Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Debian GNU is Not Unix Open Source Upgrades Linux

Debian 7.0 ("Wheezy") Released 191

Posted by timothy
from the seven-does-sound-fairly-prime dept.
First time accepted submitter anarcat writes "After two years since the last Debian release (6.0, nicknamed "squeeze"), the Debian release team has finally published Debian 7.0 (nicknamed "Wheezy"). A newly created blog has details on the release, which features multi-arch support (e.g. you can now install packages for both i386 and amd64 on the same install), improvements to multimedia support (no need for third party repositories!) and improved security through hardening flags. Debian 7.0 also ships with the controversial Gnome 3 release, and the release notes explicitly mention how to revert to the more familiar 'Gnome classic' interface. Finally, we can also mention the improved support for virtualization infrastructure with pre-built images available for Amazon EC2, Windows Azure and Google Compute Engine. Debian 7.0 also ships with the OpenStack suite and the Xen Cloud Platform. More details on the improvements can be found in the release notes and the Debian wiki." An anonymous reader points out (from the announcement) that "[t]he installation process has been greatly improved: Debian can now be installed using software speech, above all by visually impaired people who do not use a Braille device. Thanks to the combined efforts of a huge number of translators, the installation system is available in 73 languages, and more than a dozen of them are available for speech synthesis too. In addition, for the first time, Debian supports installation and booting using UEFI for new 64-bit PCs (amd64), although there is no support for Secure Boot yet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian 7.0 ("Wheezy") Released

Comments Filter:
  • Well done guys! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OneMadMuppet (1329291) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @07:36AM (#43633893) Homepage
    It took a while, but all the effort was worth it.
    • Re:Well done guys! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @09:19AM (#43634303) Homepage Journal

      I didn't realize that Debian was so user-friendly.

      "Debian can now be installed using software speech, above all by visually impaired people who do not use a Braille device."

      That's pretty awesome, when you think about it. Maybe add in memories of slaving your butt off to make drivers work while trying to install Linux, and the awesomeness is increased by a couple orders of magnitude.

      I really want to see this installation - I'll download it soon. Stick disk into computer, boot up. "Computer - I want to use drive sda1 for installation. Use the existing virtual memory on drive sda3 please. Just use default partitioning on sda1, only use free space though. Yes, use enhanced security. I don't wish to join any networks. User name is Muppet. Password is CookieMonster. There will not be any other users. I choose the K desktop environment. Yes, go ahead. What? You didn't understand me? Very well - proceed."

      Yeah, I've made it all up - but that's about the way it should go. Simple, to the point, and all verbal.

      • by Spykk (823586)

        Computer - I want to use drive sda1 for installation. Use the existing virtual memory on drive sda3 please. Just use default partitioning on sda1, only use free space though. Yes, use enhanced security. I don't wish to join any networks. User name is Muppet. Password is CookieMonster. There will not be any other users. I choose the K desktop environment. Yes, go ahead. What? You didn't understand me? Very well - proceed.

        How do you feel about Computer - I want to use drive sda1 for installation. Use the existing virtual memory on drive sda3 please. Just use default partitioning on sda1, only use free space though. Yes, use enhanced security. I don't wish to join any networks. User name is Muppet. Password is CookieMonster. There will not be any other users. I choose the K desktop environment. Yes, go ahead. What? You didn't understand me? Very well - proceed.?

    • by Frankie70 (803801) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @12:19PM (#43635309)

      Fish don't fry in the kitchen,
      Beans don't burn on the grill.
      Took a whole lot of trying
      Just to get up that hill.
      Now we're up in the big leagues,
      Gettin our turn at bat.
      As long as we live
      It's you and me baby.
      There ain't nothing wrong with that.

