Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Debian Lenny Installer RC1 Arrives

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-lenny-from-of-mice-and-men dept.

Debian 81

nerdyH writes "It appears that Debian 5.0 (aka "Lenny") will soon take its big binocular eyes out into the wider world. Only two months later than expected, the Debian project has completed the first release candidate of Lenny's installer. Featuring much faster installation from "live" CDs, and expanded support for ARM-based devices such as NAS servers, Lenny has gestated for 19 months, compared to 21 months for the previous "Etch" release. Lookout, world, Debian releases are picking up speed! The download is here."

cancel ×

81 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

why bother with a liveCD? (3, Informative)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754005)

Lets be honest, almost everyone interested in Debian won't be put off by its already excellent text based installer. Has it suddenly become 'old fashioned' or something?

Anyone of the livecd liking type is likely to be better off with Ubuntu. Well I think so anyway.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (4, Interesting)

squisher (212661) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754135)

Nope, I disagree. I have no problems with a text installer, but I still think the live cd installer is a useful feature. I'd prefer to use that if I have the option.

I just think it is nice to have the option to do something with the computer while it's installing. Installing is I/O heavy, so i.e. surfing the web or playing a little game does not slow it down.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754343)

I'm inclined to agree with you on that one. I have nothing against text based installers(heck, I don't mind the bit in the OpenBSD installer where it recommends a calculator); but LiveCDs are really useful on occasion, and making a LiveCD that can also be an installer is an obvious convenience measure. I wouldn't mind having the LiveCD installer just be the text based installer in a window; but LiveCDs are an obvious good, and once you have a LiveCD, adding an installer is simple and useful thing.

Mine sweeper (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25762457)

I just think it is nice to have the option to do something with the computer while it's installing.

Debian comes with a complete implementation of Mine Sweeper inside the Aptitude installer itself.

Or if you really need it, virtual terminals are also working. You can simply [CTRL]+[F#] into another one and "links" Slashdot.org. Or ssh into another box and play nethack.

Debian installer CD is as close to a LiveCD as possible in the realm of textmode/console apps. :-P

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25763031)

I agree. What irks me is that it has to be a CD. What's wrong with using a bootable USB stick? Am I missing something or are Fedora and Ubuntu the only distros that makes creating bootable usb sticks really easy and user friendly? Or is it maybe the case that the people who use the other distros out there simply don't want their distro of choice to become really accessible to everyone because that would make them feel like less of an uber linux power mega whatever? I await the flamebait mod with baited breath even though this was meant as an honest question

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (3, Interesting)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754151)

Knoppix: "Hey, I'm still alive you know!"

Poor old Knoppix, really was the first to prefect the whole LiveCD thing and now its commonplace amongst distro's most people forgot where it really came from.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (3, Interesting)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754259)

most people forgot where it really came from

Yggdrasil? [wikipedia.org]

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755667)

Yes I know Knoppix didn't start it thats why I said "prefected". It was when Knoppix got popular that distro's started doing live CD's and live installs.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (0, Offtopic)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25756453)

[OT] The first time you wrote "prefected" I suspected a typo. I'm sure you meant "perfected". You could also leave out the apostrophes in plurals and use "distros" and "CDs" instead. Though I guess a real Grammar Nazi will now follow with the possible correctness of "CD's" ;)

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25756945)

Oh go fuck yourselves mods!

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (4, Funny)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25758435)

Oh go fuck yourselves mods!

Dude, if we could do that, we wouldn't be here modding comments, would we....

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755365)

I still use Knoppix on a regular basis because of its excellent hardware detection. However, having once tried using the Knoppix installer to convert the live CD to a Debian install, I would never do it again. The result is ugly, whereas the newer desktop oriented distros do this really well.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25755829)

Klaus himself discourages using Knoppix as an installer, recommending Debian instead.

However, as a standalone livecd (now exclusively a livedvd), Knoppix remains unbeaten in OOB functionality and compatibility.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (5, Informative)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754195)

I've been a Lenny user for at least 6 months and performed a number of server and desktop installs with some versions of the new installer.

The most important part of the installer that has changed for the better is you can easily start the installation by selecting from gui and text options from a menu. The Etch installer you had to type something to start the installer.

The Lenny installer runs circles around the Ubuntu installer. Among other cool details you can configure LVM, or software raids prior to the disk formatting and installation.

I got KDE4 packages from http://kde4.debian.net/ [debian.net] Absolutely the best way to go for kde4.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25755137)

You're a KDE user? LOL

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755645)

What your are calling features are WHY ubuntu is more popular than debian. Your average user doesn't know about LVM, raid arrays, encrypted partitions, etc, these options are there for the alternative installer though.

