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 to Run on AMD64

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-etched-in-stone dept.


dark-br writes to tell us TechWorld is reporting that the next Debian release will be able to run native on AMD64 processors for the first time. From the article: "The GNU/Linux 4.0 operating system, also known as "Etch," is planned for release in December, the group said. It will also have new security features, including encryption and digital signatures to ensure that downloaded packages are validated."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Great! (-1, Troll)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781905)

They've finally caught up to Ubuntu.

Re:Great! (1, Insightful)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781911)

My thoughts exactly... when I read this I thought... uh, Debian doesn't do amd64 already? Then why have I been running it on Ubuntu for months? Oh well, guess Debian isn't all that relevant on the desktop these days, though still my default choice for a server.

Re:Great! (3, Informative)

Depili (749436) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781939)

There have been 64bit debian packages for some time now, they just haven't been on the stable branch.

Re:Great! (4, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782087)

There have been 64bit debian packages for some time now, they just haven't been on the stable branch.
The entire article is a troll.
Sarge has amd64 since r1 -- it just didn't make it into r0, even though not-officially-blessed packages were provided since the day r0 was released, including official security support. The unofficial sarge-amd64 just didn't get official until a point release.

Re:Great! (2, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782169)

The problem is this:

Many people have the impression that:

What everyone else considers stable is packages which usable and relatively free of fatal defects.
What Debian considers stable is packages which are hopelessly out of date

When I've tried Debian I've been extremely disappointed. Sure, the packages may be stable, but what good are they when the kernel is so out of date that, say, an 865 or 915 chipset won't boot the install CD without a kernel panic? (I'm sure that the latest stable release will boot just fine on those chipsets now, but even at the time, when I tried the then-current stable release, neither the 865 nor the 915 chipsets were bleeding edge and have been around for a while).

Debian was great back in the day where chipsets had a fairly long lifespan, but now where a chipset may be around for only 6 to 9 months until the next generation comes out, they really, really need to revisit their standard for stable.

Re:Great! (4, Informative)

OnesAndNoughts (872266) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782208)

Granted, Sarge using a 2.4 kernel as default for the installer wasn't sharp. You *can* boot with a 2.6 kernel very easily by entering "linux26" at the boot screen instead of just hitting enter. That get's you up and running on the majority of "Modern" stuff.

You misunderstand (5, Informative)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782401)

What Debian mean by "stable" and "unstable" has about as much to do with how likely the software is to fall over, as what RMS means by "Free software" has to do with how much it costs. Stable or Unstable refer to the distribution, not the packages within it.

Debian Stable {each release is codenamed after a character from the movie Toy Story} is a release that stays, well, stable. It contains software that has been proven ultra-reliable on a dozen different architectures; and, as far as possible, nothing will adversely affect the operation of anything else. Security patches get backported in, but the main requirement is that nothing should change too much as long as Debian Stable is current. Doing a simple apt-get update && apt-get upgrade will never break anything if you are running Stable. When a new Stable is released, it invariably includes automated migration tools to deal with new configuration file formats &c. These run transparently as part of the upgrade process, ensuring as smooth a transition as possible.

Debian Unstable {aka SID, for "Still In Development" and also named after the destructive neighbour} is a release that is constantly changing. It is the combination of packages that is unstable, not the software itself: Unstable contains software that is believed to be mostly reliable on at least some of a dozen different architectures. However, due to the fact that the packages in Unstable are updated one-by-one rather than all at a time, there is the possibility of incompatibilities creeping in: one piece of software can affect another. It's also possible that APIs and configuration file formats may change.

Somewhere between lies Debian Testing. Once a package has proved its worth in Unstable, it moves to Testing -- but not until. If necessary, packages may remain absent altogether from Testing while compatibility issues are resolved (in which case, you will have to get the Stable or Unstable source code and build that; one or the other usually works). Eventually, Testing will be used to create a new Stable.

