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 Etch to be Released in December

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the regular-releases-makes-for-happy-users dept.

78

lord_rob the only on writes "According to a ZDNet article, the next release of Debian should be available in December 2006. From the article : 'The date represents a dramatic improvement in the regularity of Debian's development cycle. Etch will be shipped only 18 months after the previous release, version 3.1.'

cancel ×

78 comments

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

Once again... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15261799)


A stupid toy story name...

Re:Once again... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15262032)

Note to mods: The appropriate label for the above would be Flamebait, as the post is on topic; it is regarding the name of the Debian release. This post would be offtopic. :)

Re:Once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15262670)

Man, you're the genius behind slashdot's moderation!
Now take your time while I stuff your mother.

I'll believe it (1, Funny)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261804)

...when I see it.

Re:I'll believe it (1)

Gleng (537516) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266168)

I wonder what the odds are on Etch coming out before Vista?

I knew this was coming... (2, Funny)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261820)

when I read this post [slashdot.org] ....

I know the name of it (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15261833)

It's after 3.1 so it has to be Debian 95 !

Re:I know the name of it (2, Funny)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261960)

It's after 3.1 so it has to be Debian 95 !

No, it will be Debian 3.11 for Workgroups.

Debian 95 will come later...

Is the world ending?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15261853)

Duke Nukem Forever finished? Mac's are finally on Intels, and Debian is releasing another release within that doesn't take 10 years??

Is the world ending??

Re:Is the world ending?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15264865)

Debian Forever /obligatory

Re:Is the world ending?? (1)

trandism (835011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265844)

Don't forget that this year will bring Linux on the desktop

Re:Is the world ending?? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15267064)

after a few bad experiences with windows i know a family who was glad i wiped windows off and slapped on ubuntu on their computer, i told them to call me if they have any problems, so far no problems...

Re:Is the world ending?? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15269550)

> Don't forget that this year will bring Linux on the desktop

Linux maybe, but not Debian. The whole "does not change often" thing may work for some kinds of servers, but on the desktop it's a nightmare. Oh, you want to install the security-critical bug-fix update to your web browser? I'm sorry, that requires a recent version of the widget toolkit it uses, which in turn requires recent versions of three-quarters of the stuff on your system, none of which is available for any distro more than about six months old. HTH.HAND.

Debian, whatever else it may be, is not a desktop-oriented distribution.

(And anyway, the days of Linux on the desktop are drawing to a close. We've been there, and we've done that, and it was okay, but now we're coming to the days of BSD on the desktop. Nietzsche is dead already, and NetCraft is up next.)

AMD64? (0)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261855)

Anyone? Bueller?

Re:AMD64? (0, Offtopic)

laejoh (648921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261952)

About your sig, this is the complete verse:

5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Yes! (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261973)

Officially supported!

Re:AMD64? (3, Informative)

colonwq (258221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262041)

From the article:
One of the major new features of Etch will be official support for the 64-bit x86 architecture which is becoming increasingly used in servers.

:wq

Damnit! (3, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261896)

What the hell is with releasing a new version so quickly? I just installed Sarge on my new web host and was hoping to get at least 2-3 years out of it as stable before I had to upgrade. Shit.

/no, I'm not kidding.

Change every occurence of stable into sarge (2, Informative)

Alphager (957739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261974)

in /etc/apt/sources.list and enjoy the bugfixes and security-updates for another 18 months.

Re:Damnit! (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262222)

just installed Sarge on my new web host and was hoping to get at least 2-3 years out of it as stable before I had to upgrade

Who says you have to upgrade instantly? I know a bunch of people running FC1, or even RH9 or 7.3. If it works, you don't have to touch it - it's not like Gentoo :)

/ducks

Re:Damnit! (2, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262339)

Who says you have to upgrade instantly? I know a bunch of people running FC1, or even RH9 or 7.3. If it works, you don't have to touch it

It's not a good idea to run systems, especially if they're Internet-facing, on old releases that don't get security updates.

That said, Sarge will continue getting security updates until the successor to Etch is released, so there's no problem with continuing to run it for a couple of years yet, even if Debian manages to keep up the 18-month cycle.

