Debian Project Votes To Postpone Policy Changes 230
jonoxer writes "A little while ago members of the Debian project voted to make changes to the Social Contract. As previously reported on Slashdot, the end result looked likely to be a delay in the release of Sarge, the next Stable edition of Debian, until 2005. But on Saturday Debian developers voted to postpone the changes until after Sarge releases, effectively affirming that the changes need to be made but making a pragmatic decision to not let the next release be delayed as a result. The official voting page doesn't show the result yet, but it's been semi-officially announced."
What's another delay? (Score:3, Insightful)
What they NEED to do is strip down the core distribution and produce major updates faster.
That debian is still widely used despite being in the stone age is a testimony to all the things they are doing right.. now they just NEED to get releases under control.
Re:What's another delay? (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite simply, because a deb gets through more QA before release, not to mention that the standard debian packages have the following advantages:
1) most debian packages manage config file changes by the user, and try to merge them(at least in unstable, not 100% sure about Sarge as of yet)
2) Debian's userid/tcp-ip ports management through dpkg catches more errors and allows better handling for special situations(like development boxes running several different kinds of web servers, for instance), that might just be my personal experience however(although the amount of work I had to perform to get 6 different types of webservers on a single debian box was lower than on any other distro I've tried by a large amount)
3) I take exception to your "What's the point of getting Debian stable, when it is so out of date?" statement. Until you replace stable with unstable, I read that as an oxymoron. Stable software was out of date last month, it is however, secure, usable, and third parties have had months to work out their alphas and beta phases, so now you can use it with your 12321322123112 machines with no worries that a bug hasn't been found YET. Not that Debian is IMMUNE to bugs, but up-to-date software IS rife with bugs(and if you're lucky, you don't wait too long for your fix). But with debian stable, that's confusing the security patches, with the next generation release, and that's bad juju.
The branch of Debian I notice you don't mention anywhere, is testing, which just might do what you think is Stable's job. For the rest of us, I'll go pray that some 3rd parties get a clue from Debian and start producing Stable branches of their software that break less often than their Unstable ones.
Out of date? Compared to what? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly WHAT part of Debian is out of date? It's not the packages, that's for sure.
I use Debian unstable. Do you actually know what the "unstable" part means? It means that the contents of the "unstable" packages are probably still changing! Does that make it any less usable? When you're admining 20 servers, you probably don't want your PostgreSQL database server to suddenly become incompatible with your data due to a format change. (aside: debian upgrade scripts can try to automagically dump/re-import your old database for you)
But compared to a desktop OS like Fedora? NO! Debian unstable is absolutely FINE for desktop usage, despite the "unstable" label.
So why is it called "unstable"?
It may be because upstream is still changing fundamental parts of the app, such as when the new exim4 (at the time) decided to split the config files up. You can't put that in "stable" can you?
Or it may be because the Debian package maintainers haven't figured out the best way to package something according to Debian policy, like when the vim package suddenly decided to break into multiple packages separating out arch-independant/doc related stuff to avoid duplicating data on the mirrors.
I'm sure there are better examples, but the point is, when comparing Debian vs DesktopLinuxOS like Fedora, compare Debian Unstable.
If you do, you will find that package updates are plenty and timely. I think the kernel images are barely even a week behind the kernel.org releases. Gnome 2.6 took a while, about TWO WHOLE FRIGGING WEEKS. How much faster do you want?
If, for example, you want the latest GCC 3.4 which I'm guessing isn't considered "ready" to replace GCC-3.3 as the default compiler, then just add an experimental source in your
Geez, why after all this time do people still not GET Debian.... it's enough to make somebody ANGRY
Re:Out of date? Compared to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Debian stable is ancient. There have been some nice software updates in the past two years. Using backports.org is a solution, but has its own problems. The quality of backports is not garanteed to be as good as Debian proper. More importantly security updates are garanteed to be released promptly.
Just because unstable is acceptable for your use, does not make it acceptable for the rest of us.
Re:Out of date? Compared to what? (Score:2, Informative)
>Debian stable is ancient.
Then why not use Debian testing? It doesn't break that often and is relatively new.
Re:Out of date? Compared to what? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Out of date? Compared to what? (Score:2)
That's rather unfortunate. Care to elaborate? Did a HDD crash corrupt files in
Usually BIND is the last thing for me to get working happily. Can I ask what was wrong with GCC? I develop a lot of C code using the m68hc1x cross-compiler and the worst fault I've had (with the cross-compiler) was a default linker script overriding stuff set in my own. Certainly I've never had "the" gcc package stop w
Re:Out of date? Compared to what? (Score:2)
Well, obviously one personal anecdote cannot possibly extrapolate to everyone else's experience.
