Debian Operating Systems Upgrades Linux

Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" Frozen 202

Posted by timothy
from the declaring-it-squozen dept.
edesio writes with a snippet from debian-news.net, trumpeting an announcement from the ongoing DebConf10 in NYC: "Debian's release managers have announced a major step in the development cycle of the upcoming stable release Debian 6.0 'Squeeze': Debian 'Squeeze' has now been frozen. In consequence this means that no more new features will be added and all work will now be concentrated on polishing Debian 'Squeeze' to achieve the quality Debian stable releases are known for. The upcoming release will use Linux 2.6.32 as its default kernel in the installer and on all Linux architectures.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" Frozen

Comments Filter:
  • sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    its just sad Ubuntu gets all the publicity when they just reap the benefits of Debian's hard work.
    Debian all the way!

    • Re:sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by keatonguy (1001680) <keaton@prower.gmail@com> on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:00PM (#33169724)

      What a terrible attitude to have. The Open Source community is about shared effort for shared gain, not personal recognition. No matter the distribution that gets all the 'spotlight', it's Linux that reaps the reward, and the more ground Linux gains the better off everyone with a PC is.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The Open Source community is about shared effort for shared gain, not personal recognition.

        Have you spent a moment in the "Open Source community"? The majority of contributions to Linux are from profit-making corporations. Most of the remainder take glory in advertising their contributions for CV and geek cred. Certain projects are so cliquish that a friendly attitude (read "sucking up") to the core team is a far better way of being welcomed as a contributor than technical expertise.

        My original post included specific project examples, but since the most political organisations also have the most

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by blair1q (305137)

          I don't get why anyone is surprised that doing things with people turns political.

        • Re:sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Nimey (114278) on Friday August 06, 2010 @09:52PM (#33170974) Homepage Journal

          Having a friendly attitude != sucking up, necessarily.

          I had to learn this the hard way, back when, so pay heed: politeness is a social lubricant. It gets in the areas where different peoples' rough edges would otherwise rub and create friction, and it costs nothing to be polite.

          For example, a few months ago I opened a bug report with $LIBRE_PROJECT asking for help making a Windows build, or whether they'd be kind enough to start releasing Windows builds of the stable tree, rather than an occasional build from an unstable branch. After a bit of back and forth - the guys who weren't involved in making the Windows build were a bit rude - they eventually pointed me to the non-obvious way of compiling their code, and eventually their Windows guy started releasing regular semi-stable builds (the Win build isn't quite there yet).

          A little politeness as social lubricant, and I might have helped some other poor schmuck who wanted a free Windows program that does what $PROJECT does.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by DarkIye (875062)
            You're right. That's always come quite naturally to me, so I've got a history of being surprised at how nice people are in spheres where I've been told by others the only way to get ahead is to 'suck up' or be someone's bitch in an unspecified but theoretically humiliating way.
        • Re:sweet! (Score:4, Informative)

          by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Friday August 06, 2010 @10:33PM (#33171158) Homepage Journal

          The Open Source community is about shared effort for shared gain, not personal recognition.

          Have you spent a moment in the "Open Source community"? The majority of contributions to Linux are from profit-making corporations.

          Not true for the Linux Kernel. Most of the contributions to Linux come from individuals without a company. After that are unknown contributers. Then companies.
          http://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.pdf [linuxfoundation.org]

          • Re:sweet! (Score:5, Informative)

            by Menacer (222952) on Saturday August 07, 2010 @12:03AM (#33171532)

            Individuals without a company and contributors with unknown affiliation add more to the Linux kernel than any _individual_ company, but that does not negate the statement that "the majority of contributions to Linux are from profit-making corporations". Red Hat, Novell, and IBM together make more Linux kernel contributions than all of the unaffiliated and unknown-affiliation contributors combined.

            The document you appears to have misread even includes this sentence: "It is worth noting that, even if one assumes that all of the 'unknown' contributors were working on their own time, over 70% of all kernel development is demonstrably done by developers who are being paid for their work."