Re:Damnit! (2, Informative)

‹berhund (27591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262697)

>> Who says you have to upgrade instantly? I know a bunch of people running FC1,
>> or even RH9 or 7.3. If it works, you don't have to touch it

> It's not a good idea to run systems, especially if they're Internet-facing,
> on old releases that don't get security updates.

The Fedora Legacy Project [fedoralegacy.org] provides security updates for RedHat and Fedora releases that have been end-of-lifed by RedHat. Currently, they support RH 7.3 and 9, and Fedora 1-3.

Re:Damnit! (2, Insightful)

beef3k (551086) | more than 8 years ago | (#15263231)

Sounds like you chose the wrong distro... use CentOS [centos.org] instead.

Re:Damnit! (1)

Ponga (934481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265934)

How true! I had been running Woody for years, then Sarge (stable) came out so, what the hell, I jumped on board... just last week! Now I have to deal with Etch!! Ah, Debian, your killing me with these 'regular' release scheduals!

an improvement? (3, Insightful)

croddy (659025) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261901)

Sure, it's an increase in the frequency, but is it really an improvement? Are people really clamoring for an update over sarge?

Debian's QA process takes a long time, but it's nice not to have to go through a dist-upgrade every few months on servers that need to be left alone and 'just work'.

Re:an improvement? (4, Insightful)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262060)

Poor Debian. When they don't release for years upon years, people complain and poke fun at them for being so slow. When they pick up the pace, people complain they're releasing too often. (Yes, I understand it's not the same group of people in both cases; I just find it funny.)

Re:an improvement? (3, Insightful)

zaguar (881743) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262091)

but it's nice not to have to go through a dist-upgrade every few months on servers that need to be left alone and 'just work'.

I assume you're referring to Ubuntu. Ubuntu does NOT require you to dist-upgrade, it is your choice. You WILL be supported on Hoary and Dapper with security releases for years. It is entirely unneccessary to upgrade every couple of months for a server. Find something, and stick with it.

Re:an improvement? (2, Informative)

AmishMoshr (774633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262419)

Close, but not quite... Hoary and Breezy are only supported for 18 months after their initial release. Dapper, on the other hand, will have 3 years of desktop support/updates and 5 years of "server" updates. So Dapper is the only one that really has literal full years of support.

Re:an improvement? (1)

croddy (659025) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265621)

Well... I... wouldn't have said "Sarge" if I were referring to Ubuntu.

Re:an improvement? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262756)

Debian's QA process takes a long time, but it's nice not to have to go through a dist-upgrade every few months on servers that need to be left alone and 'just work'.

If by "a few months", you mean 2x18 = 36 months, then yes. You should test on a test system once it is out though. If it works and is stable (hey, you can run it for a couple months at least to check it out) you can dist-upgrade and get another 18 months. If it breaks, well you got at least a year to either a) report bugs b) fix your own setup or c) plan a migration path. Or if you think you're many enough, drum up a support group to support only a core set of server apps. Those apps will have a lot more upstream support for that as well. If you need more than that, well that's bordering on "custom support" the same way "custom software" isn't free, even if it is based on OSS...

Re:an improvement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265274)

There are actually many people clamoring a new release.

Debian 'stable' has always been a tradeoff: you get stability and high degree of polish, at the expense of not having the latest packages. A new release allows those people who require 'stable' to get their software closer to current versions. (Why is Ubuntu so popular? In part, because their frequent release cycle keeps them up-to-date)

This has also been exacerbated IMO by the fact that the suitability of the 'testing' release for general consumption has declined somewhat recently, resulting in more people choosing to run 'stable'. Such has been my experience, others may be having an easier time of it.

- D

Re:an improvement? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15267769)

"Are people really clamoring for an update over sarge?"

Well, I know that I am. Sarge is almost useless on desktops nowadays*, and Etch has a lot of nice tools for servers. The upgrade will be very welcome.

Now, don't take the above points (mainly the first one) as a critic. Debian is awesome.

* How do Windows users deal with a 5 years upgrade cycle? Worse yet, how do Windows users deal with a 5 years upgrade cycle that won't even add any usefull feature when complete?

