Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 6.0 "Squeeze" Frozen

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the declaring-it-squozen dept.

Debian 202

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

cancel ×

202 comments

Not sure (1)

junkwerks (586862) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169606)

I like frozen squeeze.

That depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169822)

It kind of depends on which part of the male anatomy we're talking about

sweet! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169622)

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

Re:sweet! (5, Insightful)

keatonguy (1001680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169724)

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

Re:sweet! (3, Interesting)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170064)

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

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

My original post included specific project examples, but since the most political organisations also have the most time to loudly whine at their detractors, I thought I'd remove them. I can think of at least one major open source Unix distribution the central developers of which seem to deliberately so poorly document their work that getting up to sufficient speed on what they do to make a positive contribution requires mentorship.

FWIW, Debian as a whole doesn't suffer so much from this problem. I guess because it doesn't attract the glamour-seekers, nor does it consider itself elite. If politics is a hindrance there, it's more about idealism than personal power struggles.

Re:sweet! (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170150)

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

Re:sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170168)

True. Where you have people, you have people problems.

Re:sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170214)

Because sometimes we like to pretend that people aren't complete fucking idiots.

Re:sweet! (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170284)

Pretty much this. And just because everything is somewhat political, it doesn't mean every venture is as bad as every other.

Like women and unlike wine, all man's endeavours grow more wrought with bitterness over time.

Re:sweet! (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170700)

Pretty much this. And just because everything is somewhat political, it doesn't mean every venture is as bad as every other

True that. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson knew what politics was when he made it the basis of our political system...on purpose...as though it was going to solve problems we used to and no longer have.

Like women and unlike wine, all man's endeavours grow more wrought with bitterness over time.

Depends on your time scale and your skill in choosing either one.

Re:sweet! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170678)

What you mean "we", partisan?

(I love it when my point proves itself...)

Re:sweet! (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170974)

Having a friendly attitude != sucking up, necessarily.

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

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

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

Re:sweet! (5, Interesting)

ShecoDu (447850) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170078)

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

Re:sweet! (2, Informative)

http (589131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33171062)

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

In the real world (specifically, the irc support channels), there's a chronic problem: a fresh Ubuntu user realizes that they're not getting help in #ubuntu, so they come to #debian, because, well, Ubuntu is based on Debian, so you #debian people know how to fix my problem, right? right? Much time is lost trying to help them when their problem is particular to Ubuntu before they accidentally let "Lynx" or "Meerkat" slip out. It's so chronic that there are bot factoids to explain why we can't help them if they are not actually running Debian.

Of course, not all Ubuntu users experience this, but they probably stay with Ubuntu.

Re:sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170386)

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

Just remember that the next time you're still in your cubie at 22:00 on a Saturday. The OP hit that nail. Hard.

Re:sweet! (5, Insightful)

tpwch (748980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169830)

Thats not exactly true. A lot of stuff Ubuntu does/fixes gets sent back to Debian. Its a mutual relationship that they both benefit from. The same is true for many other debian-based distributions. And hey, its open source, the people who makes Debian want others to reap their benefits.

Re:sweet! (4, Informative)

mat128 (735121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170650)

Mod this guy as informative! Having worked with Ubuntu developers on some bugs, I can say that non-Ubuntu specific fixes are sent upstream where they get commited.

Re:sweet! (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170814)

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

Fixed that for you.

coincidence? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169626)

I just squeezed one out.

A frozen squeeze (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169640)

is called a slushy, smoothy, orange julius, or a lemon shakeup.

Re:A frozen squeeze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170006)

It's also called "insurance against infertility". Still thirsty?

Took long enough _ (0, Flamebait)

dosius (230542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169642)

Weren't they supposed to freeze 6 months ago?

-uso.

Re:Took long enough _ (5, Informative)

tpwch (748980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169708)

Debians policy is always that fixing problems takes priority over release schedules. They don't release a half-finished product. They'll wait years if its required to get things the way they want it.

Re:Took long enough _ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169894)

That would explain being behind schedule on going to stable. It doesn't explain being behind schedule for not adding new features. New features don't fix problems, they introduce problems.

Re:Took long enough _ (1)

pathological liar (659969) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170098)

... and they do. Except the point of the freeze is to focus on fixing problems so they can push out a solid, stable release.

What's the point of slipping a freeze date? (There's mailing list traffic from a while ago now saying that they were pushing back the freeze, so yeah, they slipped -- even if it's just from an internal date.)