As for "used for work", I setup Debian Unstable on 4 workstations and two laptops in my lab to meet the requirements for of our projects which required Linux.
There were no problems. None. It all "just worked", including one desktop that was a makeshift server for apache/postgres/mysql for 3 remote windows lusers who looked after themselves via usermi
Re:Okay genius. (Score:2)
Re:What's another delay? (Score:5, Informative)
You usually shouldn't put too much faith in zealots, you know.
The primary benefit of Debian (at least, to me) is not apt. It's the fact that Debian had apt several years before any other distro did, and that Debian *continues* to be (IMHO) the leading distro in terms of system integration and ease-of-administration (for power users).
Debian Policy [debian.org], and the fact that almost all the software I use is packaged according to this policy, is the single most important reason why I continue to use Debian.
Oh, and if you're looking for something almost as new as unstable, but that isn't unstable, I suggest you try the "testing" branch. (On most of my machines, I run testing, plus the odd package from unstable.) The easiest way to do this is to put something like the following in /etc/apt/preferences (note how I specifically designate that the mozilla-firefox package is to come from unstable):
Re:What's another delay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's another delay? (Score:5, Informative)
Most packages are less than 2 weeks behind official upstream releases. Gnome 2.6 took exactly 16 days to enter unstable after it was officially released by the Gnome guys. I was able to upgrade with the usual apt-get update && apt-get dselect-upgrade with absolutely no problems, as usual.
Sure, if two weeks isn't fast enough for you, you can add an experimental source in
But then again if you're such a version number junkie you probably don't care about getting real work done and so Debian may not be the best distro for you.
If you venture outside of the debian cult compound you will find many Gentoo and FreeBSD users who "made the switch" away from Debian in the last couple years. Shit some are even going to Fedora! Debian is definitely hemorraging userbase but slackware has shown theres always enough fanatics around to keep a project going long after it's relevance has expired.
Sure... That's why Knoppix/Debian are a close 3rd/4th behind Mandrake/Fedora on distrowatch [distrowatch.org]? I suppose Gentoo and SuSE are distros with a "hemorraging" user base who's relevance has also expired?
Debian has never been a distro for everyone and I think the same people who stuck with Debian years ago are the same sorts of people who will stick with Debian in the future. With the growth of the 'net and increased awareness of Linux, all distros are under much higher scrutiny from a much broader crowd of people looking to try out Linux.
Regardless, Debian undoubtedly remains the best Linux distro on non-x86 hardware, and certainly holds its own amongst the more x86-centric distros. It has excellent QA and the best quality packages with hassle-free upgrades that I've seen on any distro. I haven't tried to use Gentoo seriously; I didn't like the way it liked to smash config files in
I've got another rant post that might help to explain the difference between unstable/testing/stable [slashdot.org] to you.
Cheers
I second that (Score:3, Interesting)
Getting used to the differences took a couple of working days but it was well worth it.
Networking setup is very simple with debian, they haven;t managed to scatter it over so many conflicting config files as redhat.
Debian also really care about free software.
The only annoying thing with debian is the large (lots of files) debian-specific directory required for each package compared with redhats single
Re:What's another delay? (Score:2)
In all seriousness slackware 10 just came out and I would venture to say that it is one of the most up-to-date distros out right now. Why the anti-slackware sentiment? I mean it's still profitable enough for Patrick to keep doing it, has been since the beginning.
this is excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this is excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
only if you stick with debian 'stable' and are, therefore, prepared to use outdated packages.
If you want something new, go to 'backports' or to 'unstable' and, uh, lose stability...
Re:this is excellent news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:this is excellent news (Score:5, Funny)
That's way too unstable for me. Don't they support a UPS? Sheesh.
</satire>
That's not what unstable means. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unstable does NOT mean it will crash, not at all.. unstable means the layout and dependencies are not stable, and prone to change from update to update.
I cannot afford to run an update and have dependencies break partway through.
As a workstation, I would not hesitate to run unstable, not at all.. as such quirks can be easily dealt with.
Yes, I can test on another machine.... but that can be difficult in practice.. a certian level of stability of updates is needed.
Fixing things by hand is very difficult..
Re:this is excellent news (Score:2)
Re:this is excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
Stable with backports of things that I really want latest releases of, like gnome and firefox etc, is my setup of choice.
"Unstable" just means "we haven't tested and tuned it for years to the point where we stake our reputation on it being stable." It doesn't necessarily mean you're "losing stability", it means you're losing their assurance that it's stable.
I've been using stable with backports of XFree86 and gnome on my laptop for 2 years without a *single* crash.