Debian Unstable or Testing are the best releases to use for desktops. Stable is really only for servers in co-lo, where you cannot get physical access to the machine to reboot it if it goes Tango Uniform. Thanks to Debian's rigid enforcement of the Free Software Guidelines (which went on to become the Open Source Definition), it's also very easy to keep everything "i-tal" on a Debian system.

Re:You misunderstand (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782542)

+100. Where are moderation points when I need them?

Stable v. Unstable is my favorite feature of Debian.

Stable's just blessing for servers. You go to shop and grab list of available parts. Then order only parts supported by Debian. It's always possible for servers (for desktops with wi-fi and 3d accels story is different). Once the server is up, Debian would install without a hitch. And it would go on running. In my case - the server I have set-up in year 2000 is still running Ok and was recently upgraded with new motherboard, raid mirror and RAM. I recently even tryed dist-upgrade of 3.0 to 3.1 over ssh and ZOMG! it worked without single flaw. That the true meaning of "stable".

Testing/unstable is always fun. For daily work as workstation, Debian's unstable was pretty Okay for me. I had really few problems: maintainers do great job at defining dependencies and apt-get is carefully at protecting installed software when there is no upgrade path available.

Great Scott! (2, Insightful)

cloricus (691063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781958)

Debian is relevant for the stability and completeness image of Linux among other things.

You Ubuntu (I say this typing on a Ubuntu box :/) users should remember that especially considering you're last few releases have been out right painful in some regards for example 5.10 released with gcc that didn't match active kernel and 6.06 releasing with an alpha graphical installer as default to name two huge ones off the top of my head.

Besides all desktop users don't want bleeding edge ... personally I think they are mad (I use sid) ... though they like the choice to do so and that is what Linux is all about. Also Debian has had x64 for awhile just not officially supported outside of testing which most Debian desktop users use as standard. (*If this post seems flamish I apologies, it's a bit hard to tell as my eyes are seeing red after a long fight with a BlackBerry server.)

Re:Great Scott! (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782060)

I would second that.

While for a single workstation Ubuntu may be OK, the stability of debian really comes to play in a large installation. There it is unbeatable.

Re:Great! (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782038)

Do all the packages in Ubuntu support amd64, or just "most of the popular ones"? What I would expect Debian is comprehensive support by all packages in Debian.

Re:Great! (2, Informative)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781920)

Debian has always been more towards the stability end of the stability/feature curve. For many folks running a production server, being on the bleeding edge is very undesireable.

I for one hope that Debian never "catches up" to Ubuntu, because while Ubuntu is fantastic for desktop linux users, it's not clear that it can provide the stability needed for some production servers the way that Debian Stable does.

Re:Great! (4, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781949)

Exactly. The whole idea of different distributions is that they address different market segments. People who complain that other distributions aren't more like their favourite distribution are completely missing the point.

Re:Great! (1)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781960)

That's true, however I was a little annoyed with the slowness of Debian Stable until Sarge... I do like to run software written in this century :)

Re:Great! (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782352)

I for one hope that Debian never "catches up" to Ubuntu,

Ironically I use Debian sid on my laptop because I find the older apps in Ubuntu annoying. (my workstation has sid/experimental. so that should tell you something about my tendencies with software.) In 2001 I usually ran a galeon compiled against a version of mozilla that was less than 48 hours old out of sheer desperation for a usable web browser on linux. I can't imagine doing that now, as konqueror, galeon, firefox, semonkey, and epiphany all work just fine. But qgis nightlies are tempting me at the moment.

Re:Great! (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15781932)

Sure, except for the fact Alioth (64-bit native Debian) has been out for years. Are you sure you're not confusing a 64-bit native OS (Alioth) with a kernel compiled for a 64-bit processor. There's a world of difference which I'll leave to your voyage of discovery.

Worse. (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781950)

They finally cought up to the product of an extremely lazy software company that only releases a new os version twice a decade...