          • Re:sweet! (Score:4, Informative)

            by tyrione (134248) on Saturday August 07, 2010 @12:09AM (#33171562) Homepage
            Morton works at Google, Viro pops up as basically an alias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niels_Olson/Al_Viro [wikipedia.org], Miller works at Red Hat, Baechle at MIPS, etc.. You just gave a list of Corporations and actual top developers all working for those corporations. Thanks for reinforcing the prior fact that the bulk of the kernel code is paid directly or indirectly by corporations.
            • Re:sweet! (Score:4, Interesting)

              by cp.tar (871488) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Saturday August 07, 2010 @10:48AM (#33173456) Journal

              I really wonder why some people seem to hate the notion of companies paying developers to work on Linux.

              Yes, Linux is an excellent example of how successful open source development can be. Especially in the sense GNU HURD isn’t.

              The fact that most development comes from various companies should be counted as a success of Linux.
              I mean, think about it. Unlike other operating systems, developed either by monopolists or by relatively small communities, Linux is now a result of joint effort of both numerous independent programmers and several large companies. All scratching their own itches, all working on making Linux better, all sharing their improvements with everybody else.
              This is also the greatest success of GNU: without the GPL, there would have been no strong incentive for everyone to share their improvements (even though it would be a good long-term strategy; the modern corporate world is more interested in quarterly statements, it seems).

        • I guess because it doesn't attract the glamour-seekers, nor does it consider itself elite.

          I think that Debian suffers from a different form of elitism; the elitism that says "if we release something thats broken to stable we won't fix it because its *STABLE*"

          The problem, as I've seen it over the last 10 years as a Debian sysadmin, is that Debian is not run as a business; it doesn't have customers, it has users.

          If you want to use Debian in enterprise you NEED a really good engineering team; its really risky to use Debian in the small/medium business eg with sole-sysadmin because when Debian relea

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by micheas (231635)

            I guess because it doesn't attract the glamour-seekers, nor does it consider itself elite.

            I think that Debian suffers from a different form of elitism; the elitism that says "if we release something thats broken to stable we won't fix it because its *STABLE*"

            The problem, as I've seen it over the last 10 years as a Debian sysadmin, is that Debian is not run as a business; it doesn't have customers, it has users.

            If you want to use Debian in enterprise you NEED a really good engineering team; its really risky to use Debian in the small/medium business eg with sole-sysadmin because when Debian release something thats broken it STAYS broken and you need an internal engineering team to fix, patch and maintain the fixes.

            This is why I am encouraging my employer to go with Redhat instead; because Redhat is run as a BUSINESS, they understand the needs of business. For Redhat you are not just a user, you are a CUSTOMER and that actually counts for something.

            You might look at the php disaster in RHEL 5.x

            Basically, Rackspace is pleading with Redhat to compile pcre with unicode support, and Redhat seems to be saying wait until RHEL 6

            php in RHEL is so far behind that many open source and closed source php applications do not support the ancient version of php in RHEL because of the known security issues. (yes Redhat claims to have backported security fixes, but that does not mean that the latest versions of your software support the version of php in RHEL that php

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by TheRaven64 (641858)

              FreeBSD upgrades without console access are not well supported so I am not a big fan of using it on leased servers

              I'm not sure what you mean by this. I took a FreeBSD machine through every release between 4.7 and 6.2 without console access doing source updates. The newer freebsd-update tool makes it even easier - just run a single command and do a binary update. I don't think I've ever updated a FreeBSD system in a way that could not be done via SSH. What is the 'supported' update process that does require console access? It doesn't seem to be either of the ones that I found in the FreeBSD Handbook...

              OpenBSD rec

              • Re:sweet! (Score:4, Informative)

                by micheas (231635) on Saturday August 07, 2010 @05:45AM (#33172270) Homepage Journal

                I have had about a 95% success rate for doing upgrades without console access.

                Which sort of sucks that one out of 20 times the server just goes away.