I p
I have been using stable with
Re:this is excellent news (Score:2)
Re:this is excellent news (Score:2)
But when it does come time that a client wants something thats not in stable, things can get hairy. Very hairy, very fast. Ie unstable. Often in both senses.
(eg huge lists of upgraded packages when running apt-get upgrade, some of which *are* broken).
I have found mandrake cooker a bit easier to deal with in this way; their dependencies seem less vast so I can use a lot of things from cooker in my stable box (like its latest lvm and
Re:this is excellent news (Score:2, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: I use Debian and Gentoo exclusively)
I am *so* sick and tired of all these "stable is hideously outdated" anti-debian trolls. Stable is designed to be used for production systems where downtime is *very* expensive; in my experience, it doesn't go wrong through b0rked dependencies, bugs in software, poor package management, high server load, anything. It just keeps on chugging along. I wouldn't like to run a working desktop on it, but I don't believe that's stable's target au
Re:this is excellent news (Score:2)
those in the know, know it installs in a flash, and a quick apt-get to pull desired packages.
debian is not for the weak and timid - it for those of us who have administered many different systems, for, we have seen the light that is debian, admist the clouds that are the other OS'.
YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
When I heard that a policy change might delay the new release until next year, I was really bummed. That's my one big debian problem--the politcs seem to gum up the works all too frequently. I'm glad to see that this will be put aside until the very much needed next release. YAY DEBIAN!
On a side note, anyone ever take an up-to-date testing machine and convert it to stable at release time? Did it, uh, work?
Re:YES! (Score:4, Informative)
Eg:
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian sarge main contrib non-free
Re:YES! (Score:5, Informative)
Due to the elegance of Debian this sort of thing is completely painless. I've personally done this on several machines when "woody" became "stable". Its easy to do because when "testing" finally becomes "stable" all that changes in the archive is that symlinks all change.
Currently:
testing -> sarge
stable -> woody
After the release:
stable -> sarge.
As an end user you have the option of tracking either by "testing/stable" or "woody/sarge". To do what you want should track "sarge" rather than "testing". The best method is to use "real names" in your /etc/apt/sources.list. That is, make all occurances of "testing" (or "sarge") all read as "sarge". This way you won't even need to know when "sarge" becomes "stable", all that will happen is your updates will suddenly become less frequent and all updates will be for security.
Elivs
PS- sorry about tpyos and poor formating I having a busy day.
Re:YES! (Score:2)
In other news, RMS announced that GNU Hurd has recently outpaced Debian Stable progress...
Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us don't like adhering to principles - it really sucks because you have to give up things. In this case you give up convenience and non-free software being hidden safely in the background. For many people that price is too high. That's fine - use another distro! There are others who cater to that. Anyone using Debian has no business objecting to that philosophy - it is the primary reason Debian exists. People not contributing it have no voice at all, nor should they expect one. Think they're dumb for not being pragmatic? Guess how much that matters.
Debian is what happens when you take potential legal problems to heart and try to do what it takes to avoid them. I rather suspect that Debian ultimately wants there to be ZERO chance of any successful lawsuit about anything in the distribution, although I don't know if that is an explicit policy. That's hard, in our society. (What they probably REALLY want is no chance of a lawsuit being brought against them period, but the laws of the US at least don't allow that.)
Debian is about Freedom first, and software second. I see no problem with them releasing and then implimenting the policy changes, since there is not likely to be any increased risk compared to their current release. But if I'm wrong for whatever reason, they should ignore all critics and take whatever time they need to Do It Right. That is done too little nowadays, particularly in Free Software where theoretically Doing It Right is the motivation.
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:5, Informative)
You more or less nailed it. See, Debian themselves doesn't distribute material. Debian's ftp-masters group does; the ISPs who donate very large amounts of bandwidth and hosting for all of Debian's servers. In exchange, Debian gives then a best-effort to verify that there is and will never be a problem with any of the material that Debian asks its generous donors to redistribute.
The ftp-masters group is politically very strong. They can overrule any Debian Developer's decision, the Technical Committee, or even the Project Leader himself. They are where the rubber meets the road and as such, their decisions on what packages they distribute--and how--are final. The only recourse for Debian is to reject that server and remove them from the list of official servers and mirrors.
The primary purpose of debian-legal is to service the ftp-masters. Because without distributors, Debian can't reach any audience.
Is this true? (Score:2)
Are there any instances of the ftp-masters insisting on things that the most of the rest of the project doesn't want?
Re:Is this true? (Score:5, Informative)
I think it is. It's not explicitly stated in the Debian Constitution [debian.org], but IIRC every new package that is uploaded must be approved by the ftp-masters before it will be added to the archive.
Are there any instances of the ftp-masters insisting on things that the most of the rest of the project doesn't want?