Wait a second (2, Funny)

ndogg (158021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261930)

What? Debian Etch is going to be released already? Damn. Not too long ago, I was playing with Woody (hey, stop giggling), and more recently, with Sarge (I said, stop giggling, frickin' school girls).

Debian goes way to fast for me! Argh! I can't keep up!

Re:Wait a second (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262731)

Woody? Meh. I've still got a hard drive lying around with potato on it.

Re:Wait a second (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262863)

Slink represent.

Re:Wait a second (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262980)

Nice!

Re:Wait a second (1)

angst_ridden_hipster (23104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264056)

I still have Hamm on a backup server. I figured I went through the trouble of upgrading from Bo, so I shoudl leave it alone.

It's a mighty, mighty Pentium 75, with a whoppin' 64M of memory.

Maybe it's time to retire that box. It's just that when I want to get to it stuck out in the back of the garage, I have to cut through so many spider webs that it's a full day project.

This is a bad idea (1)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261956)

It seems to me that releasing the stable branch of debian more frequently is a bad idea. Although woody was kind of outdated when it was replaced, there were still people running it. It's nice to know that once the software is running it will keep running without major maintenance for several years.

Thus, no matter how bug-free the software is, it will still be losing some "stability" if people are forced to upgrade on an 18-month cycle. I understand that there's some pressure to compete with fedora and ubuntu, but there still is debian testing and unstable, which do offer the cutting-edge software. However, there should also be pressure to compete with red hat, which does provide 3 years of support for their server OS. And if debian can't compete with that, then it's no longer "the universal OS".

Disclaimer: I'm assuming that they plan to drop support for sarge upon the release of etch. If they do plan to continue supporting sarge for a full 3 years, then any grievances listed here are null and void.

woody still supported (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15261996)

They're very good about "oldstable".

Re:This is a bad idea (3, Informative)

Phleg (523632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262253)

Assuming a standard 18-month release cycle, they would support a distribution for exactly the three years offered by RedHat. Each previous version of "stable" is supported for eighteen months, so support for Woody should be phased out as soon as Etch is released. If they keep with the standard release cycle, eighteen months after that when Etch+1 is released, Sarge support will be phased out.

Re:This is a bad idea (1)

rafusmx (971073) | more than 8 years ago | (#15270255)

Well, this release is really sooner than I was waiting for, but I think that it's not like it will hit the stability of most common desktop users. Any way, most of the Debian desktop user that I know, don't want to be updated, so they use Debian Testing sources.

On the other hand, server applications, I'd like to suppose, and hope, that Debian staff will keep some of the stable versions of many server applications and libraries, or at least the latest tested ones.

Debian Etch (1, Funny)

wild_pointer (263802) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262044)

So is it Debian 3.11 for Workgroups or did they make the full leap to Debian 95?

There was a comment on the article with Vista falling behind few days ago where someone said even Etch would be release before Vista... guess he was right! :)

Re:Debian Etch (1)

rbochan (827946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262378)

...even Etch would be release before Vista...

Not just Etch, but Debian's even beaten Microsoft by releasing Woody and Sarge in the time WinXP was supposed to go to Longh^H^H^HVista.

"Debian: faster development, more secure, more features, and more stable than MS"

lol

Re:Debian Etch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15268646)

Thought it was Vista not LoVista ;)

Let me be the first to say... (2, Interesting)

zaguar (881743) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262062)

Some might like it, but 18 months is a long, long time. With distro's like Ubuntu releasing every 6 months (yes, I know about Dapper's delay) with a relatively STABLE product with cutting edge features (Gnome 2.14), is it time for Debian to rethink their policy.

I'm not suggesting Debian shouldn't have long releases schedules (it ensures a rock-solid product), but only that they consider what it is doing to the userbase.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Insightful)

Hellboy0101 (680494) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262178)

What people have to understand is that Ubuntu, for all it's goodness, is pretty much a polished over version of Debian Testing. If you want a shiny new OS, create a cron job to run apt-get dist-upgrade every 7 days (after you've added the testing/security repositories). You could have a new Debian every week if you wanted to. :)

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266137)

And if you go the route I once did by using Sid and having a new Debian every day, make sure to install apt-listbugs so that something like the Xorg 7.0 breakage doesn't screw over your system randomly.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (3, Funny)

e5z8652 (528912) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262809)

Hmm. Instead of rethinking policy for the whole Debian project, since as you point out they do have a large number of perople who actually like a slower release cycle, Debian could come up with a sub-distribution.

