×

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 7.0 ("Wheezy") Released

timothy posted about a year ago | from the seven-does-sound-fairly-prime dept.

Debian 191

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

191 comments

Meu Blog (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43633889)

http://memepai.blogspot.com.br/

Well done guys! (3, Insightful)

OneMadMuppet (1329291) | about a year ago | (#43633893)

It took a while, but all the effort was worth it.

Re:Well done guys! (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634077)

+1. Squeeze was good, but Wheezy looks like it's going to be a good release as well.

Sorry for the GNOME 2 loss though.

Re:Well done guys! (5, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43634303)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Well done guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634943)

I wouldn't point this out if it wasn't for your signature..you sound like a windows user when you call swapspace 'virtual memory'.

Upgrade Ubuntu ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43633905)

When will Ubuntu use this debian ?

Re:Upgrade Ubuntu ? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43634007)

Ubuntu pulls packages from Debian unstable on a rolling basis, and then has their own release cycle. So the releases of stable Debian versions aren't that relevant to Ubuntu releases.

Re:Upgrade Ubuntu ? (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43634311)

More relevant would be, "When will LInux Mint Debian upgrade to this Debian release?"

Think I'll go browse the Mint Debian forum to see . . .

Re:Upgrade Ubuntu ? (1)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year ago | (#43634325)

Since LMDE tracks testing, the answer would be it already did, and has moved on since then.

Re:Upgrade Ubuntu ? (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43634441)

Well, it's just now moving on: Debian's testing has been frozen since June 2012 [debian.org] for the wheezy release cycle. Now with the release having happened, it's unfrozen so new packages can start migrating from unstable again.

Outdated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43633913)

Heh, kernel 3.2... this OS comes outdated out of the box.

Re:Outdated (5, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43634001)

Heh, kernel 3.2... this OS comes outdated out of the box.

It's not outdated. It is well tested.

Re:Outdated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634119)

You just keep telling yourself that. Maybe if you say it enough times you'll start believing it, like the fucks at Debian.

Ubuntu exists because Debian failed to provide people with what they wanted in a desktop OS. They're still failing to please anyone other than long-time Debian users, and even they are questioning the GNOME 3 switch. Rather fun watching all the in-fighting really, because it's just another sign of how little they actually accomplish.

Re:Outdated (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634159)

Ubuntu exists because Shuttleworth wanted to make money by selling your browsing history to Amazon and the CIA.

Re:Outdated (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634241)

As a Debian user, I didn't notice the GNOME 3 switch because not everybody uses Linux as a desktop. It's fairly popular as a headless server.

Re:Outdated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634259)

I run it on a desktop and I didn't notice either, but that's because I'm using fvwm2.

Well, almost at least. A lot of applications that has been upgraded to GTK+ 3 looks really bad now when not used under GNOME. Looks like they have not thought much about other WMs/DEs. :-(

Re:Outdated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634641)

You know it's not 1995 anymore. Gnome is pretty much the standard of Linux desktops. Use it. It won't bite.

Re:Outdated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43635249)

Gnome sucks just like Debian.

Gnome 1 sucked

Gnome 2 sucked

Gnome 3 sucked

Gnome hasn't been a standard of Linux desktops for over 10 years now.

Being a debian user, you wouldn't know that things change in 10 years.

Re:Outdated (1)

jakykong (1474957) | about a year ago | (#43635261)

I have found that Gnome3 has some significant irritants that Gnome2 did not have. I found it cumbersome to actually get work done with, not completely unlike the way Unity is difficult to work with. The changes that were made (such as removing the taskbar, for example.) are arbitrary as far as I can tell. We've had literally decades to figure out good fundamentals, and while I'm not opposed to experimenting with user interfaces, doing it to the most widely used interface seems obnoxious. Especially among geeks, who develop habits and scripts around the tools they regularly use, such changes either need to be rolled out slowly or presented as an option.

I'm not trying to say that Gnome3 is useless. It is pretty much standard now, but saying that "it won't bite" ignores some significant problems. There are other options, whose only limitations are that Gnome and KDE applications seem to like their respective desktop environments to be running, and they're worth paying attention to. After all, this is Linux, these are geeks -- being "the standard" has never been a good reason to use something before, why start now?