Not as far as I know. The ftp-masters don't really hold any ceremonial power. They just collectively control the distribution system; if the ftp-masters refuse to allow a certain file to be on their machines, then that file will effectively not be in Debian. It's similar to how CmdrTaco effectively controls every post anyone makes to Slashdot. Although he doesn't have to specifically approve posts, if he deletes your post, there's nothing you can do about it.
It's more of a "sysop == God" thing than anything else.
Not true (Score:2, Informative)
However, as with every delegate and also the Project Leader himself, their decisions can be overridden by the developers (by means of a vote, where any five developers can call for).
In the end, the developer body has the ultimate say about everything.
--Jeroen
Re:Not true (Score:2)
Re:Not true (Score:2)
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:2)
For example, if ninety-nine ftp-masters don't want to distribute FDL documentation, but one does, that one gets to trump the others.
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:2)
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Debian/Unstable is downright fantastic for my desktop as I'm a tinkerer...
Debian/Testing is great for general purpose desktops
and Debian/Stable is perfect for servers - I don't have to worry about software changes, and there is always backports.org if I really need something not in stable (e.g. amavisd-new / postix 2.0)
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:2)
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Software which places such usability in second place becomes something else.. a propaganda tool perhaps? If Debian continues to keep such course, the only reason I see for using it is to make a political statement.
I wish the Debian project would stop pretending and become a political party or something.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
And free software brings more usability to people by being free.
In any case, everything is just itself. Cotton is just cotton, whether it's grown by slaves or free farmers on their own farm. That doesn't mean that what we use and how we choose it doesn't have consequences.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:2)
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, maybe you should know that Debian is the ideal distribution to use in servers, thanks to his excelent package administration. The problem is that nowadays we have to use Testing or Unstable (!) in servers since the last stable release is too old to use, and not all is backported.
You also said that Debian is about Principle, that Debian seeks to avoid legal trouble, etc. That's, true, and I agree with that; that's one of the things that distingue Debian from other distros, and this was one of the reasons that made me a Debian User.
But I think that you are making a dangerous mistake when you say that "Debian is about Freedom first, and software second". No! Debian is about Freedom *in* Software. Debian will be of no value if its only a group were people meet to talk about Freedom (and do nothing), or if its so outdated that nobody uses it. Nobody said that you should be non-functional in order to be idealistic.
One of the good things about Free Software is not only that its morally correct, but that it *works* , and it works better than the (not so moral) propietary alternative.
So, congratulations to the Debian Team for the results of the voting!
Absolutes are impossible: ZERO chance of a lawsuit (Score:2)
Nevertheless, there's a few things that I wish the project would relax on a bit, w.r.t the DFSG.
-licensing. APL and MPL licensed software is potentially heading towards non-free. Why? Because of the clause to the licenses that states that you abandon all patent claims when contributing code. To me, this is fantastic, and stops companies
Re:Absolutes are impossible: ZERO chance of a laws (Score:2)
WRONG. Both the APL V2.0 and the MPL are 100% free software licenses. Don't believe me, get it srtaight from the FSF [gnu.org]. What you are probably referring to is that these licenses are GPL-incompatable, however GPL-incompatable != non-free.
Re:Absolutes are impossible: ZERO chance of a laws (Score:2)
Indeed, some Debian people have been trying to get the FSF to see things their way and alter the GPL to make it DFSG compatible.
Why? There are DDs that are more radical about free-as-in-libre than RMS.
Again, a great distro, but with interesting internal politics.
Re:Debian should take whatever time it needs (Score:3, Insightful)
> - it is the absolute high ground,
Oh really now. Do you know how many non-free packages RedHat is currently shipping in their ENTERPRISE distribution? Since you obviously don't know the answer, I'll fill you in; exactly the same number as Debian is shipping. Ok, how many non-free packages are in Fedora then. Another ZERO, so much for your line of argument.
Of course there are some differences. RHEL (or a rebuild like my own Whit
Good News! (Score:2, Interesting)
But on Saturday Debian developers voted to postpone the changes until after Sarge releases, effectively affirming that the changes need to be made but making a pragmatic decision to not let the next release be delayed as a result.
This is a super example of how open source products can, when properly managed, be much, much more nimble than a lot of proprietary offerings. Look at the Longhorn delays. That's not going to come out until approximately the same time the Sun becomes a cold, dark chunk of coal (
Re:Good News! (Score:5, Funny)
Ramble on (Score:5, Funny)
YEAH! (Score:5, Informative)
As the current version of Debian is obviously not compatible with the new policy decisions, it is not as if releasing one more version with the same incompatibility will be such a big deal.
I agree that Debian should be as free as possible, but if what is currently released was all right a few years ago, then it will keep for another year or so.