This sub-distribution could be essentially Debian but with an emphasis on the latest and greatest desktop environment, newest kernel, etc. But all of the tools would remain the same (apt-get, etc.) and packages should be interchangeable. (Barring kernel or library dependencies of course - attempting to install the latest udev package on a 2.6.8 Sarge box might have understandable problems.)

You could call this sub-distribution something friendly and warm, like a word that means something like "humanity to others" in a non-English language, which will appeal to a large number of English speakers as having a name that is easily remembered and catchy but won't be confused with your girlfriend or headgear.

Then, to avoid the overhead of trying to run a whole other sub-distribution in addition to oldstable, stable, testing, unstable and experimental - you could spin off the sub-distribution and give it a life of it's own, where it can draw on the huge Debian base, but have the independence it needs to track the latest and greatest.

Excellent!

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

51mon (566265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15263543)

> With distro's like Ubuntu releasing every 6 months (yes, I know about Dapper's delay) with a relatively STABLE product with cutting edge features (Gnome 2.14), is it time for Debian to rethink their policy.

"relatively stable" is like "kind of pregnant", first Ubuntu release I put into production was replaced inside a month with Sarge, because Sarge worked and Ubuntu didn't.

Which is why the article is wrong, Etch will release when it is ready, which means when all the important bugs we know about are fixed (within a little margin of error), and not a day earlier.

What the article is really saying is that this release is going well, and on target, and I know Ubuntu's efforts have helped get some big bits of functionality into Etch quicker than they otherwise would have, but it takes time to iron out the bugs in big software projects.

I wonder what the burn rate is on Ubuntu these days?

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

krmt (91422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266431)

It's not really wrong, it's that the developers are all targeting to have it ready to go in 18 months. It basically just means planning more carefully, and having a large well-trained release team on the job of having a global view of what's going on so that large transitions can be ironed out as needed so they don't hold up things endlessly like they did for sarge. There are still huge release issues (as Andreas outlines) to go for etch, but transitions are generally better managed than in the past which will hopefully let us all make our target.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

Markspark (969445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264599)

this is exactly why i run ubuntu at home and debian at work.. at home i like to play, at work i play it safe.. :)

Run for cover! (1)

deque_alpha (257777) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262307)

Surely this is a sign of the end times! Seriously though, it's nice to see Debian responding to the requests of what seems to be the majority of their userbase. I know I have avoided Debian because they seemed to do releases on a geologic time scale. I admire their insistance on quality, stability, and security, but most people would like to have some modernity as well. Here's to hoping they manage to strike or more widely appealing balance.

Re:Run for cover! (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262528)

To put it in perspective, Debian got Woody and Sarge out in the time that Microsoft has taken to go from XP to Vista. They might even get Etch out before MS gets Vista out. So relatively speaking it's not that bad (especially considering how many packages Debian supports).

Re:Run for cover! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15268050)

It's not the same. Due to its open-source nature, Linux development proceeds much faster than closed-source products. Versions change very quickly. Updated versions of large programs (KDE, Gnome, etc.) causes a need to upgrade libraries. Linux operating systems need to update far more quickly than Windows in order to keep up with the open-source community. On Windows, Microsoft produces the software and they can do it any time they like. On Linux, you have to keep up.

Re:Run for cover! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15263386)

Yeah. We've had fire, flood, war, the mark of the beast [slashdot.org] . Now, all we need is Debian Etch.

Finally a faster Debian release. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15262464)

I see some people complaining (probably out of jest) that this release is too fast.

What a load of bollocks.

I've been working as a server administrator for 8 years now. Debian was quite okay from '98 until about '00. After having newly upgraded from slink to potato I found that the mysql installation was so old that developers wouldn't touch it at all. Upgrading it in a nice way was not exactly an easy thing to do - as just COMPILING a newer version was hell - due to it depending on things that was too new for this 'stable' distro.