                The only supported upgrade is if you do it in single user mode. Although this seems to be understood to not be a completely realistic assumption by the FreeBSD team, so this may change.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ThePhilips (752041)

          The majority of contributions to Linux are from profit-making corporations.

          Does anybody still remember the times when corporations were like "we just hire people so that they concentrating on what they already do full time"?

          I can think of at least one major open source Unix distribution the central developers of which seem to deliberately so poorly document their work that getting up to sufficient speed on what they do to make a positive contribution requires mentorship.

          RedHat? That never was a secret really. And they were first to break the mold of "people do what they already do" to "we pay money so we say what you do".

          Though I'm not sure what you mean by the mentorship. RedHat doesn't hire developers that easily. They spare themselves mentoring newhires by always trying to hire people who are already experts in the pie

      • Re:sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ShecoDu (447850) on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:36PM (#33170078) Homepage

        And ubuntu's community has to spend time dealing with the newbies, that's a huge weight off of debian's shoulders, it's a symbiotic relationship.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by http (589131)

          This is a mistaken view. Even if Ubuntu support was always effective, there is no weight taken off Debian. Every community has to deal with noobs.

          In the real world (specifically, the irc support channels), there's a chronic problem: a fresh Ubuntu user realizes that they're not getting help in #ubuntu, so they come to #debian, because, well, Ubuntu is based on Debian, so you #debian people know how to fix my problem, right? right? Much time is lost trying to help them when their problem is particular

    • Re:sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tpwch (748980) <slashdot@tpwch.com> on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:10PM (#33169830) Homepage
      Thats not exactly true. A lot of stuff Ubuntu does/fixes gets sent back to Debian. Its a mutual relationship that they both benefit from. The same is true for many other debian-based distributions. And hey, its open source, the people who makes Debian want others to reap their benefits.
    • by LingNoi (1066278)

      Its just sad Debian gets all the publicity when they just reap the benefits of upstream's hard work.
      Upstream all the way!

      Fixed that for you.

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Friday August 06, 2010 @06:50PM (#33169640)
    is called a slushy, smoothy, orange julius, or a lemon shakeup.
  • Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Friday August 06, 2010 @06:52PM (#33169652) Homepage
    Note the bit about "Linux architectures." Squeeze will include GNU/kFreeBSD [debian.org]: Debian running on top of a FreeBSD kernel.
  • Not just Linux... (Score:3, Informative)

    by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Friday August 06, 2010 @06:53PM (#33169666)

    GNU/kFreeBSD was supposed to be released with Squeeze. Nexenta [nexenta.org] is nice, but the package repository is severely limited.

    ZFS, Jails, OpenBSD packet filtering. Oh My!

    Even DebianMultimedia [debian-multimedia.org] project already has kFreeBSD repositories available.

    • My big problem with this is that FreeBSD is an operating system, kernel + userland. If you are just using the Kernel and not the userland, don't call it FreeBSD. It's just like OSX isn't FreeBSD because it used the BSD userland with a mach kernel.

      "Linux" is just a kernel. When combined with the GNU userland tools you end up with a complete OS typically known as "distros" such as Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, etc., but it's quite possible to have Linux without the userland, i.e. many embedded uses of Linux.

      In 1

      • Re:Not just Linux... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Randle_Revar (229304) <kelly.clowers@gmail.com> on Friday August 06, 2010 @08:46PM (#33170572) Homepage Journal

        >don't call it FreeBSD.

        that's why its kFreeBSD (notice the "k")
        anyway, what else would you call it?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by afabbro (33948)

        My big problem with this is that FreeBSD is an operating system, kernel + userland. If you are just using the Kernel and not the userland, don't call it FreeBSD.

        No, we should call it GNU/FreeBSD.