    • by Yohahn (8680)

      Too bad it comes with built in regressions: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658896

  • Why Debian? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Andreasson (2915119) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @08:14AM (#43634055)
    As someone that is new to Linux I've always found Debian to be somewhat weird. I guess a lot of Debian users uses it since they are used to it. But as a new Linux user, why would I use Debian when the software is so old and outdated? We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10. OK that Firefox revs every six weeks, but you get the point. If it's old from day one then how old won't it be when Debian 8 is released.
    • Re:Why Debian? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by masternerdguy (2468142) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @08:22AM (#43634095)
      Debian places a strong emphasis on stability compared to most distros. Instead of being on the bleeding edge they are conservative and try to provide a stable, bug free, and secure system which is well tested and well understood. Debian also has an extremely strong stance of software freedom, which appeals to some people. Debian is a solid enough distribution that plenty of other distros use it as a base, that should say something about the quality of the work they do. Without Debian there'd be no Ubuntu or Linux Mint since they both pull packages from the unstable (read: under testing / "current" ) Debian repos.
      • Re:Why Debian? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jones_supa (887896) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @08:38AM (#43634155)

        Without Debian there'd be no Ubuntu or Linux Mint since they both pull packages from the unstable (read: under testing / "current" ) Debian repos.

        When you look that sentence and think about it, Debian's role has changed more towards being a professional backroom workshop for other distributions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, this kind of ecosystem seems to work great. But for many people it's not the main OS but more like a solid reference implementation. Just an observation.

        • Re:Why Debian? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 05, 2013 @08:55AM (#43634227)

          To expand on this point: Debian enabled Ubuntu to exist, and Ubuntu got popular. There is a trend, though, that long-term Ubuntu users backtracks and find themselves using Debian instead - not least after Ubuntu's well publicized ideological and technical curiosities (Amazon integration, Ubuntu One, Unity, Mir, etc.).

          It's not a zero-sum game, so Debian is enhanced by usage of its derivatives, even though e.g. Ubuntu has grown relatively larger during the years. It's just the system working - and Debian isn't going away.

          The intercommunication under the Debian umbrella could always work better, though. In particular the one from Ubuntu towards the base maintainers in Debian. I always hate to see duplicate and unnecessary effort.

          • Re:Why Debian? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @09:43AM (#43634425) Homepage Journal

            I sort of fit into the group you're talking about.

            My intro to Debian was through Suse. I've been a distro hopper all of my Linux life, but I settled on Ubuntu as my "household" distro, because it was easy to use. The wife and kids used Ubuntu for a long time. We broke with Ubuntu when Unity came along. Now, the household distro is Linux Mint Debian. I still use anything and everything, but at home, it's Mint.

          • There is a trend, though, that long-term Ubuntu users backtracks and find themselves using Debian instead - not least after Ubuntu's well publicized ideological and technical curiosities

            I'm one of those. I still have Ubuntu on my laptop (mostly because of the casual attitude to non-free drivers, which Debian's GNU purist philosophy makes more of a hassle), but switched the desktop to sid nearly a year ago now and am very satisfied.

            Of course, using anything but the unstable branch of Debian would mean being

        • by girlinatrainingbra (2738457) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @09:09AM (#43634279)
          re: for many people it's not the main OS but more like a solid reference implementation.
          .
          That others use Debian as their "backroom workshop" does not define Debian's true role, no more than one person using another person as a slave manifests that slavery as being the defining characteristic of that other person.
          .
          I disagree with your statement that debain's role has changed "more towards being a professional backroom workshop for other distributions". Debian has stayed being what it has always been. It's just being used more as the foundation that supports the work of the facade builders and marketers that put a pretty face (or not-so-pretty Tammy Faye Baker clown-makeup face, if you want Gnome 3, imho) on top of all that and market it as if they made the whole thing.
          .
          I agree that Debian is a solid implementation. But I disagree with your contention that it's more like a solid reference implementation. A "reference implementation" would imply that it is a demo of some of the capabilities of what can be done and that others are to build upon it. (whoops, the second half of that sentence is actually true! That's exactly what GNU's GPL licensing allows!) A "reference implementation" implies that it's built specifically just to be a partial implementation, which debian definitely is not. While others may build atop Debian, that is not Debian's sole purpose.
          .
          For details on Debian's purpose, see Debian's own documentation about their "social contract" [wikipedia.org], or read about it on [wikipedia.org] articles about it.
          .
          For info about how it started and about Debian's manifesto, read about the Ian who makes up the "-ian" half of "debian" [wikipedia.org] or read the original Debian Manifesto [debian.org].
      • Re:Why Debian? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mpol (719243) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @08:53AM (#43634221) Homepage

        I always used to feel that Debian was a bit behind the curve in regards to included packages. 10 years ago there was really visible progress, like anti-aliased fonts in GTK or the X compositor, so I went with other distro's that were more bleeding-edge. The install and configuration also was a bit hardcore (it still somewhat is, where is my DrakX?).