This is only one thing. Other things are year-old releases of things such as snort. What good is it? The simple answer is that it's no good at all. Some sorts of software NEEDS to be bleeding edge. Think of it as running a years-old version of an antivirus engine. Sure, you can try to hack the signature files to be able to detect new viruses, but some kinds will just "slip past due to the detection engine". Same with snort and various other goodies.

Debian is quite simply releasing too slowly for most needs. Sure, I'm pretty sure it's good enough if you can hand compile all the libraries you need for newer software which is in business demand .. but .. ehh .. if you're up to that task for most tasks - you can just as well roll your own company distro and keep that stable. Not that much more work.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering, I'm working at a company where a huge lot of our installed base is 5-6 year old distros, with our add-ons. We compile libraries for breakfast. But for a distribution to be based on that assumption? Bah I say. It's bollocks! And people who claim that it's a good thing? Get real.

Congratulations to Debian if they manage to get the release out this december.

Re:Finally a faster Debian release. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265219)

"I've been working as a server administrator for 8 years now"

As in I'm a dead cow for 8 years now. It is not how much time, but how well you take advantage of it.

"Other things are year-old releases of things such as snort. What good is it? The simple answer is that it's no good at all. Some sorts of software NEEDS to be bleeding edge"

Here comes the "superexpert"... which forgets about the "volatile" repository and what is it for.

"Oh, and if anyone is wondering, I'm working at a company..."

That surely could find better ways to trash out its money (like... you know, firing you and hiring a sysadmin that counts his medals by his knowledge, not the years he has lost playing nethack).

Re:Finally a faster Debian release. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15268542)

Here comes the "superexpert"... which forgets about the "volatile" repository and what is it for.

Troll, troll, troll the boat
gently down the stream
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
a life is what you need.

The volatile project didn't exist back in '00 when I *stopped* using Debian. Yes, it's a nice project. Yes, it was bloody needed - but it's still just a hack.

Go troll somewhere else.

Re:Finally a faster Debian release. (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265293)

Thank you, this exactly what I've been saying.

Running a server on Debian can be a pain. Say, I have a mail server. Before Sarge was finally released I was stuck with an ancient version of exim without support for exiscan-acl. Sure, I could get it from backports, but that's a pain, and implies trusting an external source. I could also compile it, which is also a pain for reasons you already mentioned.

The thing is that for a mail server, exim is THE thing I want to run, and the rest is pretty much auxiliary. It makes no sense to have the one thing I have the machine for come from some outside source.

So, on my part, Debian is getting relegated to the firewall, which does pretty much nothing but iptables. There the glacially slow release schedule is not a problem. And the servers are getting switched to Gentoo.

Well, anyway (1)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262522)

When a release date is announced for a stable release of Debian, it's rarely respected. I say rarely because I'm a young user of Debian. I started using it when woody was about to become stable. I don't know if previous release dates were more accurate for potato, ...

Debian vs. Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15262574)

Let me get this straight: there will have been three Debian releases between major desktop Windows releases? That right there is enough to have the release management dragged out and shot. I mean, you know there's going to be a new version of OpenBSD every six months, so that's no big deal. But when Debian is out-releasing you, it's clear that your house is Not In Order.

Congratulations, folks, seriously. I'll be looking forward to that big apt-get!

Re:Debian vs. Microsoft (1)

Ponga (934481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15266048)

I'll be looking forward to that big apt-get!

You mean, aptitude, right?
I just installed 3.1 and to my dismay, apt-get is no where to be found. Yes, yes, aptitude is better, blah blah... but come on, I had been typing 'apt-get' for years!?

#alias apt-get=`aptitude`

Ahh, thats better!

Stability (1)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15263213)

I've been an Ubuntu user for a while now and I've really enjoyed the experience, though I've had some annoying experiences with glitchy programs. When Debian Etch is released, I'll be apt to get it! To see if it's more stable than Ubuntu. So far the glitchyness of Ubuntu is the only thing about it that annoys me. Maybe Debian will be like Ubuntu without the glitches.