Re:Outdated (3, Interesting)

jakykong (1474957) | about a year ago | (#43635217)

I've found that pulling tools together from desktop environments other than KDE and Gnome and just using a few of the indispensable apps from them is the best way to go. For example, I use Thunar instead of Nautilus or Dolphin. The simpler desktop environments tend to have more portable components, not as tied to their parent.

Then again, except for a web browser, e-mail, and feed reader, the majority of my time is spent on a terminal anyway, so I may be the outlier here.

Re:Outdated (2)

uM0p ap!sdn (2446386) | about a year ago | (#43634307)

Friends don't let friends install ubuntu !!

ubuntu is just a frozen snapshot of debian sid, ubuntizied so it's not compatible (binary) with debian anymore.

Ubuntu exists for profit and lazy people who don't want to set up "what they want in a desktop OS"

Pretty funny post IMHO

OUCH !

Re:Outdated (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43634321)

You seem to have a somewhat valid view of things.

I see things a bit differently though. Debian provides a solid backbone upon which to customize an installation. Debian doesn't necessarily have the time and resources to create their own desktop environments.

Want the best of two worlds? Install Debian, then install the stuff you actually want. Mate desktop might be a good start. That's what I'm using, thanks to Linux Mint Debian.

Re:Outdated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634417)

I think you absolutely have a valid view of things. Indeed, I see things a bit differently myself, however. When a kernel update is pushed out, it's not just for bug fixes. They add support for new hardware. Half of the reason I stopped using Debian initially was that they simply refused to provide up-to-date NVidia drivers in any fashion, drivers that my card needs to work. Drivers that future NVidia cards I buy will -also- need to work. If Debian stable fixates on a version of the kernel that doesn't support my hardware, if they aren't willing to at least go the rpmfusion route and have another group do the grunt work... No switch of WM or DE is going to fix that.

Look at the numbers of people running Debian vs. Ubuntu on a desktop, I'm guessing you're going to see a significant lean toward Ubuntu in those statistics. Ubuntu does what people want it to do, right now. Debian -might- do what I want it to do, sometime in the future, but in the meantime there are perfectly good alternatives that work. I don't see any reason why I would switch to Debian when they're quite clear about the fact they don't cater to desktop users.

Re:Outdated (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43634371)

Heh, kernel 3.2... this OS comes outdated out of the box.

It's not outdated. It is well tested.

Isn't 2.6 even more well tested?

Re:Outdated (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43634413)

Sure, but the idea is not to necessarily ship the most tested software. The idea is that the software that is shipped is well tested before moved a major new version.

Re:Outdated (2)

Alioth (221270) | about a year ago | (#43634897)

There is a sweet spot (with that argument, we could say why not use 2.4). The thing is Debian is fantastic for certain things, such as servers or development workstaitons - things where you want to have something very dependable that's going to be solid. And Debian is solid, and their conservative approach means we run it on all our Linux servers.

Re:Outdated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634639)

So you know already that your filesystem won't work shit if you happen to choose btrfs...

Re:Outdated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634107)

your comment demonstrates your ignorance

Re:Outdated (2)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year ago | (#43634339)

Nothing wrong with kernel 3.2. If I had any serious gripe about this release it's the fact that it comes with XFCE 4.8. Since 4.10 released over a year ago, there's really no excuse for shipping a stable distro with the older version. Thankfully there are third party repos for thse of us who want to run stable, but with a reasonable version of XFCE.

Re:Outdated (4, Insightful)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | about a year ago | (#43634965)

Right now, I am running wheezy with kernel 3.8.5. Noone keeps you from building your own kernel. It's just that the stable version (and the installer) come with 3.2.

Re:Outdated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43635275)

Right now, I am running wheezy with kernel 3.8.5.

That's actually even older, given that 3.8.11 is current. The Wheezy kernel has been updated since 3.8.5 was released so you're technically behind.

anyone else who.. (-1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43633921)

anyone else who can't get the image of a blind man trying to install debian out of their heads?
73+23 languages? are the debian guys privvy to some information about a huge poisoning coming up causing blindness? are they worried that porn causes loss of vision?