        Nowadays I feel it's just the right spot. No over-engineered crap like systemd or journald. You can easily disable pulseaudio. And everything and the kitchen-sink is available in the repositories. And for just Firefox or Chrome you can easily add packages. There's no real need for bleeding-edge anymore. Linux is mature and stable.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770)

        Without Debian there'd be no Ubuntu or Linux Mint since they both pull packages from the unstable (read: under testing / "current" ) Debian repos.

        And that is really the strange thing to me, that Debian does so much work but don't want to put it in a product. Debian unstable is a rolling release, meaning at any time you can be hit with a major change. Not fun if you want to run any kind of stable environment. Debian testing is extremely variable over the course of a release cycle, being almost similar to unstable early and stable late in the cycle. It's good for people working on the next stable but doesn't balance freshness and stability for anyone e

        • by CAIMLAS (41445)

          I think the tiered distribution approach is Wrong - eg. 'stable, testing, unstable' - regardless of which distribution we're talking about.

          What I would like to see is something of the following:

          * Each distribution has a 'core' - a set of packages which varies very little, but remains stable.
          * each distribution has stable 'release points' for different application groups.

          Basically, I might have a server which needs a well-tried kernel but I need up-to-date packages. I could always use backports, which fits 9

      • Re:Why Debian? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by KugelKurt (908765) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @09:32AM (#43634361)

        Debian places a strong emphasis on stability compared to most distros. Instead of being on the bleeding edge they are conservative and try to provide a stable, bug free, and secure system

        That generalized claim is wrong. Three prominent examples:

        The KDE Workspaces/Apps releases 4.8.4 are less stable than 4.10.2. The 4.8.x releases as well as 4.9.x reached End Of Life quite some time ago and don't receive any bugfix any longer. 4.10.2 contains many bugfixes upstream doesn't bother backporting to older releases (at least not 4.8.x which is two versions behind).

        Same with GNOME. I could understand if the package maintainers decided to use 3.6 instead of 3.8 because 3.6 still includes the Fallback Mode but 3.4 is old and unmaintained.

        Xfce 4.10 is already a year old and 4.12 should be around the corner. 4.8 just unmaintained and lacks many crucial bugfixes from 4.10.

        Not being cutting edge means not blindly jumping towards the latest dot-0 release. It means sticking to software with long term support (eg. Mozilla's ESR versions which regularly receive bugfixes).
        However skipping releases that contain many bugfixes just for the sake of shipping >1 year old software has nothing to do with providing stability or security. On the contrary.

        • Well, debian does backport all relevant security bugfixes. That aside, there will always be newer, bugfixed software. Debian stable focuses in being a bugfree distribution, not a distribution comprised only of bugfree software. Which means there are, ideally, no version incompatibilities nor out-of-the-box misconfigurations. Given Debian's almost inconceivably big repositories, that's quite the herculean task.

          For the record, KDE has been stuck in 4.8.4 for about six months, since the freeze started, but sin

          • Re:Why Debian? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by KugelKurt (908765) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:41AM (#43635103)

            Well, debian does backport all relevant security bugfixes.

            No. Wheezy’s QtWebKit is stuck at version 2.2. QtWebKit 2.3.1 is out since a while featuring many important bugfixes of which none were backported: http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/qtwebkit/2.2.1-5 [debian.org]

            Debian stable focuses in being a bugfree distribution, not a distribution comprised only of bugfree software.

            That's not what masternerdguy wrote.

            if you campare it to, say, Fedora 17's or even Kubuntu 12.04's KDE 4.8, you'll realize how marvelously quirkless Debian's KDE is and why it pays to have stabler distributions.

            And when you look at openSUSE, your whole argument falls apart: openSUSE is also relatively conservative but still manages to bring recent GNOME, KDE SC, and Xfce releases to its users. That's because the openSUSE maintainers decide on a case by case basis (eg. they waited a while to adopt systemd or Plymouth) instead of blindly picking only old software.