Re:Great! (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781976)

No, you have that backwards. Ubuntu takes their stuff out of Debian unstable which *has* had a Pure 64bit verion out for quite a long time. If you would of RTFA first instead of jumping on your Debian trolling bandwaggon you'd see that this is an announcement of moving that into stable.

Re:Great! (2, Informative)

lky (246353) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782002)

Debian has had AMD64 support for a long time in Sid and in Etch as testing.

This is only news because when Etch moves to stable it will be the first Debian release with official support for it. Nothing new here just the normal process.

Re:Great! (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782028)

It's unlikely that that's possible, unless Ubuntu fizzles and dies, since Ubuntu is based on Debian and draws from Debian on an ongoing basis.

Debian and Ubuntu feed off each other (1)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782064)

They've finally caught up to Ubuntu.

No kidding. Good on Techworld for reporting this, but the propagation to Slashdot seems quite redundant. Even if typical slashdot readers didn't know that Debian's had amd64 in its testing distributions for ages, to the point where it only just missed out getting into Sarge, it was already reported in this summary [slashdot.org] , after all!

I'm a debian user -- I've been a Debian amd64 user for more than a year -- and I like it. (I still wouldn't suggest running AMD64 unless you're prepared to be a beta tester for a variety of desktop applications.) But it's hardly new. As you point out, Ubuntu's been been doing it for a while, too. As with a lot of things, Debian and Ubuntu feed off each other. (Ubuntu gets Debian's package base and stability, Debian gets ports back from Ubuntu adjustments (such as the Openoffice amd64 port, which I think has been primarily Ubuntu-driven).

Re:Great! (2, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782317)

I sure hope not. In my own experience even Debian unstable is better by a little margin than Ubuntu, stability-wise (and the current debian unstable has apt signed packages, xorg, dunno about amd64 as i haven't got one). Some headaches when config files change too much, or when evaluating a dist-upgrade vs an upgrade to get rid of some obsolete stuff, of course.

Re:Great! (1)

kwark (512736) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782552)

Debian/amd64 unstable is the first unstable that really IS unstable.
I have some issues with python stuff (Xen refused to work, apt-proxy is running but unusable and maybe more).

But since the machine is usable I haven't taken the time to investigate and submit bugreports (shame on me).

Very good news! (3, Interesting)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781906)

This is great news! I do contracting work for Maas Digital [maasdigital.com] , and we have a 30-CPU renderfarm running a weird combination of Debian-32 and Red Hat 64 bit binary overlays. This should simplify things immensely!

At my other job (lylix.net [lylix.net] ), we had to move away from Debian to Gentoo for this reason (among others), so it's good to see it finally being

Re:Very good news! (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781987)

You know they've *had* 64bit support for quite a long time, this is just an announcement of it going into the stable branch.

Re:Very good news! (1)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782017)

I've never seen the point of using Debian Unstable - you get none of the reliability guarantees of Debian Stable, and it's not as current as Ubuntu. To each his own, I guess.

Re:Very good news! (4, Interesting)

Celandine (610250) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782176)

I'm running AMD64 Debian stable, like many other people. Just google for AMD64 sarge.

Re:Very good news! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782221)

Don't run Debian unstable. Run Debian testing instead. Debian testing is very stable and is as current as Ubuntu. In practice, you will probably have less bad surprises with Debian testing than with Ubuntu with universe + multiverse enabled. I am running several servers on Debian testing (i386 and AMD64) and I never had any problems with it. I also tried Debian unstable for a while, but went back to testing quickly because it was not stable enough.

Re:Very good news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782279)

Well, in the WAYBACK times..... we didn't even know what Ubuntu was! Debian Stable was all we had.... AND WE LIKED IT!

Good for learning (3, Interesting)

canadiangoose (606308) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782408)

I run Debian unstable on my home computers and Debian stable on my servers. That way I get lots of experience reparing debian, while having very reliable servers. It works quite well, in that every time another stable release is made, I already know the ins and outs of it and I'm ready to fix it in the freak chance that it would break.