Who gives a fuck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43633969)

No normal people use Linux on the desktop/laptop. It's success is now on the tablet and the backend/embeded systems, not typical machines.

Give it up Debian. You've failed, your lives are worthless. Kill yourselves fool and let Windows rule like it has for nearly 20 years.

Re:Who gives a fuck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634123)

No normal people use Windows on the desktop/laptop. It's success is now on the tablet systems, not typical machines.

Give it up Windows. You've failed, your lives are worthless. Kill yourselves fool and let Linux rule like it has for nearly 20 years.

Re:Who gives a fuck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634131)

No normal people fly in Nulli Secunda. Their success is now in the drone regions, not typical regions.

Give it up Nulli, You've failed, your lives are worthless. Kill yourselves and let Goons rule like it has for nearly 20 years.

Re:Who gives a fuck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634145)

No normal people vote Democrat. It's success is now in the ghettos and hoods, not typical neighborhoods. Give it up Dems. You've failed. Your lives are worthless. Kill yourselves and let Republicans rule like they have for nearly 20 years.

Re:Who gives a fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634421)

This joke is getting old and wheezy.

Re:Who gives a fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43635045)

No normal people read slashdot on the interweb. It's success is now on the tablet and the backend/embeded systems, not typical machines. Give it up reddit. You've failed, your lives are worthless. Kill yourselves fool and let Hitler rule like it has for nearly 9001 years.

Universal OS... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634003)

...indeed!

Why Debian? (3, Interesting)

John Andreasson (2915119) | about a year ago | (#43634055)

As someone that is new to Linux I've always found Debian to be somewhat weird. I guess a lot of Debian users uses it since they are used to it. But as a new Linux user, why would I use Debian when the software is so old and outdated? We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10. OK that Firefox revs every six weeks, but you get the point. If it's old from day one then how old won't it be when Debian 8 is released.

Re:Why Debian? (5, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year ago | (#43634095)

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

Re:Why Debian? (4, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43634155)

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634227)

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

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43634425)

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

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

No, Debian is a free software OS via its manifesto (5, Interesting)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43634279)

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

Re:Why Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634923)

When a try any of the distros based on debian I find the need to reverse many of the choices they make and the dependencies they force. Its just so much easier, if you know what you want, to use debian. If you don't know/care then consume whichever downstream distro you want but to describe what debian does as backroom workshop is to miss the point completely and to over value what downstream add. (Hint - not all that much)

Re:Why Debian? (5, Interesting)

mpol (719243) | about a year ago | (#43634221)

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43634291)

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

And that is really the strange thing to me, that Debian does so much work but don't want to put it in a product. Debian unstable is a rolling release, meaning at any time you can be hit with a major change. Not fun if you want to run any kind of stable environment. Debian testing is extremely variable over the course of a release cycle, being almost similar to unstable early and stable late in the cycle. It's good for people working on the next stable but doesn't balance freshness and stability for anyone else. And stable is of course for the ultra-conservative server that really needs 99.999%+ uptime. They don't have - and apparently don't want to have - anything that competes in the space of Ubuntu (non-LTS), Linux Mint, Fedora etc. with rapid-cycle releases. It's like Debian should mean Debian stable and absolutely nothing else.

I think there would have been a good market for a Debian Desktop distribution, essentially that's what Ubuntu marketed itself. I'm not really surprised that it must happen outside Debian though, because there's been a lot of outright hostility from Debian developers that don't want to divide limited resources between what they consider "real" Debian and "play" Debian. Instead of getting the act together on devices with a GUI now Gnome, KDE, Unity etc. have been overrun by Android on smart phones and tablets and I suspect hybrids and laptops will be next.

Re:Why Debian? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43635181)

It's the same reason that the FreeBSD core development team doesn't institute a lot of the PC-BSD additions into FreeBSD itself -- a total issue of mindset. The FreeBSD folks, for example, don't think it particularly important that you can run it as a desktop OS at -all-, they'll actively discourage people from it if you visit that travesty of an IRC channel. Likewise Debian is too stubborn to change -- partly because it would take a lot of work, partly because the people who would be doing the work don't UNDERSTAND why it needs to be done. They don't care if Debian gets mainstream acceptance, they just care about it doing the things that a handful of developers and elitists want.