    • by EzInKy (115248)

      What alternative would you propose that allowed you to have both a stable distrubution and experiment with the bleeding edge as well? We all know that you can get just about any software to run with a ./configure ./make and ./makeinstall....but still, what other distro do know that takes the time to ensure that everything else that worked before you executed those commands will still work after?c

      • by kthreadd (1558445)

        I would look at RHEL for some interesting ideas. The system itself is very stable, but some components are allowed to change. You don't really need a new version of ls of libfoo, but most users will appreciate an updated Firefox. They also backport a lot of new features and drivers to their kernel, so that it can be installed on new hardware many years after the initial release. We use Debian in some parts of our organization, and it's often not trivial to get Debian stable to run on a new machine two years

    • Re:Why Debian? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ultrasawblade (2105922) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @08:40AM (#43634163)

      Linux has been historically considered a good OS for servers, where uptime and stability are very important. Don't forget the Debian project goes back really far, 1993 or so if I'm not mistaken.

      Once you have a server running that many people depend on, you become change-averse to it, because change = risk. So having mature, well-tested, stable software is more important than having the latest and greatest.

      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        Right, but at some point you have to upgrade.

        That's where debian really shines. Second to stable software is the ability to cleanly and easily upgrade without too many hickups; Debian is, in my experience, better than pretty much everything else in this regard.

        I've personally got a physical machine that's been kicking around since Debian 2.0 but is now on Debian 7.0 as of last week. Despite running quite a few different services and having some pretty ugly alien'd packages installed, the upgrade process has

    • by jgrahn (181062)

      As someone that is new to Linux I've always found Debian to be somewhat weird. I guess a lot of Debian users uses it since they are used to it.

      Hard to comment on since you don't say what you find weird. It's easy to think "weird" about anything that deviated from your own favorite Unix.

      But as a new Linux user, why would I use Debian when the software is so old and outdated? We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10. OK that Firefox revs every six weeks, but you get the point.

      Actually I don't. Let's assume your software is on average one year old as you use Wheezy. Software kind of worked one year ago too, you know? It's not as if 2013 was a year of great breakthroughs in computing which obsoleted everything done in the 1970--2012 timespan.

      And if you feel it was, perhaps you're better off running Debian testing or some other bleeding

      • by i.r.id10t (595143)

        And if you feel it was, perhaps you're better off running Debian testing or some other bleeding-edge distribution, and reserve time for dealing with the "bleeding" aspect of "bleeding edge".

        Yup, this is why I keep coming back to Debian. If I need latest browsers, I can add those repositories and update directly from the vendor. But now that I'm not pushing the edge of released software chasing after working 3d drivers, etc (the '99 thru '01 era, with 3dfx being the only real way to Quake/Quake2/Quake3 un

    • No Linux distro is for everyone.

      I'm comfortable enough in Linux to appreciate the inherent stability of Debian. Debian has historically been more difficult to install than some more popular distros. It's a bit more difficult to administer than those more popular distros. But, the difficulty isn't extreme - it just takes a bit more thought.

      Constant updates aren't always a "good thing". Sometimes, updates break things. Sometimes, updates that don't actually break anything introduce new attack vectors. S

    • by KiloByte (825081)

      We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10.

      Actually, we're at Firefox 17, the next release after 10. You also see glorified trunk snapshots from time to time.

      This is still better than Chrome which doesn't do releases at all.

    • On the server I don't give anything about which version of Firefox I could install. All I want there is an Apache that won't get rooted and ssh to be there when I need it. At home I am running testing which is -with a little tweaking- pretty much bleeding edge and as customizeable as no other distribution. I've tried a lot of them and I always returned to Debian after I once got used to it.
    • Re:Why Debian? (Score:4, Informative)

      by andrew3 (2250992) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @03:24PM (#43636361)

      We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10.

      From the Debian perspective there was only Firefox 10 ESR and Firefox 17 ESR. Since the freeze was made before 17 was released, version 10 was included.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      for Firefox specifically, Debian chose version 10.0 because it's an Extended Support Release version (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/) . In order to be able to support it with security fixes in the next 2-3 years. It makes perfect sense if you think about it.
    • by zmooc (33175)

      I use Debian because it works. I don't know of an alternative that can say that. I've used Ubuntu for a year or 2 on 4 different boxes because I mistakenly thought it had not become just as stable as Debian. Boy was I wrong; all of those Ubuntu boxes now run Debian again since none of them managed to survive an upgrade without totally fucking up all kinds of things. I have one Debian box that I installed back in 1999 or so. I still works flawlessly.