Re:Took long enough _ (5, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170208)

Well the first announced freeze date for squeeze was part of an unpopular plan to sync up with ubuntu by having a very short release cycle. That was abandoned pretty quickly (unfortunately after that)

Asside from that there afaict are a couple of reasons to delay the freeze.

A big reason is what are referred to as transitions. A transition is a group of package updates (usually a new major version of a library and the various updates and rebuilds associated with it) that need to move from unstable to testing at the same time to leave testing in a consistent state (unstable is allowed to be in an inconsistant state, testing isn't). The release planners will have a set of transitions that they really want to get in for a given release, transitions can easilly get held up by build failures and other rc bugs and they don't want to do too many at the same time because then they become intertangled leaving the release team with one big transition which is even harder to make migrate.

Also they want to pick a good time to freeze. Freezing the application level stuff while there are still big issues to fix in core package won't affect the release date much while it will mean releasing with older versions of the application level stuff (which is the stuff that is most visible to users and often the stuff that needs the most security updates).

Re:Took long enough _ (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170418)

(unfortunately after that)
That should have said unfortunately after it had been announced publically.

Re:Took long enough _ (2, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170230)

> What's the point of slipping a freeze date?

To get the rc bug count down to a manageable level and to complete complex package transitions such as major library upgrades.

Re:Took long enough _ (1)

human-cyborg (450395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170248)

And thus Sarge was born.

hda support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170866)

Does the freeze include hda support again? Less then a few months ago a kernel update in squeeze changed ide addressing from hda to sda. Bricking my debian boot sequence. I heard a newer kernel would support hda addressing again. Which linux kernel is this?

I know that powerpc is suffering from a lack of maintainers but why break it so hard in the last minute? Doesn't dropping hda addressing also break all the symlinks on all architectures? Why repeat the mistakes ubuntu made years ago, even though hda support is available again? Or did I do a update and upgrade squeeze on the wrong day and does squeeze already address ide hd drives as hda again?

Re:hda support? (3, Informative)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33171014)

Less then a few months ago a kernel update in squeeze changed ide addressing from hda to sda. Bricking my debian boot sequence.

The recommended route is using uuid now, for example in /etc/fstab:

UUID=3e036498-60fb-44a9-a3d1-205a3ffaeb7d swap swap defaults 0 0

or something like this in grub:

linux /vmlinuz-2.6.32-3-686 root=UUID=903040df-e1af-4c1e-86e3-c954a30ce948 ro

You can also change the udev rules (/etc/udev/rules.d/) to rewrite particular drives as whatever you want, but who knows how long udev rewriting will be around?

FWIW, my laptop is using sdXY naming for partitions, but I think it's always been like that based on the comments in my fstab.

Re:Took long enough _ (2, Insightful)

al3k (1638719) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169716)

Debian operates under the "It's done when it's done" philosphy. I usually just disregard deadlines when they mention them

Re:Took long enough _ (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169754)

Supposed by who?

Re:Took long enough _ (2, Informative)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169816)

http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090729 [debian.org]

The Debian project has decided to adopt a new policy of time-based development freezes for future releases, on a two-year cycle. Freezes will from now on happen in the December of every odd year, which means that releases will from now on happen sometime in the first half of every even year. To that effect the next freeze will happen in December 2009, with a release expected in spring 2010.

Re:Took long enough _ (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169930)

With the "it's done when it's done" philosophy I don't even know why they bother with a release schedule. They'll never hit it. Though I guess you need to set some sort of goal, even if you know you're going to miss it just so you have something to aim for otherwise a release may never happen and you'd end up with something akin to Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:Took long enough _ (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170540)

Yeah, that was never really an official policy. It shouldn't have gone out in the newsletter, or at least not worded as something definite. It was an idea one group had, and they thought they had enough support to do it, but they didn't.

Squeeze frozen? (0, Redundant)

Merrlon (1121817) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169648)

But it's really hard to squeeze stuff that's frozen...

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (5, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169652)

Note the bit about "Linux architectures." Squeeze will include GNU/kFreeBSD [debian.org] : Debian running on top of a FreeBSD kernel.

Re:Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169780)

It's funny that Debian was always my favorate Linux distribution upon returning from the FreeBSD world, and now I find the best of both worlds... combined.

Anyway I would probably prefer the reverse: uFreeBSD/Linux + ports. But porting the ports collection would be a major hindrance.

Re:Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (3, Informative)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170482)

Anyway I would probably prefer the reverse: uFreeBSD/Linux + ports. But porting the ports collection would be a major hindrance.