Assuming, of course, that the next release comes out in about a year, which would be a GOOD THING. One major upgrade a year is fine. Once a month would be far too unstable, and even once every six months would be unnecessarily unstable for Debian, IMHO.
(I am not a Debian developer, but I do maintain about thirty Debian machines. My opinions are based on this.)
We need two sub distros (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard others elsewhere suggest that there should be a server distro and a desktop distro in Debian. I like the idea personally.
Yes, I know about testing and unstable. I use unstable as my desktop. However, I'd like to have reasonable recent software without dealing with the constant moving target that is unstable. I'd like to see a desktop version that is updated every six to twelve months and that isn't held to the same standards the server sub-distro would held to. I think unstable updates too often. Stability is also a factor. Yes, unstable is relatively stable, but you have to keep close watch on incoming packages to make sure they don't break something.
This would also allow for docs to be made for the majority of Desktop Debian users who don't seem to be using stable.
Re:We need two sub distros (Score:4, Interesting)
> distro and a desktop distro in Debian. I like the idea personally.
Sarge is planned to weigh in at about 14 CD-ROMs. Obviously that is too much. Even a server/desktop split won't solve that problem. But instead of just being a "Negative Nancy" I'll propose something that might work.
Break up Debian into several components, each with it's own manager and release schedule, except all would obviously have to co-operate with the core LGX component.
Debian LGX (Linux/GNU/X)
The Linux kernel, key system utils, etc
The GNU tools, compiler, glibc and everything needed to have a command line environment.
X11 and the fundementals, xlib, xterm, twm, etc.
Debian Server
All of the server components, kept in one large collection because many depend on each other.
Debian GNOME
Just what the name implies, gmome & gtk libraries, GNOME and key GNOME apps.
GNOME, gdm, Nautilus, Mozilla, OO.o
Debian KDE
Just KDE & it's key apps.
Debian Utilities
Important utilities that do not fit into one of the other catagories.
Debian Extras
Everything that didn't go anywhere else. It would be understood that CD distributions would be free to edit down the selection from here in the interest of space. Most probably wouldn't carry any from here, best to let apt-get pick up the few each machine needs.
The key idea would be to make the promise that, except for Extras, none of these would exceed one 700MB CD-ROM image for both i386 binaries AND source. This sort of space limitation would force some very hard choices, pruning the packageset to just the essentials. It would also give maintainers the weapon they need when the whinging starts about package foo not making the cut. They just ask the complainers which OTHER package(s) should get cut to make room for their favorite. Then when those packages' fans come out of the woodwork the maintainer can leave the ensuing flamewar and get back to work for a few weeks while it sorts itself out.
However, while Extras itself wouldn't have a size limit the whole of Debian should be constrained to what can be held on a single layer DVD-ROM. Any OS that won't fit on a DVD is too fscking big and we end up with the Sarge problem again.
Re:We need two sub distros (Score:2)
Re:We need two sub distros (Score:2)
It was a thread on Debian Planet [debianplanet.org], and I disagree. It isn't a server vs. desktop problem. My parents want a stable desktop, I want the latest and greatest. My server needs to be stable, but it needs frequent updates when there are moving targets, typically SA and security tools. Well, I guess I'll just repost my post from the above thread...:
[...] There are many backpor
Re:We need two sub distros (Score:2)
I hope I am wrong. Debian is a fantastic distro to work with. Debian has been my distro o
Debian is an extreme.... (Score:2, Informative)
What they're doing here with this social contract and slowing down development to maintain principles is not just an inconvenience - it may lead to this distro becoming less and less relevant if not dying outright.
Its kinda like holding your breath because you're gainst air pollution and want to stick to your principles. If you do it efficiently you'll pass out a lot and get very ill. If you do it with absolute efficiency you'll put your head in
Voting mechanism (Score:4, Informative)
Click the link above for a better explanation of instant runoff voting (try the flash demo). It's ultimately the best way to get what the people want. I love that the IT organizations (Debian, ACM, IEEE) are using this!
Re:Voting mechanism (Score:5, Informative)
Every time there is a Slashdot story about a Debian vote, someone plugs Instant Runoff. Debian has not, does not, and will not ever use Instant Runoff. Instant Runoff suffers from major flaws [electionmethods.org], and its only real effect is to allow symbolic votes for compromise candidates while effectively taking them out of the running. The primary difference between Condorcet and IRV is that IRV completely ignores everything but your top choice, until that choice is eliminated. This means that with IRV, if you have a favorite third party as well as a preference between the two primary parties, such as (Libertarian,Republican,Democrat) or (Green,Democrat,Republican), you are hurting the ability for your second choice to win over your third choice, because that preference is completely ignored until your first choice loses. This has two effects: when your first choice is weak, your vote for them is meaningless; when your first choice is strong, but not strong enough to actually win, your first choice could eliminate your second choice (Libertarian beating Republican, or Green beating Democrat), and then your last choice would win (Democrat beating Libertarian, or Republican beating Green), completely ignoring one of your preferences. This means that the only way in an IRV system to successfully express a preference in the two-party race is to rank one of the two parties first, which is the problem we have now.