Now dont get me wrong i have nothing against debian showing these options but criticizing ubuntu for meeting its goal of being easy tp use is a bit unfair, it would be like criticizing Gentoo for compiling too much.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (0, Troll)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755959)

The Lenny installer runs circles around the Ubuntu installer. Among other cool details you can configure LVM, or software raids prior to the disk formatting and installation.

Which is why it sucks compared to Ubuntu. You remember Ubuntu right? It's Linux for humans.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25756803)

I did an Ubuntu install today and it was a broken pain in the ass. Get outside of a very narrow set of install needs (a user and a box), and the Ubuntu install experience is over-automated crap. Ubuntu is Linux for Windowsers, or maybe Windows for Linuxers.

Ubuntu is doing a lot, but it's not wise to gulp the Kool-Aid too fast my friend.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (2, Interesting)

paganizer (566360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25757433)

I'm using Debian know. But I would switch to whatever Distro that allowed me to run Compiz Fusion (or even Beryl) on a Nvidia card without sacrificing a large portion of my life to researching "how?".
I'm NOT a linux geek. or a windows geek, for that matter. But I have been running slackware since 95, maybe 94, was a solaris & hp-unix sysadmin before I turned to the dark side and went primarily into Wintel-related jobs. If it was simple, easy, or even moderately difficult to do, I could do it.
But I just don't have the time or spare brain cycles right now to research in-depth something that is just to make Vista users shut their yap about glass.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25759317)

Ubuntu has compiz fusion out of the box (and I installed the Compiz Settings Manager out of the default repositories to tweak the settings).

I have an ATI graphics device but was under the impression that nVidia works fine as well. In fact whenever I've used Linux in the past it's always been with an nVidia card, and the 3D support was a lot better. My ATI card is causing flickering when trying to run windowed OpenGL applications at the same time as Compiz, and a lot of other people report the same issue. Grr.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

roe-roe (930889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25761415)

apt-get install compiz compiz-core compizconfig-settings-manager compiz-fusion-plugins-main compiz-fusion-plugins-extra And you're done. There is a neat little window manager switcher called "Compiz Fusion Icon" that lets you toggle back and forth between compiz and metacity. I don't see what the big deal is

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

paganizer (566360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769461)

nope. don't work. won't initialize. I haven't, like I said, devoted any time to figuring out why but I did bother to install it and try to kick it off, even poked around in compizconfig some. at at a guess it's a problem with the nvidia driver; I've tried it on a 6600 and a 7300 system, with both the NV & the latest -glx, no dice.
What I'm really curious about, though, is why you got down-modded; you tried to answer the question and weren't TOO snarky about it.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

Mkx (614118) | more than 5 years ago | (#25757787)

The Lenny installer runs circles around the Ubuntu installer. Among other cool details you can configure LVM, or software raids prior to the disk formatting and installation.

Ubuntu Server Edition installer also allows you to configure SW RAID and LVM. It's just Ubuntu Desktop Edition that makes things easy for lusers.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

daveewart (66895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25758411)

The most important part of the installer that has changed for the better is you can easily start the installation by selecting from gui and text options from a menu. The Etch installer you had to type something to start the installer.

Thank goodness for that. Now I can install Debian on all my systems which don't have a keyboard. Phew!

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25761597)

I didn't have a problem with the old installer being text-based. I just wish it had given you more control over program installation. It'd be nice to have the program choices broken down into categories with the default noted for beginners.

I normally install just the base then set up the repositories, install the stripped down kde and aptitude. Boot and just use aptitude to install the rest.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25762751)

Install via SSH has to be the best part about the debian installer. I get it to the point where SSH is enabled then go watch TV with my laptop and let the installer finish.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754317)

text based installer

What is this, the 90s?

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755609)

I prefer the text based installer for ubuntu, its much more powerful, never crashes and boots up faster.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754711)

IMO, the livecd is like the gateway media for beginners / certain special cases.. seasoned linux users will probably have less use for the livecd though.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755793)

Pardon my off-topicness and my old fogieness, but I still can't help but laugh when someone says "excellent installer" in reference to Debian. It used to be the absolute worst and was known far and wide for being the absolute worst to do a clean install with. I remember printing out installation instructions off the web that were 8 pages long with a regular-size font! Followed those instructions to the letter, made sure I had compatible hardware, the instructions were written by a dev and were linked to from debian.org, only to have the installation fail. Tried again -- I'm an exceptionally stubborn person, I've been told -- failed again. And again with a different set of instructions. Tried again with the next release with a fresh set of instructions, same result. Posted in forums to get help, but even the Linux "gurus" whose only answer to Linux newbies is RTFM (since they're gurus, you know, they shouldn't have to answer questions from those beneath them) even they just made sympathetic-sounding posts that praised some other distro (in other words, these self-proclaimed gurus couldn't get it to work either). That's a big part of why I haven't installed Debian in at least 4 years now, and they were almost 3 years behind when it came to installation then. After those nightmares I find it hard to believe it has changed that much. Once bitten, you know.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25757597)

Why not fire it up in a VM and see? Even Ubuntu uses Debian's installer as its "Alternate" installer, the preferred method for power users. It's a pretty good product now.