So what you're looking for is something like Gentoo. It doesn't have the BSD userland, but it does have Portage which is comparable to ports but with even better package management tools (in my opinion).

Dear God Why??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169798)

Who the hell would want to have their userland be infected with viral GPL code instead of the free and much better quality BSD userland.

This has to be some sort of sick joke.

Re:Dear God Why??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169978)

Is this some type of reverse-GPL trolling? I keep seeing it appear on Slashdot. It seems like someone is angry at the BSD crowd, so they make up a bunch of insulting pro-BSD posts to make BSD developers everywhere seem stupid. Go away, please.

Not just Linux... (2, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169666)

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

ZFS, Jails, OpenBSD packet filtering. Oh My!

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

Re:Not just Linux... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170474)

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

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

In 12 years of using various *iux's, I've used 4 Linux distros(Red Hat, CentOS, SuSE, Debain), but only one FreeBSD OS (different versions since 2.2.7).

Re:Not just Linux... (3, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170572)

>don't call it FreeBSD.

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

I hear fags like to squeeze... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169746)

They like to squeeze their dicks in your ass.

Debian? (2, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169750)

That's, like, Ubuntu for poor people, right?

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

Re:Debian? (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169804)

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

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

Re:Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33169868)

I haven't used either in years, but when I did use Debian experimental, there were still many missing/unupdated packages in Debian that Ubuntu already had. But this is to be expected - most of the packages were stuff only a KDE/Gnome user would care about - and it usually wasn't that far behind.

Re:Debian? (3, Informative)

tpwch (748980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169928)

Most of the time when ubuntu needs to update a package they first check if debian has an updated version, and most of the time it has. And if you compare the package count of the distros debians is higher. It happens, but is pretty rare, that ubuntu adds some package that debian doesn't have for some reason. You've probably come across a few of those. You shouldn't be running experimental. Things that gets put in experimental are things that are known to be very likely to break stuff. Its mean for debian developers and people who want to help test things and report bugs only. And even they don't install all of experimental, just the packages they want to test. Chances are you didn't run experimental unless you know a lot about how the package system works, as you have to specifically specify that you want stuff from experimental when you install or update a package, just adding it to the repos doesn't do it. Its pretty unlikely that you got a system working with no problems if you really did install all of experimental.

Re:Debian? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170108)

Its pretty unlikely that you got a system working with no problems if you really did install all of experimental.

Yes, the system was installed as unstable, and everything desktop related was experimental. This used to be the only effective way to get a working KDE4.0 install running on Debian. Ubuntu had much better desktop support all around, and openSUSE was leagues ahead of Debian for KDE. But that was a long time ago.

Re:Debian? (3, Interesting)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170256)

Most of the time when ubuntu needs to update a package they first check if debian has an updated version, and most of the time it has.
That's probablly true for the more minor stuff but the big name stuff like glibc, gnome, kde etc is often newer in ubuntu's development version than in debian unstable and sometimes newer than even experimental.

as you have to specifically specify that you want stuff from experimental when you install or update a package
You can pin the whole of experimental at the same level as unstable and therefore cause apt to install stuff from it automatically (you can even pin it higher but thats a bad idea because often older versions get left in experimental after unstable is updated). I've done it in a chroot but never tried it on an independent system.

Re:Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170516)

I once slashed my wrists while trying to learn dpkg on Potato.

Re:Debian? (3, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170554)

The man pages are a much more effective resource.

Re:Debian? (1)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170614)

I haven't used either in years, but when I did use Debian experimental,

Ummmm.... You used a Debian release designed for Debian devs to use for integrating packages into Sid, and then complain that it was incomplete?

Just for your information, Ubuntu takes a snapshot of Sid(unstable) and works on it for 6 months before it's released. During that 6 months Debian is adding new packages and new package versions to Sid on a regular basis. Packages move from Sid to testing after 10 days unless there are severe problems found during that 10 day period. This means both Sid and testing have never versions of software packages than an Ubuntu release will have when it's released.

Most Debian users will run either testing or Sid on their desktops and thus will have newer software versions than an Ubuntu user will have. And, they will continue to have newer/updated versions of software installed during every update. Debian stable (what Squeeze will be when it is officially released) is used mostly for server installs because of its package stability.

Re:Debian? (4, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170100)

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

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

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

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

Re:Debian? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33171074)

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

I switched to gentoo since it had a lot of momentum (critical in staying both up-to-date and stable - lots of eyeballs and fingers at keyboards) and thinking local compilation would provide more flexibility to mix & match versions of everything, so I could update packages more selectively. But not really; basically you can install whatever you want but that doesn't mean it will work. In the end even firefox wouldn't run (though it built just fine!)