To quote electionmethods.org:
Instant Runoff also has another major problem: results cannot be tabulated locally. In all good voting systems, if you tally the votes from one county, tally the votes from another county, and add the totals, then the results will be the same as if you had tallied all the votes together. With our current "plurality" system, the tally is an array of length N (for N candidates). With Condorcet, the tally is an NxN matrix. With IRV, however, one cannot just keep tallies, because a ballot is not equivalent to a set of pairwise votes; instead, one must either use a tally of size N! (one for each possible order), or just track every single ballot. This makes IRV highly impractical as well as being technically inferior to just about every other system.
Debian uses the much better Condorcet [electionmethods.org] voting system. Like IRV, Condorcet gathers a ranked list of candidates from each voter. However, Condorcet looks at _all_ of your preferences at the same time. It treats the voting process like a set of two-candidate elections between every possible pair of candidates. This means that in a three-candidate election (Rep/Dem/Lib, for example), a vote for (Lib,Rep,De
Mod Parent Up.... (Score:2)
It's nice to see that even an AC can recognize the comitment go effective and efficient Democracy that is embodied in the Debian Project.
Why Current Debian users don't mind that much.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The biggest praise of apt (Score:5, Interesting)
The way every other package based installer works (that I've used anyway) is to install all the packages from the installer boot (usually by forcing dependencies) and then say "all done, reboot now".
The way the Debian installer works is to install a barest minimum system that will boot and run apt and then reboot. Then once it has rebooted it asks for some apt repositories, asks which packages you want install and then installs them (this bit may take a couple of passes though the list to work out any warts in the dependencies). Having done that it presents you with a fully working system WITHOUT a reboot.
The fact they can have that much confidence in the apt repository and the tools is pretty impressive.
a bit of common sense (Score:2)
Re:a bit of common sense (Score:4, Informative)
In the sense you're thinking of... (Score:5, Informative)
This is why when someone says they run Mandrake or Redhat, they'll tell you the version (8,9,10, etc), but if you ask a Debian user they'll just say 'Debian' and leave it at that.
That's pretty cool (Score:5, Interesting)
So they move Sarge while agreeing to discuss it at a later date.
When's the last time you saw something this internally important to a project drag a project down in flames? How many other non and for profit organizations have torn apart/forked or become non productive over such a dispute?
It's a nice compromise and I'm glad they're willing to be so reasonable about it.
As far as being out of touch, hey slow and steady is still a winning strategy for those willing to wait. *
~G
* glances at apt source.list for all the lovely unstable bits.. I'm not one who likes waiting tho' ^_^
*Sigh* (Score:5, Informative)
if you want the latest and greatest software, run debian/unstable. "unstable" doesn't mean that the software itself is unstable, it's just that the packages in the unstable tree are changed/updated often, hence calling it "unstable". debian unstable contains all the goodies that are in the latest versions of other distros, like kde 3.2, gnome 2.6, etc, etc.....
also, yes, all the packages in sarge may fill 14 cds, but you don't need to download all of them. all you need to get is the net-installer iso (around 100 MB) and then download only what you want. so set up the base system with the net-install cd, then the latest versions of whatever you want are just an apt-get away.
sorry for the rant, but people unfamiliar with debian are often misinformed or make unfair assertions.
Re:*Sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)
But then again, some of the Debian core developers think the world should conform to them, not the other way around...
Re:*Sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
For everything else, you should use the unstable branch, not stable. Unstable tends to have releases all the way up to the day the source was released for most packages.
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2, Interesting)
A pity (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, Debian is FREE, and so should be its documentation.
A very practical compromise (Score:4, Insightful)
To be 100% DFSG-defined free, some have argued in debian-devel and debian-legal you should be able to edit, and redistribute your edits of any documentation.
Sounds ok when you first think of it, which is probably why the general resolution that proposed that changed passed. But then you realize that:
1) the docs include standards, like RFCs, which _should not_ be changed and redistributed, less confusion ensue. There is a formal process for contribution and review, but just editing the docs isn't it.
2) the docs include license texts, like the GPL, APL, etc. The condition of using and redistributing most of the code in debian/main, including such useful things as the kernel, glibc, gcc, g, is that the text of GPL be distributed along with it. However, the GPL text itself isn't 100% free from the DFSG's point of view because it once again cannot be altered and redistributed as the GPL. And bingo, you're stuck! The GPL can't be put into non-free, because is presence is mandatory, but good luck in having the FSF alter their license.