And I agree, the old installer sucked. Especially dselect. Argh.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25758337)

I don't have a machine to spare right now to experiment with. But I always upgrade the hardware every summer, by which time Lenny should be a final release so I'll try it then.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25760709)

I don't have a machine to spare right now to experiment with.

That's why setagllib recommends firing up a VM.

QEMU [bellard.org] is a good place to start.

If this is new to you, this is a good place to start reading [wikipedia.org] .

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25756765)

Text-based installers have always been the easiest. That's why GUI-based installer strategists targeted them with horror stories about how hard it was to install Debian, Slackware or the BSDs; three of the easiest installs I've ever done, although I only do the rare BSD install these days.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25757101)

Text installer is fine, but LiveCD is not only useful for installing the OS.

Re:why bother with a liveCD? (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25759283)

Anyone of the livecd liking type is likely to be better off with Ubuntu. Well I think so anyway.

You don't need a full LiveCD to do a graphical install, so I don't see what that has to do with anything. Has it occured to you that it might be nothing to do with the installer?

I have gone through plenty of text based installers over the years without issue, they're basically exactly the same as the graphical installers, just the graphical ones aren't as fugly. What's wrong with wanting to make things look better? Not 1337 enough for you?

For me it's always been about being able to test out the distro with your hardware, or just seeing if the latest version is worth upgrading to. You can do that in a VM but that doesn't test with your actual hardware (depending on the solution you're using). The Ubuntu 7 liveCD would just lock up on my machine before it ever got into X, but 8.10 went right on through and even had support for my laptop's wireless card, keyboard backlight and function keys etc, so I knew the driver support was finally good enough.

LiveCDs or USB based distros are also useful for IT support stuff like verifying if some hardware isn't working because of Windows or because it's just plain broken; also for recovering files or performing other maintenance on an OS that won't boot, etc.

cool (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754045)

surprise, surprise, Barack Obama, the guy who didn't bother showing up for work for 2 years, is resigning his senate seat.

That's right: You elected an unemployed nigger.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754237)

Thats the EXACT same thing I thought when I heard about the new installer!

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754313)

+1 Good Parody Troll

Don't install Lenny! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754051)

It has very poor mouse support.

Re:Don't install Lenny! (3, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754185)

Oh come on mods, this was funny! I think someone needs to get a little culture [wikipedia.org] .

It's well known that Lenny does not do well with mice. Or puppies, for that matter.

Re:Don't install Lenny! (3, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754617)

Or women...

Re:Don't install Lenny! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754695)

Or bullets to the back of the head...

Re:Don't install Lenny! (1)

TranceThrust (1391831) | more than 5 years ago | (#25759339)

That was Larry, not Lenny!

Re:Don't install Lenny! (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754885)

Or pretty women...

Re:Don't install Lenny! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754911)

But does it live off the fatta the lan'?

Don't forget... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754137)

To pay your $699 goatse [goatse.cz] fee you cock-smoking tea-baggers.

We're pregnant with anticipation (0)

kbrasee (1379057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754155)

Can't wait for this baby.

George (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754163)

If you ask Lenny, will Lenny tell you about the rabbits?

LISA NEEDS BRACES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754173)

DENTAL PLAN

Re:LISA NEEDS BRACES (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25754879)

DENTAL PLAN

Get a job, hippie. Oh yeah, you assholes elected a socialist last week. I guess the federal government will begin unconstitutionally stealing from my paycheck to give your cheap lazy ass "free" health care.

Re:LISA NEEDS BRACES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25756625)

It was a joke, dumbass! 2 lines from a Simpsons episode.

Lesbian Denny? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754233)

Ok, am I the only one who read Lesbian Denny?
I should cease my attempts at speed reading...

Re:Lesbian Denny? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754607)

> Ok, am I the only one who read Lesbian Denny?

Yes. I'm pretty sure every other regular reader of slashdot was already very much aware, before seeing this story, that Lenny is the codename for the upcoming release of Debian. In fact, given that the words "Lenny" and especially "Debian" are a good deal more important to most of us, and are words we see and use much more often, than the words "Lesbian" and "Denny", I imagine that if the article had been misprinted as "Lesbian Denny", a lot of us probably would have read it as "Debian Lenny" without noticing the typo.