Interesting... (1)

alphamugwump (918799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15263306)

It might be interesting to see them compete with Ubuntu. Dapper will probably be more up-to-date (judging from my experience with sarge), but Etch will probably be more stable. Of course, I probably won't find out. because I'll be running edgy.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Respect_my_Authority (967217) | more than 8 years ago | (#15269313)

You seem to forget that Ubuntu is based on Debian. This means that Debian does most of the heavy lifting that is required for making each Ubuntu release, so that Ubuntu can concentrate on developing their (GNOME) desktop. Ubuntu supports only a fraction of the amount of packages that Debian does (there's no security updates for Ubuntu's "universe" & "multiverse") and Ubuntu also supports much fewer architectures.

You cannot seriously say that Ubuntu competes with Debian as long as Ubuntu cannot even stand on its own and as long as it has so much less to offer than Debian. I'd recommend Ubuntu to anyone as a good Debian-based GNOME desktop that also has good laptop support, but the fact of the matter is that Ubuntu is just a modified Debian with a carefully planned marketing campaign while Debian is the Real Thing(TM).

Etch? Where have I been? (3, Interesting)

LightningTH (151451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15263615)

/# cat /etc/debian_version
2.2 /# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.2.19 (root@matrix) (gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux)) #11 Wed May 28 23:36:14 EDT 2003

I'm still on Potato. It's been stable and online for the last 6 years (as I recall upgrading to potato from slink). Give me a good reason to upgrade being this is my web/mail/dns/ftp box.

ps: cpu info shows AMD K5 75mhz

Re:Etch? Where have I been? (1)

nub!s (962275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15263812)

ps: cpu info shows AMD K5 75mhz

weird, ps :cpu info shows something like
"ERROR: Process ID list syntax error. ********* simple selection ********* ********* selection by list *********..."
in my box, should I upgrade ps?

;)

Re:Etch? Where have I been? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15267084)

you are an idiot [reference.com]

Re:Etch? Where have I been? (1)

Lxy (80823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15264423)

Here's a reason: security updates.

No one is making you upgrade, but there's no telling how long the backports will be supported. You might want to consider at least woody, so you can extend the life of available security patches.

Once Etch goes stable, you might try Sarge. Just make sure you upgrade your boot loader to grub as you may have some issues with LILO (so I've heard, haven't confirmed). Then you'll keep a fairly updated box for some time to come.

Re:Etch? Where have I been? (1)

LightningTH (151451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15265189)

Running latest versions of apache, proftpd, bind (chroot'd), and postfix. I figure I must be doing something right if it is still up after 6 years without any successful attacks. Considering all the automated worms today and automated port scanning for weak systems.

Re:Etch? Where have I been? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265289)

"Give me a good reason to upgrade being this is my web/mail/dns/ftp box."

If you haven't found it by yourself, you are already beyond salvation (hint: internet ...facing ...resource ...without ...security ...updates).

Re:Etch? Where have I been? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15269471)

> Give me a good reason to upgrade [from potato] being this is my web/mail/dns/ftp box.

One thing that springs to mind off the top of my head is that IP Tables (the firewall system in Linux 2.4 and higher) is much nicer to work with than IP Chains (Linux 2.2, IIRC).

Even if you don't update the whole distro, I sure hope you've updated the services that are exposed to the internet from the versions in potato. Especially the mail server. (If you haven't, I'd seriously consider replacing the system altogether and decommissioning it, as it's probably too infested to consider repairable.)

It is reasonable to stay with gcc 2.95 for this type of system. It wouldn't be practical for a desktop, but for a server that does not change often it should be fine.

If you don't want to move to Linux 2.4, you might consider a later release of 2.2. I really do recommend 2.4 though, for IP Tables if nothing else. Very nice kernel, and quite mature at this point. For the web server, stay with Apache 1.x, but get a more recent Apache 1.x than the one that shipped with potato. For the mail server, you don't want anything to do with the one in potato. For dns, it depends on your needs -- do you really need all of bind's features, or could you be using something smaller and safer, along the lines of djbdns or whatnot? For ftp, it depends on whether you need to offer anonymous ftp on port 21. If you do, then you really want to pay attention to security issues for sure, which probably means staying on the latest release most of the time. (Which ftp daemon are you using, anyway?)

Do have a look at IP Tables. Really it's quite a nifty system.