Re:Very good news! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782391)

I've been running 64-bit Debian on the AMD64
since March. The guy who wrote this story appears
to be unaware of facts.

Re:Very good news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782576)

Anything going into the stable branch is news-worthy when it comes to Debian.

Kind of sad when you think about it.

GNU/Linux 4.0 (-1, Flamebait)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781912)

Now that's a progress! After Linux 7.0 and Linux 10.0 we finally can expect GNU/Linux 4.0. Congratulations to whole Debian Team for great improvement in Linux (cough! GNU/Linux) versions numbering.

Re:GNU/Linux 4.0 (0, Troll)

markybob (802458) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782111)

you dumbass. you have no idea what you're talking about, so why dont you just shut the fuck up?

Re:GNU/Linux 4.0 (1)

osee (944334) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782134)

You are confused.
Please note the difference between different distributions version numbering.

There is no such thing as Linux (7|10).0. Those should have been Suse Linux 10.0 or something similar.

Debian is totally free to numbers its releases as it likes. Just as Redhat, Sun, Novell, MS or anyone else for that matter.

"Natively on AMD64"? (1, Troll)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781915)

What does this mean, exactly? x86-64 support? How will the distro run on Intel chips that support EM64T?

Re:"Natively on AMD64"? (1)

devhen (593554) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781967)

This is what I'm wondering. Does this mean you can run 32-bit video plugins in Firefox on a 64-bit system?! If so, I can't wait for the next rel. of Ubuntu! W00T :)

Re:"Natively on AMD64"? (1)

El_Isma (979791) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782110)

Nothing has changed... This announcement just means that AMD64 will become/is a officially supported Debian arch. 32bit plugins still require 32bit browsers.

Re:"Natively on AMD64"? (2, Informative)

El_Isma (979791) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782101)

I believe Debian refers to "AMD64" because they (AMD) invented the technology, some work to port Debian into AMD64 began and then (much later) Intel released EM64T... So the name stuck. The official name should be x86_64.

Obligatory joke (0, Redundant)

stigmato (843667) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781921)

I for one, welcome out 64bit Etch overlords... provided they can overtake Red Hat and company.

GNU/Linux 4.0 ? (3, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781925)

Stupid question: What does the 4.0 mean?

Re:GNU/Linux 4.0 ? (4, Informative)

uhoreg (583723) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781956)

It means that the person who wrote the story doesn't know what he's talking about. It's "Debian GNU/Linux 4.0" (or "Debian 4.0") -- 4.0 is the version of the Debian release, and not the Linux release.

2.6.17 from boot onwards (4, Informative)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781926)

More to the point it will be using 2.6.17 as the boot kernel. In other words, transparent support for SATA chipsets and (therefore) the ability to create a bootable raid set straight from the iso.

It might not sound like a big deal, but it's the only reason I'm using etch right now.


Re:2.6.17 from boot onwards (1)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782160)

Don't forget 2.6.17 added Secure Digital Host Controller Interface drivers. I've been waiting for the built in card reader in my laptop to have some out of the box support.

Although I'll still be waiting for the fingerprint scanner and PAM biometric modules to be added as an install time option in a major distro.... Baby Steps...

Short article + "usbit to slashdot" -link... (3, Insightful)

Depili (749436) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781944)

The slashdot summary is almost the whole article text from a ad-ridden page.

And nothing screams "hey, we want your traffic for free!" more than the submit to digg and submit to slashdot links bellow the small article...

Old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15781946)

Debian has unofficially supported native AMD64 64bit mode
for months. It didn't make it to the previous
official release (3.0?) although it was already usable by then.

Some catching up... (1, Insightful)

bubbl07 (777082) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781948)

Although it's great that Debian's finally on the x86_64 bandwagon, it's a bit delayed. They've lost a lot of share to other distros that have been able to adapt to 64-bit computing such as SuSE, RedHat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc. Coming from an era in which Debian was one of the top three distros, it'd be a pretty impressive testament to the Debian community if they can resurrect it to near its former glory.