        (ducks)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)

      Hardly surprising about Debian Multimedia, as the FreeBSD kernel actually has a sound subsystem that doesn't suck (i.e. OSS 4 interfaces, in-kernel low-latency mixing, per-channel volume controls, and so on). It makes me chortle slightly whenever anyone mentions pain with PortAudio or whatever this week's sound daemon of choice is on Linux. When writing code to play sound on FreeBSD, I just open /dev/dsp[W] and write audio data there, maybe with a couple of ioctl()s to set the sample rate, volume, and num

  • Debian? (Score:3, Informative)

    by timeOday (582209) on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:02PM (#33169750)
    That's, like, Ubuntu for poor people, right?

    Just kidding. I like debian but switched to Ubuntu years ago seeking more up-to-date packages. But I find all the config files etc in Ubuntu a little hard to work with (providing simplicity for the user makes things more complex behind the scenes, which isn't good if you like to fiddle around behind the scenes). Is debian any more up-to-date these days?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by John Hasler (414242)

      > Is debian any more up-to-date these days?

      Since Ubuntu is derived from Debian, Debian necessarily has always been more "up-to-date" than Ubuntu.

      • Re:Debian? (Score:5, Informative)

        by petermgreen (876956) <plugwash@p10linkTWAIN.net minus author> on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:39PM (#33170100) Homepage

        While ubuntu is derived from debian that doesn't stop them from packaging newer stuff than in debian. The big name stuff is often newer in ubuntu's development versions than in sid. More obscure stuff will generally be either at the same versions or newer in sid than in ubuntus development version.

        Debian and ubuntu have very different release cycles. Ubuntu makes a release every 6 months and releases are prepared one at a time. This fast turnaround means more up to date software at relase time but also means little time for things to settle and bugs to get rooted out. Ubuntu won't delay a release unless there is a cripping issue with a package they consider particulally important.

        Debian's release cycles on the other hand are generally on the order of two years these days and they tend to spend a large amount of time at the end of that release letting things stabilise and working on the bug count.

        Things got particularlly bad a few years back. The sarge development cycle was debians longest ever and it came at a time when linux in general was improving a lot for the desktop but it still gets annoying near the end of a cycle.

        • by timeOday (582209)
          Yeah, IIRC I got frustrated with Woody and went to Unstable before Sarge made it across the finish line. It also seemed like debian did not have any reasonable support for proprietary software (NVIDIA drivers, vmware... even mp3 files IIRC). dpkg on my Unstable system got hopelessly confused and the install was trashed.

          I switched to gentoo since it had a lot of momentum (critical in staying both up-to-date and stable - lots of eyeballs and fingers at keyboards) and thinking local compilation would prov

    • Re:Debian? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tpwch (748980) <slashdot@tpwch.com> on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:13PM (#33169862) Homepage
      Compared to a few years ago, yes, debian is a lot more up to date. I'd recommend running testing, or unstable if you know what you're doing. Stable doesn't get updated after release except for critical fixes like security updates (which is the way its supposed to be, so you can throw it on a server and not have to worry about a future update breaking things), but debians testing and unstable quality is higher than the stable of most distros.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iYk6 (1425255)

      Is debian any more up-to-date these days?

      I use and prefer Debian Stable, but if you place a high value on the latest packages, then Debian Stable is not for you, and never will be. I have used Debian Testing for a couple of years or so, and I have tried Ubuntu a few times, and from what I have seen, Debian Testing is slightly more up to date and more stable than Ubuntu. I agree that Debian is easier to configure.

    • Re:Debian? (Score:5, Informative)

      by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:48PM (#33170174) Homepage Journal

      Is debian any more up-to-date these days?

      Debian is always as up-to-date as you want it to be. It's just a question of which version you run.

      Debian "stable" goes in cycles. Shortly after a release, it's fairly up to date. As time goes on, working towards the next release, packages get a little dated because they are intentionally not updated. Security and bug fixes are applied but no upgrades or new features -- this is why they call it "stable", because it doesn't change.

      Debian "testing" is a less cyclical and tends to stay fairly up to date all the time. The exception is during a freeze, like the one we just started. Since the current testing is being morphed into a new stable, it has just stopped receiving updates, and won't start again until the new stable version is released.