Not such a good idea ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15263689)

While it used to take a long time for Debian packages to become stable, it did provide end users with a reliable and secure system. By shortening the development lifetime between unstable and stable, it is clear that there will undoubtedly be more security flaws and thus more updates to the stable branch. A more prudent question to be asked here is what could the Debian team have done to dissolve some of the pressure to shorten developement time. The solution from my point of view would have been to give users a little more control over what branch to initially install. While I'm well aware of the expert mode provided by the Debian installer which does provide the option, I don't feel as though its suitable for most first-time users. Thus the usual result is that first-time users end up with a system based on the current stable release. While the current stable release has the advantage of being well.. stable, it doesn't contain all the bells and whistles that most first-time users are looking for in a desktop environment. This is the point where the users usually complain about the lack of feature in the stable release, and are unfortunately told that they have to perform an entire system upgrade in order to receive the features they desire. Its this frustration that has ultimately lead to the pressure to push out a new stable release in half the time. But one must wonder what kind of reaction the Debian community would have seen, had users simply been given the option to begin with.

Re:Not such a good idea ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15265414)

"While I'm well aware of the expert mode provided by the Debian installer which does provide the option, I don't feel as though its suitable for most first-time users"

That's because first-time users don't have to be (as in DO NOT HAVE TO BE) within 10.000 miles radius from either testing or unstable. They are named "testing" and "unstable" for a reason, and such reason is the absolute oposite to "first-time users".

"But one must wonder what kind of reaction the Debian community would have seen"

The same as ever: they would have cried to hell because they -the ones that do NOTHING to support the distribution, think they have a word about how it should be managed. The only difference is this time they would be well within reason to do so.

Re:Not such a good idea ? (1)

angrykeyboarder (791722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15279355)

>Ubuntu and Fedora manage to be able to produce a stable distribution (approximately) every 6 months.

To release a distribution 18 months after the previous release is still a long time, but compared to the time it took for Sarge to be released it's extremely fast.

The problem with Debian right now is.:

  • If you install the current release you end up with a lot of outdated software (at least as far as GNOME or KDE apps are concerned).
  • If you install the testing release you wind up with (almost) the latest software but if you want to upgrade package a, that relies on package c and package c is not available because it's still stuck in unstable, because the Commodore 64 version won't compile, then you're rather stuck...
  • If you install Unstable (Sid) you do get the latest and greatest however, you also get all the bugs. Sometimes you can go for weeks without a hitch and then suddenly it hits a buggy phase and you have problem after problem.

No,any version of Debian isn't really suitable for newcomers.

I'm sure Sarge is great as a server, but if you intend to run X then you're gonna be stuck with apps from almost 2 years ago (unless of course you use backports and that's a whole other story).

I alternate between Debian Unstable and Ubuntu (depending on which is the least annoying at a given time).

Re:Not such a good idea ? (1)

Respect_my_Authority (967217) | more than 8 years ago | (#15280563)

There's a big difference between Ubuntu and Debian. Ubuntu is the Debian-based product of a commercial company, Canonical, and their marketing talk for Ubuntu consists of half-truths (=half-lies) and hiding problems from users is part of their their policy. Debian, on the other hand, is a distro made by a non-profit organization developed by volunteers. Debian (unlike Ubuntu) stands on its own feet, it's not based on any other distro and its policy is NOT to hide any problems. Debian supports officially 4-5 times more packages and many more architectures than Ubuntu. Making packages to build on more architectures helps finding and fixing bugs that would otherwise be hard to locate. Being based on Debian, also Ubuntu benefits from the high quality of Debian's packages. Ubuntu has some very skilled developers taking care of the packages in "main" category but there's hardly any criterion for selecting the MOTU's who maintain the packages in "universe" category. In Ubuntu, there's no security updates for the "universe" packages.

There was recently a protest among Kubuntu developers about not getting enough support from Canonical and the main Kubuntu developer (the only one who's getting paid for the job), Jonathan Riddell, quickly wrote a blog entry trying to tell people that there's no quarrel between Kubuntu devs, although there clearly was (and still is, AFAIK). http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1917 [kdedevelopers.org] Riddel also wrote posts to public forums telling people to "move along, nothing to see here" when these forums informed people about the quarrel. This is just one example of the Ubuntu policy that tells the employed devs to attempt to hide any problems instead of discussing them openly in public. Also Ubuntu's marketing talks consist of half-truths that try to benefit from Debian's good reputation whenever it's appropriate but in general they try to hide the fact that Ubuntu is not really an independent distro that could stand on its own feet. Ubuntu's marketing talk also tries to hide the fact that bug-fixing and security updates are poorly managed in the "universe" packages. I'm sorry, but I refuse to buy Ubuntu's used-cars salesman's marketing discourse. Ubuntu just has too many problems that Debian doesn't have.