I just updated another system from Ubuntu 8.04 to 10.04 (which requires a brief stop at 9.04) and happily the system survived. Most of my customized config files don't work on my new software versions. That's life, but I sure get sick of reconfiguring exim.

Re:Debian? (4, Informative)

tpwch (748980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169862)

Compared to a few years ago, yes, debian is a lot more up to date. I'd recommend running testing, or unstable if you know what you're doing. Stable doesn't get updated after release except for critical fixes like security updates (which is the way its supposed to be, so you can throw it on a server and not have to worry about a future update breaking things), but debians testing and unstable quality is higher than the stable of most distros.

Re:Debian? (1)

orange47 (1519059) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169914)

well there is a reason its called Stable. i have had a lot of problems with Testing so don't use it at work or similar.
my problem with latest update on Testing is amarok not working (in gnome). bah

Re:Debian? (1)

tpwch (748980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33169948)

Well, report the bug then. =)

I've run unstable for years without any major problems. But then I know how to fix problems I encounter, and I don't run gnome or kde =P

Re:Debian? (-1, Offtopic)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170118)

Over the years running Debian testing, I've had X break, I've had email break, I've had DNS taking 5 seconds on every call, and I've had Java networking break. I've never had this kind of experience running Windows XP over the same period of time.

Re:Debian? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170528)

XP leaves it up to you and the third party updaters to keep your software current.

Re:Debian? (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170818)

The equivalent of X, networking, and email are built-in to Windows and security updates are provided automatically. Drivers are provided by 3rd parties, but Windows offers me options to get updates for those too.

Re:Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170662)

I've never had this kind of experience running Windows XP over the same period of time

How many testing versions of Windows XP did you install over the same period of time?

Re:Debian? (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170836)

None, but back when I ran Debian stable it was way too out of date to be useful. With Windows, most software comes with packaged installers and works with the stable version. With Debian, the choice was to either run old software, build it myself, or run testing.

Re:Debian? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170910)

With windows apps are still supporting XP and often even 2K and 9x. Hardware vendors are also still providing drivers for XP as long as you buy machines from thier buisness ranges. This along with microsoft's security update policies means that you can run the same version of windows for a long time (several PCs worth of time) while updating application software as desired.

With linux on the other hand if you want to upgrade your application software you pretty much have to either.

1: upgrade to the latest stable release (which may well not get on with your hardware in which case you are SOL) and hope someone has made a baackport (sometimes they will more often they won't). Even if you don't want new software you have to upgrade every couple of years (at least on the non-enterprise distros) to keep getting security updates.
2: run a testing release (what most debian desktop users resort to doing), more chance of breakage but also more chance of getting it fixed before it gets frozen in stable for the next couple of years.
3: try and build the software from source which is sometimes easy but frequently frought with problems.

Re:Debian? (1)

mat128 (735121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170762)

Try running Microsoft's equivalent to it -- oh no wait, you can't.

As a side note, you probably learned with your experience of things breaking, with windows you probably learned how to fix some problems using GUIs, third party apps and limited logging capability.

Re:Debian? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170768)

Over the years running Debian testing, I've had X break, I've had email break, I've had DNS taking 5 seconds on every call, and I've had Java networking break. I've never had this kind of experience running Windows XP over the same period of time.

Over the years running Windows, I've had virii, I've had malware, I've had BSODs, I've had DRM issues, and I've had thousand more problems I won't enumerate here. I've never had this kind of experience running Linux over the same period of time.

Re:Debian? (2, Interesting)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170026)

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

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

Re:Debian? (5, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170174)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Debian? (5, Informative)

radish (98371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170774)

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

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

Re:Debian? (1)

mat128 (735121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170794)

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

Not anymore, you can directly upgrade from LTS to LTS [ubuntu.com] .

Re:Debian? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170506)

Well, in unstable, Firefox^WIceweasel is on 3.5.11. 3.6.x is in experimental. The 4.0 betas aren't on the radar yet.

Re:Debian? (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170812)

You picked one package to whine about out of over 20,000? Any way, FF is seriously screwed up right now on linux. Stop whining and go get the binary from the mozila home page.

Re:Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170758)

Slackware.