      Debian "unstable" is always quite up to date. All new features and packages are introduced in unstable first. Don't let the name confuse you -- it's about as reliable as most distributions' released versions. It's "unstable" in the sense that it gets constant updates, which means that things are always changing. Every once in a blue moon, a change will actually seriously break something for a day or so. Maybe once every 3-4 years in my experience.

      Debian "experimental" is more of a layer on top of "unstable", and it is what it sounds like: experimental. The Bleeding Edge.

      In addition to those versions, you can mix-n-match a bit by running stable plus backports. That allows you to keep a very stable, consistent base platform, and just pull in newer versions of particular packages, as needed.

      I switched from Debian to Ubuntu three years ago, but I'm very seriously considering switching back. My theory was that Ubuntu LTS releases were roughly equivalent to Debian stable, and that regular Ubuntu was somewhere between testing and unstable. The second half of that works out sort of okay, but using Ubuntu LTS as an alternative to Debian stable is a bad choice. The upgrade path from one LTS release to the next is horribly painful, because you have to upgrade to each intermediate release. And, in practice, I find the every-six-months big-bang upgrades more intrusive and problematic than the continual, incremental upgrades on Debian testing or unstable.

      All in all, after giving Ubuntu a good try, I think I'm going back to Debian stable on my server, Debian stable+backports on my laptop and Debian unstable on my desktop.

      • Re:Debian? (Score:5, Informative)

        by radish (98371) on Friday August 06, 2010 @09:13PM (#33170774) Homepage

        The upgrade path from one LTS release to the next is horribly painful, because you have to upgrade to each intermediate release.

        That's only true for non-LTS releases. You can go from one LTS to the next and skip the intermediate releases [ubuntu.com].

        • by swillden (191260)
          I tried that. Even with the --proposed switch, it still only offered me the step-by-step upgrade path. I thought about just editing my sources.list and going for it, but chickened out.
      • by Trepidity (597)

        Don't let the name confuse you -- it's about as reliable as most distributions' released versions. It's "unstable" in the sense that it gets constant updates, which means that things are always changing. Every once in a blue moon, a change will actually seriously break something for a day or so. Maybe once every 3-4 years in my experience.

        While I agree with this, and run unstable myself (for the past 8 years or so), running it does require some degree of technical savvy when it comes to dependency resolutio

    • by KwKSilver (857599)
      Use sid. First install sqeeeze, then add the sid (unstable ) repositories, # apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade. Have fun. Don't bother whining to sid developers if you break your system. You could also try Sidux, based largely on Sid with such testing as is necessary. Don't use anything but apt-get to install packages or dist-upgrade; Sidux doesn't support any other package management system. Oh and you should be in init 3 to dist-upgrade. Works well. Sis is sid though, and sometimes t
  • means 6 months of retro computing.

    I wish they'd just cut the bull and focus on unstable and testing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by at_slashdot (674436)

      Why don't you use Ubuntu, that's what they focus on. Some people who like Debian bitch about Ubuntu that is this or that, but they should realize that Ubuntu is protecting Debian from people like you who want to make it less stable and more experimental.

    • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)

      ``I wish they'd just cut the bull and focus on unstable and testing.''

      You are free to wish that, but I fervently hope they won't do that. I love Debian stable: install it, configure it, and it will keep working for years. You get security updates, but no new versions and new configuration options that may break your working system, at least until the next version of stable is released. And then, Debian take great care to make the upgrade as painless and automatic as possible. If you want stuff to keep worki

      • You get security updates, but no new versions and new configuration options that may break your working system

        and any bugs that do make it into Debian 'stable' will remain unfixed no matter how bad they are unless they are security-related bugs.

        Ie if the Debian package maintainers miss something critical (and, no shit, they *DO*) then they sit on their arses and do NOTHING to fix in that release.

        Ie When Debian release to stable with bugs you are stuck with those bugs until the next stable, and even then the bugs aren't necessarily fixed.