I have nothing against a free _software_ interpretation of the DFSG, but there are good practical reasons why the same freedoms cannot be applied to the documentation.
----------seperate point for discussion-----------
Interesting thing - wait much more than 6-12 months for Sarge, and most serious debian installs will be running production systems with a heavy concentration of backports.
And with backports, there are less eyes on the package's code level, and less eyes to notice that an update may have been released to plug some security problems. But there's the trap: (1) use testing and have a too volatile OS, (2) use stable + backports and get a functional os, that's generally secure, or (3) use just stable and get an OS that in time loses the ability to deliver 'standard' features, i.e. functions that have been available for more than a year.
Surge of popularity (Score:4, Interesting)
It's nice to see debian decided not to slash it's own wrist by postponing the release. The problem with debian is, people who make the decisions to release or not are themselves using Unstable, and don't really care either way with the release. The loser is the guy who wants to run Debian stable, but doesn't get a say on if/when they are planning
to release.
BTW, one significant turn-off with Debian is the quality of the user base - you need to search far and wide to find as unfriendly a bunch. There is no friendly community that some would expect from such a project. Perhaps it's all the infighting that hardens the people...
what's the deal with debian? (Score:2)
But why? What does Debian actually *do* with the tarballs the rest of us download?
Tons of testing? Major modifications? Ultimately, is the time they take time well spent?
Just curious, that's all.
+1 interesting (Score:2)
Sometimes I wonder this myself. Are the upstream packages too broken to be good enough for debian? Has debian deviated so far from mainstream that the packages require extensive customization? Why can't the fixes be committed directly to upstream?
Re:+1 interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually. Take a look at all the bugfixes that Debian applies to the packages (just look at bugreports from each package).
Has debian deviated so far from mainstream that the packages require extensive customization?
Not really. Upstream authors just don't really pay tons of attention to detail, and so while a release might work fine on their heavily customized system, it doesn't play well nice with the standards that Linux Standards Base
What's the gripe about Debian? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know where it is coming from that testing don't get security patches. It might not have the guarantee that stable does, but in my experience they've been there almost instantly. That's pretty much what you get from ALL other distros as well (we provide as fast as we can, but make no guarantees).
As for installation, I install the base image (100mb, there's even a 30mb microinstall), then download the rest on-demand. If you're not on broadband, pick up the box and put it somewhere with broadband (where you'd download the CDs) until it is installed. It's text based and looks a little crummy (this is the new installer, you know), but it is powerful and easy. Slap an (optional) GUI on top and it competes well with Mandrake and Fedora.
Overall, I think those that installed 'stable' sometime in the stone age love that their distro is still supported. And whenever sarge is released, that it'll probably be supported to something like 2010. That matters to a significant portion of the people (server admins) that will never gripe about it on slashdot until it is "my "#"# production box just went to #%"!!!!!"
Personally, I don't care much for their social contract (I have no problems putting non-free and other sources in my sources list), I just picked them because in my opinion they're the best distro around. Best to get any real work done at least, with a minimum of maintenance.
Kjella
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:3, Informative)
yes, the move to postpone changes so as to not delay the release will someone put it farther behind.
I bet you also think 2+2=3
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:5, Funny)
For small values of 2, it does!
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:2)
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:2)
What? Are you serious? If so, how?
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:3)
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:2)
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:5, Interesting)
are you talking about social contract or postponing it? how can postponing can be bad for debian desktop usage?
for the former, Debian is very strong all over the world, so if debian starts enforcing social contract, most developers will have to fallow Debian rules in order to penetrate to debian repository. finally, just for you information, new debian installer is much better than knoppix hd installer.
focus (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had to pick one great failing in the business world, it'd be "too many irons in the fire". Many a company has tried to sell you everything and anything- and thusfar, the only company to do it successfully has been Walmart, and that's at least partially from stepping on their workers like they're dirt, but that's another story for another time.
Debian excels at being reliable and "serious". I don't use it because, unfortunately, it's not even -remotely- close to current; it's about two weeks shy of two years old. However, it is serving a specific market, and it should not pander to trying to please everyone. Mandrake is worse, in my opinion- they still want to be everything from your desktop to your server; they excel in the desktop arena, and that is where they should focus for the same reason.
Do one thing, do it well- and never have to worry about pleasing everyone, having conflicting goals, etc. You'll never have to say, "well, this configuration system will never be understood by new linux users!"- because your market is experienced linux users who will appreciate extra functionality (by the way, this is a mythical example).