It seems that many people don't understand Debian's development model. Some people say that Debian unstable is a good choice for desktop systems. No, it isn't. Debian unstable is the development branch where all new stuff is first introduced. Saying that people should track Debian unstable is like saying that you should always track Ubuntu's development branch instead of using its stable releases. Debian unstable is UNSTABLE (the name should give you a hint about its unstable nature) and it's SUPPOSED to break every now and then because all the main development that goes into Debian happens in unstable. Debian unstable is for developers only -- it's not suitable or recommended for normal users.

Debian testing is the current development branch for the next Debian stable. Debian testing is quite suitable for everyday desktop use -- Debian unstable acts as a kind of bumper where all the serious bugs hit first and where they're also fixed. Once the packages migrate to Debian testing, they have already received some real-world testing that ensures that they're ready for the everyday use. Applications in Debian testing are usually almost, although not quite, the "latest and greatest" versions, because new packages first need some testing and buf-fixing time in Debian unstable. But at times when development goes smoothly, Debian testing can be quite up-to-date. If you use Ubuntu's stable release (that isn't updated for six long months) and if everything goes well in Debian's development (like it has gone lately), then Debian testing should have newer packages most of the time when compared to Ubuntu.

Let's compare some package versions in Ubuntu's latest release and the current Debian testing using the DistroWatch pages for these two distros:

amarok: version 1.3.1 in Ubuntu breezy; 1.3.8 in Debian testing

evolution: 2.4.1 in breezy; 2.4.2.1 in testing

firefox: 1.0.7 in breezy; 1.5 in testing

gimp: 2.2.8 in breezy; 2.2.11 in testing

kdebase: 3.4.3 in breezy; 3.5.2 in testing

koffice: 1.4.1 in breezy; 1.4.2 in testing

libgnome: 2.12.0.1 in breezy; 2.14.0 in testing

linux: 2.6.12 in breezy; 2.6.15 in testing

OpenOffice.org: 1.9.129 in breezy; 2.0.1 in testing

samba: 3.0.14a in breezy; 3.0.22 in testing

xorg: 6.8.2 in breezy; 6.9.0 in testing

No, using Ubuntu doesn't necessarily mean that you're using the "latest and greatest" versions of everything. And, no, using Debian testing doesn't necessarily mean that you're using older software than what's available in Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is a nice Debian-based desktop distro but it's not an independent distro -- it stands on the shoulders of Debian and a lot of the difficult work needed to make each Ubuntu release is actually done by Debian developers. Debian is not based on any other distro, Debian is committed to support Free Software, Debian doesn't hide problems from users, and Debian has excellent Quality Assurance for its packages. Also, ALL packages in Debian stable and testing get security updates and full support in Debian Bug Tracking System.

Ubuntu is probably easier for newcomers but Debian is not nearly as difficult as people say. If you can install Ubuntu, you can also install Debian. And Debian (testing) is also more up-to-date than people generally assume.

I use both Debian testing and Ubuntu's stable releases as my desktops but if I had to choose between these two distros, there's no doubt that I would choose Debian. While I find Ubuntu a nice Debian-based distro, I don't like the half-truths that Ubuntu uses in its marketing or their attempts to hide problems from users. Debian, on the other hand, is the Real Thing(TM) that I can always trust.

hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15264899)

In this mail (near the end) http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003 /08/msg00010.html [debian.org] we can read that the planned release date for sarge was december 2003 (it was released in june 2005). So, maybe 2008 for etch..

Use Testing! (1)

xXenXx (973576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15288256)

If you don't want to use the older software found in stable, use testing! It's really not that unstable (that's unstable's job). As has been said already, Ubuntu is essentially Debian Etch + a polished (brown) Gnome.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>