        • by micheas (231635)

          You get security updates, but no new versions and new configuration options that may break your working system

          and any bugs that do make it into Debian 'stable' will remain unfixed no matter how bad they are unless they are security-related bugs.

          Ie if the Debian package maintainers miss something critical (and, no shit, they *DO*) then they sit on their arses and do NOTHING to fix in that release.

          Ie When Debian release to stable with bugs you are stuck with those bugs until the next stable, and even then the bugs aren't necessarily fixed.

          Just like RHEL and SLED.

    • I don't. Although I do wish there was a way for unstable to keep moving without affecting testing during the freeze.

    • by couchslug (175151) on Friday August 06, 2010 @10:01PM (#33171016)

      "I wish they'd just cut the bull and focus on unstable and testing."

      Why should they sacrifice QUALITY in order to do that, when you can just run Unstable, Testing, or another distro?

  • Mr. Shuttleworth maniacally rubbing his hands together... All your stability are belong to us!
    • by afabbro (33948)

      Mr. Shuttleworth maniacally rubbing his hands together... All your stability are belong to us!

      I just hope we can explain it to the girls

  • by FridayBob (619244) on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:56PM (#33170222) Homepage
    In mid June I set up my latest server based on Squeeze with the expectation that it would go stable this summer. For a while I thought perhaps I had jumped the gun and would be stuck with a relatively unstable system for a longer period, but I guess not.

    In particular, I'm happy with Squeeze because I could use it to get my Kerberos-OpenLDAP-OpenAFS system working on both the file server and workstations. Not that I've ever use any FOSS other than Debian for my server, but after my attempts failed to get the latest Ubuntu client to run the necessary client software for this (unfortunately) uncommon, but very capable distributed file system, I suspected the same Debian version for the workstation represented my best chance of success. And sure enough: it worked straight away! Ubuntu may have certain benefits, but it seems that if you want a desktop system that is a little out of the ordinary, Debian is still your best bet.
  • Perhaps this is a duplicate post, but does anyone else find the version scheme for Debian (and Ubuntu) a little confusing? I use Debian on my laptop and encounter Ubuntu in my line of work; figuring out which version precedes/supersedes which is somewhat of a pain. Is there any a priori reason why Sarge is older or newer than Squeeze? What about a Koala vs. a Lynx?

    Although the upgrade process itself was more difficult for, say, Slackware, figuring out when to upgrade was pretty easy -- "I'm running 10.0, a
    • by radish (98371) on Friday August 06, 2010 @09:17PM (#33170806) Homepage

      Well for Ubuntu they're both numbered and named. The numbers are year.month (e.g. 9.10 is October 2009) and therefore go up in the expected manner. For the names, they're alphabetical (or at least have been for the last 5 years), so Intrepid came before Jaunty, which was followed by Karmic.

      https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames [ubuntu.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by petermgreen (876956)

      Debian code names don't really have much structure to them other than all being toy story characters and it seems recently getting into the more obscure ones.

      With the exception of some very early releases (horay and warty) ubuntu codenames have going in alphabetical order breezy->dapper->edgy->feisty->gutsy->hardy->intrepid->jaunty->karmic->lucid->maverick

    • by sjames (1099)

      It's a little different, but this page [debian.org] gives you an ordered list of releases. More generally though, if you see news about a new stable, it will be newer than the one you already installed :-)

      If you hear that Squeeze is stable and you're running something that isn't Squeeze, it's time to think about upgrading.

    • Debian releases are so far apart that you get pretty used to the release name before the next one arrives...
    • I do. I lose track of the releases when there's just one in every three years. I mean, I've used Woody for so long that Sarge always seems to be the new release code name......

      But then, tell me why XP is older or newer than Vista? And why 2000 is older than 7?

      As for figuring out when to upgrade... you'll know when to upgrade as you grow impatient as the world moves forward and yet you're still using antique versions of software from 3 years ago... Or, if you're perfectly happy to keep the old versions, you'

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard

Working...