Re:Why Debian? (5, Interesting)

KugelKurt (908765) | about a year ago | (#43634361)

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

That generalized claim is wrong. Three prominent examples:

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

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

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (2)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about a year ago | (#43634549)

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

For the record, KDE has been stuck in 4.8.4 for about six months, since the freeze started, but since 4.8.4-2, all bugs that initially affected my machine seem to have been ironed out. Whether that's because they have implemented upstream bugfixes or because they were actually Debian bugs to begin with I can't really say, but if you campare it to, say, Fedora 17's or even Kubuntu 12.04's KDE 4.8, you'll realize how marvelously quirkless Debian's KDE is and why it pays to have stabler distributions.

Re:Why Debian? (3, Interesting)

KugelKurt (908765) | about a year ago | (#43635103)

Well, debian does backport all relevant security bugfixes.

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

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

That's not what masternerdguy wrote.

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#43634161)

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

Re:Why Debian? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43634229)

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

Re:Why Debian? (5, Insightful)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | about a year ago | (#43634163)

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634449)

Don't forget the Debian project goes back really far, 1993 or so if I'm not mistaken.

You're not mistaken. Half of the packages in Debian 7.0 are from 1993. :)

Re:Why Debian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634215)

Iceweasel(firefox) 20 is in experimental, I'm running it.

Re:Why Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634261)

Stability is more important for Debian users than cutting edge unstable stuff. Debian is a bit like Ubuntu LTS. Not the latest stuff, but what is in it is stable as a rock. Debian stable is typically used in mission critical environments, where reliability is top priority.

For people that went to take more risk there is unstable. That has newer packages, but less stability (although it still more stable than a lot of "normal" Linux versions).

If you really want cutting edge, you van use experimental, but be prepared there is a risk sometimes things get screwed up badly..

Re:Why Debian? (2)

jgrahn (181062) | about a year ago | (#43634393)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about a year ago | (#43634497)

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43634399)

No Linux distro is for everyone.

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

Constant updates aren't always a "good thing". Sometimes, updates break things. Sometimes, updates that don't actually break anything introduce new attack vectors. Sometimes, I just don't like the updates. Stability can often be more important than new, shiny whatever.

Besides - running a stable distro such as Wheezy doesn't confine me to using old software. Any time I like, I can browse the testing repos, decide that I want to upgrade Firefox to the latest and greatest, download any dependencies, and upgrade everything related to Firefox in one shot. Or, I can just set the testing repo as my default, let Synaptic to work out those dependencies and conflicts, and upgrade - then set my repo back to the same Wheezy repos that I have always used.

Maybe it's weird. I don't care, really. What's wrong with weird? All I care is, my desktop behaves in a manner that I find acceptable. Debian does that.

Re:Why Debian? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43634463)

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

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

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

Re:Why Debian? (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | about a year ago | (#43635033)

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

Re:Why Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43635243)

I've said it before so I'll post anonymously this time.

There is no substitute for a long testing cycle. None. This is why admins say, "Don't use Windows X until the second service pack". On an entertainment system, sure, you can deal with your graphics driver getting corrupted every now and then. If you need your systems up in order to do work, then you have a much more limited tolerance for bugs. Not "no tolerance", and it's always possible to get that one package you need from unstable or testing or compile it from the latest sources. If you want to be part of the extended beta test for Debian (Ubuntu), or RHEL (Fedora), or Windows (all of it), then be my guest. The day that it becomes possible to write bug-free software, I'll join you.

Ecellent, may we now hope for Steam support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634061)

Ecellent, may we now hope for Steam support?

That U****u advantage has been so annoying I almost switched.

There are so many I wish to play natively!

Re:Ecellent, may we now hope for Steam support? (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year ago | (#43634101)

You can use steam on basically any Linux distro.

Re:Ecellent, may we now hope for Steam support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634245)

Except there are tons of bugs and certain games won't work because of library incompatabilities that Valve won't fix because they only support Ubuntu. The Arch wiki has a very long list of problems related to Steam.

Upgrade from 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634063)

How well does that go, from people who have actually done it?