I've never used Debian, but understand the advantages and have a few friends who prefer it. I like and use Mandrake on desktop systems I have to use regularly; my personal "servers" get Gentoo. Redhat is what I use for business/enterprise stuff.
Re:focus (Score:5, Insightful)
Testing is where most other distros and OSs are. Sure there is the occational problem but it is rare. Stable is what most other distros and OSs do not even have. I guess BSD is the best comparison. You use stable when you can not afford it to crash due to software.
If you run mission critical stuff on Windows or other distros you can just as well run it on Debian Testing. Naturally you should take the precaution of havning a separate server you can use to test significant updates on first, but that is true for any mission critical stuff. And Debians apt-get system makes it easy to do this quite painlessly. (More so than many other distros and much more than Windows systems.)
Not that you have to switch to Debian, but your understanding of the issues involved is not quite complete. BTW you can do your own compilations with Debian as with Gentoo, you use use "apt-get source" instead of "apt-get install".
The biggest differance between Debian and RH etc is that the other big distros have a company behind them. That tend to make people calmer about dealing with them for some reason. (I can not really see why, AFAIK no company has been successfully sued for distributing buggy software.)
What 'stable' really means' (Score:5, Informative)
Debian stable ist called stable, because the packages are only replaced in order to fix security flaws. The security patches are manually backported by the debian security team. This concept assures that one can configure a system and handcoded scripts will not break until a new version of debian stable is released (every 2-3 years!).
So stable has the meaning that one can install a system, do automatic daily security updates and forget about it until the next version comes.
Debian unstable gets updated packages every day. So if you would like to have current software you could chose debian unstable. Unstable does not get security fixes. This isn't too bad, because the original software mainainers patch their software and this will get into debian unstable pretty soon.
Than there is debian testing which is meant to be the testing system before the release of the next version of debian stable. It does not get security patches. It sometimes does not get timely package updates.
If you want a system which is stable in the way, that the software does not have many bugs, you should NOT use debian stable, but UNSTABLE!!! This is because non-security-bugs are not patched in debian stable, but in debian unstable, as new versions arrive there. A good example is mozilla: In debian stable, the current version is 1.0.0! It did not even get security fixes as this would have meant too much work! In debian unstable the current version of mozilla is 1.7. Mozilla 1.7 definetely crashes less often than Mozilla 1.0.0!
Do not use debian testing for other reasons than testing the next version of debian stable! Testing has sometimes outdated software AND does not get security patches. This combines the bad features of stable and unstable!
So if you want a system that almost never changes, because you do not have the time to reconfigure your system often, use debian stable. In all other cases, use debian unstable. It is not less secure. In some cases, like mozilla, it is MORE SECURE! Never use debian testing, except you want to help with testing at the debian community.
Please do not suggest that debian stable has less bugs than debian testing which has less bugs than debian unstable. Almost the opposite is true!
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, Debian's dependency management is so good that it's worth dealing with older packages to get a "stable" version that runs like a top.
Debian is also good at keeping the initial number of packages installed small, which is good for keeping things simple--especially important
Re:Bad for Debian? (Score:2)
Also, the social contract changes apply to what third party(the non-free, IIRC) packages get distracted which ways. The new debian-installer's schedule is unchanged by this, since it was not part of non-free.
Since debian's unstable also leads the way in a lot of other fields(Debian was among the first three distros to adopt the new non-XFree86 xserver, again IIRC), I find
Re:Sarge postponed? (Score:5, Funny)
That is silly, there is NO comparing the two. Everyone knows that Half Life 2 WILL be released someday.
Re:Paralysis by Analysis (Score:5, Informative)
And you don't have to download all 14 CDs: only do so if you a) have a penchant for pain or b) are obsessive with hard copies of things.
You only need the first CD to have a working stable system, and Debian sorts its packages based on popularity, so most likely, you'll find what you need within the first 4 CDs.
You could also just use apt-get and an http or ftp source, but I guess that would be too convenient.
Re:Comparison between Debian and Gentoo? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Comparison between Debian and Gentoo? (Score:2)
You may want to look for some help, especially if you're not all that hardware savvy. If you have a friend who can help you set it up that would be preferable, but maintainence is (in my opinion), much smoother. There is no 'stable' or 'testing' distribution. There is simply the current state of a particular package in p
Re:Comparison between Debian and Gentoo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Comparison between Debian and Gentoo? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been a debian stable user for many years, and recently installed gentoo on my main workstation, so here's the comparison as I see it:
In debian stable, as in gentoo x86, the packages are tested before being released. The difference is that in debian stable, the distribution as a whole is tested, so you don't get integration problems. When I installed gentoo, I got a good working version of gimp, and a good working
Re:Comparison between Debian and Gentoo? (Score:3, Insightful)