> I should cease my attempts at speed reading...

HTH.HAND.

Re:Lesbian Denny? (2, Funny)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754737)

My bad. I guess not many /.ers would like to read about lesbians rather than debian...
I would swear there would be Ubuntu & Opensuse fans here ;)

Re:Lesbian Denny? (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754775)

given that the words "Lenny" and especially "Debian" are a good deal more important to most of us

You realise you're talking about a bunch of geeks who stereotypically have never seen a real life woman? Slashdotter's, new poll:

[ ] Lesbian
[ ] Debian

We'll let the masses decide.

Re:Lesbian Denny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25757569)

You forgot one option:

[ ] CowboyNeal

Re:Lesbian Denny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837517)

Given that Lesbians prefer to sleep with other women, I'd probably choose Debian.

Re:Lesbian Denny? (2, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#25758389)

Ok, am I the only one who read Lesbian Denny?

Thanks.

I administer a whole bunch of Linux servers and I'm never going to be able to get that out of my head.

I'm going to be ringing up hosting providers and asking if they support "Lesbian Denny".

I'm going to be emailing software vendors and asking if their product runs under "Lesbian Denny".

I'm going to be posting on mailing lists asking if anyone's succeeded in installing the latest build on "Lesbian Denny".

What about bugs? (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754483)

What about release critical bugs? Currently there are 173 of them:
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ [debian.org]

I thought that they won't be releasing next version before they are fixed. And even with optimal speed it looks like it would take at least 1,5 months to get them all fixed.

And some estimate that it would be 2009-06 before the release happens:
http://blog.venthur.de/2008/10/07/lennys-release-date/ [venthur.de]

Re:What about bugs? (5, Informative)

jonadab (583620) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754631)

> What about release critical bugs? Currently there are 173 of them:

Most of those bugs are not in the installer. If you read the summary (not even the actual article, just the summary) carefully, you'll note that this is a release candidate of the *installer*, not of the whole distro. I would imagine the distribution as a whole is probably still on schedule for the originally promised timeframe of "when it's ready".

Re:What about bugs? (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#25754761)

What about release critical bugs?

Oh, come one...like that's ever stopped Microsoft or Apple from releasing an OS. Case in points: Windows Vista, OS X Leopard. Both of these had serious issues on launch, to put it mildly. The only difference is that with Debian, we can look up what the bugs are because Debian is honest. Anyway, if Debian fixed all those bugs, then they'd never release anything -- look at what those bugs are, most of them are in packages in debian, which relies on the package maintainer to fix them, which might take awhile.

Re:What about bugs? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25756903)

"Oh, come one...like that's ever stopped Microsoft or Apple from releasing an OS"

I thought the Linux preachers like to make a big deal of not being like either of them.

Which is it going to be Bud?

Re:What about bugs? (2, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25757609)

The point is that the variety of open distributions give you the choice between mature and immature. Debian has long been an extremely reliable distribution and I hope it stays that way. There's no point in Debian existing if its releases are buggy like Ubuntu's. They should take as much time as they need to get it stable, because that's what Debian is for in the first place.

Re:What about bugs? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25756665)

> What about release critical bugs? Currently there are 173 of them
Better take a look at http://bts.turmzimmer.net/graph-large.png [turmzimmer.net] , which provides more accurate stats.

> I thought that they won't be releasing next version before they are fixed. And even with optimal speed it
> looks like it would take at least 1,5 months to get them all fixed.

Packages with RC bugs can either be fixed or removed, it's always been that way.

Re:What about bugs? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25759267)

Packages with RC bugs can either be fixed or removed
or ignored, just because someone has marked a bug as serious or higher severity doesn't nessacerally mean the release team consider it critical to fix before release.

A couple of months more, perhaps... (2, Informative)

Respect_my_Authority (967217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755017)

Only two months later than expected, the Debian project has completed the first release candidate of Lenny's installer.

Unfortunately, an installer RC is not the final distribution release.

Lookout, world, Debian releases are picking up speed!

I don't think so. It'll still take a couple more months before the final Lenny release will be out. There will yet be another installer release candidate (RC2), and that will also need some further testing before the final release.

Still, I think the Lenny release will be well worth the wait for users who want a stable server OS. (Desktop users would prefer Debian's "testing" branch because it has more up-to-date software.) Debian doesn't put out half-assed and buggy releases just to meet arbitrary release dates, like Ubuntu does. Debian won't make a stable release until it's really ready and stable.