Re:Some catching up... (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781997)

Guess where Ubuntu got their 64-bit stuff from? Oh yea, Debian Unstable. This announcement is simply saying that the 64-bit stuff is moving into the stable tree. This isn't a "Debian now supports 64-bit!", it's a "Debian has supported pure 64-bit for quite a long time and now we're saying its ready for the stable branch"

Re:Some catching up... (2, Insightful)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782040)

They've lost a lot of share to other distros that have been able to adapt to 64-bit computing such as SuSE, RedHat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc.

Got any data to back up that claim? amd64 support barely missed the sarge release; People were using it then, not to mention that Debian has had support for "64-bit computing" for ages (e.g. alpha, ia64), just not the amd64 architecture.

Ubuntu IS Debian, don't forget that. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782128)

Debian has a Sarge (current stable) version that runs on x86-64 natively. It's just not a official port. AMD64 wasn't around long enough to make it.

Ubuntu is Debian, basicly. It's based on Debian, but more importantly it's basicly a snapshot of Debian Unstable (aka Sid) with latest Gnome packages and some Ubuntu add ons.

You know how when you enable 'universe' and 'multiverse' repositories those are all almost pure Debian packages recompiled for Ubuntu.

People here on Slashdot.org who come out of the woodwork every time Debian is mentioned and say ignorant crap like how Ubuntu is 'stealing' Debian's 'market group' just don't realy know what they are talking about.

This is the POINT of Debian. This is why there is such a paranoid licensing review and such. It's designed specificly for other people to use it for their own purposes without those other people having to worry about covering their asses legally.

Ubuntu and Debian are very mutually benificial. Without Debian Ubuntu wouldn't be able to spend all that time working on supporting users and providing polish.. and without Ubuntu there wouldn't be all this neat new stuff being ported back into it.

It's time we got past that A vs B attitude and grow up a little bit.

Re:Some catching up... (2, Insightful)

Tyln Sylverwind (991098) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782579)

First off, no shares were harmed in the process this advent.

Debian has always been able to run on these 32-bit compatible AMD processors. Even the primary benefit of being able to use a 64-bit kernel was already there. Hell, Debian Stable has even been able to run 64-bit applications with the installation of appropriate 64-bit library packages!

The announcement is that Debian Stable will now be able to fully operate in the native 64-bit architecture, meaning that no 32-bit code will be used. This is great news for progress into the 64-bit era, but means very little in terms of business application.

Second, always remember that most distributions par-up to Debian Unstable; They have the same number of "experimental" features, and about the same packaging stability. Debian Unsable has had an x86_64 branch for quite some time now. So no, Debian was hardly behind on this wagon.

I've been running it for 2 years now. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15781952)

I've been running Debian on an AMD 64bit notebook from Fujitsu (the FMV-BIBLO NB80JN) since about a week after the notebook was released (more than 2 years ago). It was crummy at first, plenty of odd software that didn't really run well or at all, but now the only things that don't run in 64 bit mode are the software that doesn't run in 64 bit mode on any system, like OpenOffice and Wine. To tell the truth I haven't attempted to use OO.o and Wine on this box for well over a year, so that may be different as well. So I suspect Debian has supported AMD64 for quite a bit now, they are just now happy enough with the support level they are making an "official" release.

Re:I've been running it for 2 years now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782354)

Actually, there is 64-bit openoffice. Actually an ubuntu development passed back to debian, I believe.

http://openoffice.debian.net/ [debian.net]

No, Sarge supports AMD64 (4, Interesting)

Mr.Ned (79679) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781954)

http://www.debian.org/News/2005/20050811 [debian.org]

Although Sarge (the current Debian stable) was not released with AMD64 support, it was added as an official, fully-supported architecture two months after the release -- way back in August of last year. TechWorld didn't read the recent news announcment correctly.

Re:No, Sarge supports AMD64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782016)

August of last year, huh? Wow. That's something to brag about. Only being two years behind the time is a GREAT thing!