Re:Upgrade from 6 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634087)

Worked just fine with apt-get. Did it on an installation that started out with 2.2 and that has been upgraded from version to version.

Re:Upgrade from 6 (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#43634515)

Agreed, worked fine for me. Only downside was GNOME 3, but I switched to XFCE4 which does all that I need from a desktop.

Missing Apache 2.4 (3, Insightful)

whtmarker (1060730) | about a year ago | (#43634117)

Looks like debian is still using Apache 2.2.... no wonder nginx is gaining ground. Apache 2.4 has OCSP stapling [wikipedia.org] support which gives a huge boost to SSL performance.

Re:Missing Apache 2.4 (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43634263)

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

Re:Missing Apache 2.4 (2)

Sesostris III (730910) | about a year ago | (#43634341)

To be honest, if I wanted the latest Apache HTTP Server (on whatever distribution) I would download the latest source from the Apache website and build it locally. Same with any updated version. If I wanted to use the version that came with the distribution, then at least with Debian you know it is going to be stable.

Dated, old, irrelevant to many except the diehards (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634205)

Im sorry but the concept of since its old its very stable is non-sense, i havent seen an actual "unstable" kernel in years (2007 was the last time i seen a kernel panic for no apparant reason)

Debian could ship a system with kernel 3.8 and the newer stuff that most distros use and be just as stable instead all 3 of their branches (stable, testing and unstable) are equally old and all 3 have kernel 3.2.0, whats the point of unstable if its packages arnt all that much newer to begin with.

the fact that everyone who runs debian runs the testing version just makes my point, debian needs to have a revival, it could be a hot system that everyone uses if they would get their head out of the dark ages, they can keep a "server" version for those who want the old moldy stability they seek, but the desktop version of debian should be cutting edge, it has to be to keep up. Debian has been in this lousy state for years, theres no reason ubuntu/mint should even have to exist (not that they fix debian that much anyways, cross-compiling is a mess, even though it works fine on any non-debian distro)

but thats the way it is i guess, and thats why i am glad Manjaro Linux exists. Debian development has 2 speeds: slow and slower and if they develop any slower their gonna grow roots and demand daily waterings.

Re:Dated, old, irrelevant to many except the dieha (3, Informative)

jgrahn (181062) | about a year ago | (#43634443)

the fact that everyone who runs debian runs the testing version just makes my point

Except not everyone does. Most machines under my control run Debian stable, because I don't want any trouble from them. I just need them to do their job.

Re:Dated, old, irrelevant to many except the dieha (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#43634501)

Debian development has 2 speeds: slow and slower and if they develop any slower their gonna grow roots and demand daily waterings.

Good model -- Debian as an oak tree. Doesn't need 'watering', by the way, because it has such a well-developed root system!

Re:Dated, old, irrelevant to many except the dieha (2)

Imagix (695350) | about a year ago | (#43634881)

Im sorry but the concept of since its old its very stable is non-sense

Bad premise. This appears to imply that the goal is to run old stuff. The concept of "Since it has been tested well, it's very stable" is where Debian is. New kernel means everything needs retesting. Are you volunteering the time and equipment to run that kind of testing? And it's not just the kernel that needs retesting, it's all of the rest of the packages. (I haven't checked to see if they want to ensure that the kernel is the same rev on all platforms as well...)

Debian could ship a system with kernel 3.8 and the newer stuff that most distros use and be just as stable

Maybe. But without the testing to back it up, that's too much of a risk. Now that Debian 7 has been released, I kinda expect the latest kernel to be making its way into experimental and then unstable soon. You can run a mixed branch installation should you so choose. Use stable for most everything, and bring Iceweasel in from testing (or even unstable).

Re:Dated, old, irrelevant to many except the dieha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634959)

Good luck with running testing. In my experience what you run and how often you upgrade varies in the cycle. Starting with a fresh stable is always a good starting point. Testing has a point where its preferable but for a while in the cycle its more likely to break than unstable with selected package upgrades.

Depending on the role of the machine I can vary between clean stable, stable/testing mixed. unstable with selected upgrades (ie not dist-upgrade) and specific experimental prackages. And thats just the official sources. Grab newer kernels from liquorix, nginx from them. There is a large ecosystem of sources and with a little knowledge and a few precausions can be used safely.