Re:Debian? (2, Interesting)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170760)

You have it the other way around. Debian is ahead of ubuntu. You are probably referring to debian-stable, which is mainly for servers. I have been using debian-testing for about 4 years now. I have never had to do any kind of update cycle/reinstall. It is always up to date. http://christi.ath.cx/ubuntu_vs_debian.html [christi.ath.cx]

To the "unstable" user (badumtish), the freeze (2, Insightful)

GeekDork (194851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170022)

means 6 months of retro computing.

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

Re:To the "unstable" user (badumtish), the freeze (2, Insightful)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170128)

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

Re:To the "unstable" user (badumtish), the freeze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170320)

I think many people just want a distribution they can build from the ground up, without all the crap that ones like Ubuntu add, and Debian seems to fill that niche (more or less).

Re:To the "unstable" user (badumtish), the freeze (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170362)

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

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

Re:To the "unstable" user (badumtish), the freeze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170438)

You may prefer arch linux instead?

Re:To the "unstable" user (badumtish), the freeze (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170932)

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

Re:To the "unstable" user (badumtish), the freeze (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33171016)

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

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

Released with no RC bugs? (0, Troll)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170042)

all work will now be concentrated on polishing Debian 'Squeeze' to achieve the quality Debian stable releases are known for.

Like being released with a positive number of "release-critical" bugs, and that count going up over time [debian.org] . My guess based on past Debian release history is that we'll be looking at around 100 RC bugs at release time (it's around 500 at the moment).

Frozen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170048)

Great!
Mister Witwicky, could you please make sure this one stays frozen?

2.6.32... Squeeze same kernel as 10.04 LTS.... (1)

anon mouse-cow-aard (443646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170152)

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

Fuck Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170186)

It's dead. Put a fork in it.

Debian = Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170212)

With all your distros named after Toy Story, which is made by Steve Job's company Pixar, it looks like Debian sure got told.

Also apt-get install fuck-you-in-the-ass.

Re:Debian = Apple (1)

mat128 (735121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170878)

apt-get remove users-like-you

Sounds like good news to me! (4, Interesting)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170222)

In mid June I set up my latest server based on Squeeze with the expectation that it would go stable this summer. For a while I thought perhaps I had jumped the gun and would be stuck with a relatively unstable system for a longer period, but I guess not.

In particular, I'm happy with Squeeze because I could use it to get my Kerberos-OpenLDAP-OpenAFS system working on both the file server and workstations. Not that I've ever use any FOSS other than Debian for my server, but after my attempts failed to get the latest Ubuntu client to run the necessary client software for this (unfortunately) uncommon, but very capable distributed file system, I suspected the same Debian version for the workstation represented my best chance of success. And sure enough: it worked straight away! Ubuntu may have certain benefits, but it seems that if you want a desktop system that is a little out of the ordinary, Debian is still your best bet.

A fine boid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170850)

I'm glad ya happy with the squeeze.

Version numbering... (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170542)

Perhaps this is a duplicate post, but does anyone else find the version scheme for Debian (and Ubuntu) a little confusing? I use Debian on my laptop and encounter Ubuntu in my line of work; figuring out which version precedes/supersedes which is somewhat of a pain. Is there any a priori reason why Sarge is older or newer than Squeeze? What about a Koala vs. a Lynx?

Although the upgrade process itself was more difficult for, say, Slackware, figuring out when to upgrade was pretty easy -- "I'm running 10.0, and 10.1 just got released. I guess I can upgrade."

Re:Version numbering... (1)

Maulkin (605067) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170646)

Well, these are just codenames, Squeeze will be 6.0

Re:Version numbering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170654)

Code names are stupid.

Re:Version numbering... (3, Informative)

radish (98371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170806)

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

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

Re:Version numbering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33170832)

ABCDE Feisty Gusty Hardy Intrepid Jaunty Karmic Lucid

Random adjective + animal.

Re:Version numbering... (1)

omglolbah (731566) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170894)

Which is a hell of a lot easier to remember than version numbers! :D

Re:Version numbering... (2, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33170954)

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

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

My future is Debian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33171094)

I've been using Ubuntu since 2005. It was a good system, but it has gone down hill tremendously in the past two years. From tuns of audio issues (thanks to having PulseAudio forced upon me), to unnecessary bloat (like the new notify-osd service and so many others), it isn't right for me anymore.

Debian Gnome uses about 128 Megs of ram. When you have old shit hardware that only accepts DDR1, this is a godsend. Just provide a stable, fairly minimalist system that I can install only what I want on. If I wanted someone else making choices that I strongly disagree with regarding the system, I would just use Windows.

Every time I hear some fanboy say "Only professionals need low-latency sound", I want to rip my own hair out and run down the block screaming like a madman. :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...