      The additional user friendlyness provided by Ubuntu is dwar

    • by RMingin (985478)

      Only your install media, production servers, and kiosks run Debian stable. Everyone else gets testing, except for machines where you don't mind some breakage, and you deploy sid. Sid is usually quite up to date, testing is usually not much worse than most static distros. Stable is outdated because it is exactly that; STABLE.

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      Debian is stable. It's for people who don't necessary want things to be the newest possible. It's not "old and outdated" if it still works, is still being maintained, and still has security patches. Once you've got a version of Debian that works, then it would be logical to stick with it. Why turn your Linux into a experiment in seeing how often you can update it without something breaking?

      If it's not the style you prefer then at least be glad that you get a choice.

  • Missing Apache 2.4 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whtmarker (1060730) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @08:27AM (#43634117) Homepage
    Looks like debian is still using Apache 2.2.... no wonder nginx is gaining ground. Apache 2.4 has OCSP stapling [wikipedia.org] support which gives a huge boost to SSL performance.
    • by kthreadd (1558445)

      Apache 2.4 might also have new bugs. It's a good idea to have it go through unstable and testing before hitting the next stable.

    • To be honest, if I wanted the latest Apache HTTP Server (on whatever distribution) I would download the latest source from the Apache website and build it locally. Same with any updated version. If I wanted to use the version that came with the distribution, then at least with Debian you know it is going to be stable.
      • by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex@@@project-retrograde...com> on Sunday May 05, 2013 @12:24PM (#43635337)

        Not only this, but you can use the stable Debian version as a base to install / compile whatever new stuff you want (just work your way up the upgrade path tree), this way you can choose stability in some places and newest features in others. Despite sometimes having dependency hell, I've found it even more difficult to go the opposite direction -- Installing the latest stuff, then going after the more stable things in certain places.

        • by CAIMLAS (41445)

          So how is it that you build your 'unstable' applications, using the Debian-approved package system (deb-src packages) from later releases? Or do you just download tarballs?

          I've noticed that the latter of those two methods is something devs are particularly prone to, often for no apparent reason. Just last year I found a php package tarball overlay a developer had been using, with the PHP release date being from 2005-2006. He used it on every project he manned, and sadly, he wasn't the exception IME. In this

  • by i.r.id10t (595143) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @09:05AM (#43634267)

    Here's your quick and easy way to give back. I don't code in c/c++, I hate writing documentation, so share some bandwidth and seed the torrents for a few hours or a few gb.

    • The Linux torrents usually have more than enough seeders anyway.
      • by i.r.id10t (595143)

        Yup, but every little bit helps especially if you are in the early group.

        I started the torrent just before my above post and for a while after getting the whole disk images (i did netinstall and cd-1 for both i386 and amd64) I was uploading at close to 3mb/s for a short while. They've dropped off slowly, down to a trickle of a few K per sec up, so I killed the off about 10 minutes ago. Still, 20gb worth of upload... 20gb I don't need, and 20gb that Debian (or whoever) doesn't have to pay for.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I really like the emphasis on stability, but for web browsers I think it is a problem. Debian 7.0 ships with Iceweasel (Firefox) 10.0.12esr that is EOL. The security updates will be backported, but with the many changes to the next supported ESR, it may not be possible to backport all security updates. Considering that the browsers these days are major targets, I would rather have a possible more unstable browser, but a browser with the latest security updates.

    This is only a problem if You want to use Debia

    • by kthreadd (1558445)

      That's true, but not a problem in practice. If Debian has to fix something themself they are usually able to do so.

      • by spike hay (534165)

        Yeah, I don't trust heavily patched packages for security. It's better to let the people who actually write the software do updates. You may remember the OpenSSL fiasco where a clever Debian maintainer decided to fix a "bug" and removed a major source of entropy. This resulted in every Debian user sharing about 32000 keys.

  • Amazing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just installed it on my old box, Pentium II, 8.5GB HDD and 96MB RAM. Most of other modern distros hanged in the installer.. It's simply works and the installation is very easy.

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_

Working...