Re:Dated, old, irrelevant to many except the dieha (3, Insightful)

Luna Argenteus (1938902) | about a year ago | (#43635081)

Good point, but you got it wrong from the very beginning though: it's not ``since it's old it's stable'', it's ``since it's in Debian stable, it's stable''.

Installation process has been greatly improved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634237)

The manual reads like a bureaucratic run around, it makes my head spin.

It used to be so simple to install any linux. Every OS could burn an ISO you would burn the ISO and if you choose the right ISO for the right hardware it would boot and install to the harddisk. Now I don't have any moterized drives at all on this 'ivy bridge' hardware and the USB guide is spread all over the guide.

It should say "drop this onto a fat32 formatted USB disk (or stick), the factory usually already formatted fat32 for you. Start your computer with this USB stick to run the installer. The installer will load everything on the USB stick into the internal work memory (called RAM) so you can safely choose to install Debian onto the USB stick (or any other available locations) and even allow the installer to reformat USB stick to the optimal filesystem for running Debian. (Which for Wheezy is EXT4 plus sometimes a boot partition is the hardware requires it start)"

But no it just says 'prepare a USB stick' and something related somewhere else and I am left guessing what exactly their lingo means, what fits together, how it will all add up, and what it will do.

Re:Installation process has been greatly improved (2)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year ago | (#43634433)

dd if=debian.iso of=/dev/usbdevice

Not exactly rocket science. Actually it's even simpler than writing it to a cdr.

Re:Installation process has been greatly improved (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#43634689)

It's harder than to use Unetbootin, point and click and not destroy the USB drive's content in the process. Sadly that didn't work when I tried to do that with a Wheezy iso a few weeks ago.

Re:Installation process has been greatly improved (1)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year ago | (#43635153)

It would seem it is not harder, since uNetbootin dosn't work at all. I'll take one quick command that works over several commands to install a GUI to click a button that downloads an ISO to unpack onto a USB....and then fails

Re:Installation process has been greatly improved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634525)

You can't just drop files onto a FAT32-formatted USB device and have it bootable, and that's not something Debian has any control over.

You need some piece of software that will write the bootloader to the USB drive, like uNetBootIn or whatever.

fire up your torrents! (4, Insightful)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about a year ago | (#43634267)

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

LOL64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634293)

Why Multiarch when we should have LOL64 - Linux on Linux64 - where you can install to /usr/bin (x86)/ and "it just works".

Released with EOL Firefox (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634327)

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

This is only a problem if You want to use Debian as a desktop OS. When installing as a server OS, the older but more stable packages, is perfect for my taste.

Re:Released with EOL Firefox (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43634431)

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

Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634389)

Is ext2 still considered outdated and useless?

Linux 3.2? (0)

aglider (2435074) | about a year ago | (#43634735)

They really mean they "upgraded" Debian kernel to v3.2 from January 2012?
Ah!

Re:Linux 3.2? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634917)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

Take a look at Maintenance. Linux 3.2 is the version with longest support: until 2015.

summary... After 2 years no secure boot yet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634759)

Mostly because Torvolds is still an asshole.
Why Microsoft doesn't just fork the kernel and crush the linux competition once and for all is puzzling. Except to say, free labor is very profitable to them.

Professional Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634887)

I believe that Debian is geared towards the professional user, one that needs a functional and stable desktop, where tools are tested, and which can be used to develop and deploy applications in public servers. If you compare Debian with Redhat and Suse, you will see that they are even older than Debian! Debian is a great tool that you can master.

On the other hand, most of the Shiny New distros cater to the ocasional user, the one that may use a browser, watch a movie or chat. They dont need as much stability, since they can always reset their desktop, nor do they need to install third party hardware or software. This kind of user doesn't care if every single application is replaced during an upgrade, because they never develop a deep mastery of any tool, they can always continue clicking here and there to get a few things done, spending most of their time tweaking the wallpaper.

Aptly named (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43635223)

For a distro that prides itself on being cantankerous, out of date, creaky and smelly wheezy is the perfect name.

I guess old fart or decrepit or rotting would be too accurate.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...