Re:A couple of months more, perhaps... (1)

Braino420 (896819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25763013)

Debian doesn't put out half-assed and buggy releases just to meet arbitrary release dates, like Ubuntu does.

I'll bite. They're called release cycles, and many open source projects, such as gnome and the linux kernel, also do it.

Re:A couple of months more, perhaps... (2, Insightful)

Respect_my_Authority (967217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767537)

Also Debian has release cycles, you know. But while Ubuntu's release cycles are inflexible and tied to arbitrary release dates, Debian's release cycles are more flexible and they can afford to wait until the release has actually become stable and ready.

You mention GNOME and Linux as examples that other projects should follow, but you should remember that the early GNOME2 releases were unusable crap, as were were the early Linux 2.6 releases. KDE4 also makes time-based releases now, and so far their releases have been crap. But once GNOME2 and Linux 2.6 matured, they started to make quite usable releases. And it looks like KDE4 will also mature soon, so I'd expect they'll too start making usable releases in the near future.

With distros it's a bit different, though. Distros package software from various sources, and they can refuse to include software that they consider to be just development previews (like early GNOME2, early Linux 2.6, or early KDE4). Distros can cherry-pick stuff that is known to work without problems, if they want to. Or they can include the latest and greatest versions of software and then put their hands together in prayer, hoping that everything works -- even if they haven't really had time to test it.

Ubuntu wants to include the latest versions of software in their releases (even in the so called "LTS" releases), and they have a strict release schedule they need to obey. Quite often this means that they don't have much time to test the software that they include in their releases. Ubuntu is also known to ship with pre-release versions of some popular software programs, even in the "LTS" releases. With such a misguided release policy, Ubuntu can never become mature enough to make releases that are actually stable and well-tested.

Debian, on the other hand, cherry-picks software that is known to work, and they also take time to carefully test software that goes into their stable releases. They only release when the developers think that all the serious bugs have been fixed and the release has really become stable. That's really the reason why Debian releases are so much more stable and trouble-free than Ubuntu releases.

Oh no (0, Redundant)

arazor (55656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755189)

not Lenny!

Using Lenny now (3, Insightful)

chrome (3506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25755275)

Been running Lenny on my servers, and its been pretty solid. I notice a lot of people suggesting Ubuntu for servers. I'm not keen, for several reasons. Mostly, because Ubuntu generally keep things 'fresher' they also tend to drop in beta or alpha quality versions of things that they shouldn't. Case in point was the DRBD packages recently were broken on Ubuntu because they dropped in an unstable development version. Oops. Ubuntu is great for the desktop, and Debian is great for the server farm.

Re:Using Lenny now (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25755657)

debian is great for everything.

ubuntu is great for laptops that want an easier way to get 2.6.27 running their wireless until testing gets un-frozen.

that's the only reason i'd recommend ubuntu for longer than a week

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25755375)

But does it run Ubuntu?

SNI support in Apache? (2, Interesting)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 5 years ago | (#25756321)

Do the versions of Apache and OpenSSL support SNI so we can have virtual hosts with SSL?

Re:SNI support in Apache? (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25758209)

The answer to that question seems to be yes.

Why do you care so much ? From the Apache manual: "At this time no web browsers support RFC 2817."

For example Mozilla/FireFox has it on there brainstorm page:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Feature_Brainstorming:Security [mozilla.org]

But there are problems:

The problem is that the security depends entirely on the server deciding
not to serve the content over plain unencrypted HTTP . The client has no
control. If the server is misconfigured, or there is an MITM, the client
will go through with an unencrypted HTTP connection.

I guess the same holds true for StartTLS in SMTP.

Re:SNI support in Apache? (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 5 years ago | (#25764681)

Why do you care so much ? From the Apache manual: "At this time no web browsers support RFC 2817."

That is the RFC for StartTLS which is something different. I'm talking about SNI [wikipedia.org] which is already supported in Firefox 2, Opera 8, and IE 7. It is also in Apache 2.2.8 [apache.org] and OpenSSL 0.9.8f [openssl.org] .

Re:SNI support in Apache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25760515)

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=461917#47

testing (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25759367)

i tried the testing net install a month or so back. i'd been running on the same debian install for a couple years and wanted to start fresh. anyway, it was the first time in about 8-9 years that debian had left me with a unusable system.

i ended up going with ubuntu.
not perfect, but real close.

i hope they got what ever the problem was fixed.

Re:testing (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25760813)

The net installer keeps breaking when they play with the repo signing keys. Don't use a net installer for testing. Try this RC instead.

Re:testing (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767619)

cool thanks

always nice to know the why

But what about (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25762427)

Carl?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?