Do we even care about Debian anymore? (-1, Flamebait)

mcc (14761) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781955)

Debian has gone from one of the most vibrant and important Linux distributions to something that basically only gets in the news when it's running late on something. Once upon a time it offered us a choice between cutting edge unstable and super-solid stable; now even the unstable is year[s] behind even relatively mainstream competing distributions, and the stable version is only free of bugs in the same sense that corpses don't get diseases (i.e.: you have to pretend rigor mortis and maggots don't count).

At what point do we just give up on Debian?

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15781971)

Debian is fine. It doesn't need you to give up or not give up on it.

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (4, Informative)

diaphanous (1806) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782037)

now even the unstable is year[s] behind even relatively mainstream competing distributions
I'm not sure how you can claim this. I run Debian Unstable on my desktop and all the packages I am familiar with are within one minor version number of the lastest upstream version.

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (4, Insightful)

hritcu (871613) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782054)

Parent will burn some Karma, so I'll join.

What he says is totally true. I have the pleasure to be a student in a university that uses Debian Obsolete ... ar Stable. The packages are all so old (3 or 4 years at least) that many of them are no longer usable. And I'm not talking about ... vim ... for vim it does not make a difference. I'm talking about thinks like OpenOffice 1.1.3 ... that does not even support ODF so I cannot even open my documents made years ago. The same thing holds for a lot of programs (things like browsers, instant messagers, gnuplot, many kde programs, etc.). So what I (and lots of my collegues) do is to install the new versions from source in my home directory. And because all libraries are very old ... ar. stable my home directory has about 3GB now. I would even use a Live DVD of some decent distribution if I was allowed to do so.

So Debian planning to catch up a little is great news. However, many of you don't realize how far behind they are.

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (2, Interesting)

osee (944334) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782159)

I am perfectly happy with Debian stable on my 60+ _SERVERS_. That's the important thing. Both of my 2 desktops run SID. It's simply not a desktop oriented distro. But it excels in server space. Besides backports are available. Not to mention, that netcraft would be able to detect about 1 of my 60+ servers as debian. Since I disable all such info leaks on important boxes.

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (1)

nicolas.b (990744) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782199)

Man, RHEL for the servers is just years ahead. They release more often, so when you buy modern hardware you don't have to tweak too much the distrib, AND they release bugfix and security patches for 7 years. So, with RHEL you have the choice to use a MODERN distribution that's just as stable as the debian obsolete. You can't have it all. Debian is a distro for hobbyists, made by hobbyists, not professionnals.

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (1)

osee (944334) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782230)

Which of course costs a shitload of money and is full of solutions I hate... I had been using RHAS in the past, and I hated every bit of it. At the time it was barely operable on Proliant G2s. We had Redhat engineers working on the driver bugs that got triggered by heavy load. So a distribution is a matter of personal preference. Not "professionalism". Thank you for putting me in a category (hobbyist, whatever that is.). As I said before I love generalizations. But hey, you've had your say.

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782194)

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (1)

hritcu (871613) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782256)

Not very helpful if I don't have permissions on the main tree, is it ?

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (1)

thomasweber (757387) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782571)

So why do you blame the unwillingness of your administrators onto Debian?
backports.org provides packages for the stable release by Debian Developers. What more do you want? Shall they come to your university and hold your administrator's hands during the update?

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (2, Insightful)

Zyprexia (988133) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782344)

Well, I think that you forget Debian in mostly installed on production (server) environments. Because Debian don't provide cutting-egde packages they ARE stable. On a production environment I don't want to update for example from MySQL 4.1 to 5.0. Any idea what problems and bugs such an upgrade could cause?

Ofcourse you can run Debian on your desktop, but I'm not sure whether that is the main target of an Debian distribution. Many spin-offs of Debian fillful that task.

Another benefit of not running the lastest versions is most bugs are already solved. Debian chooses a version of package for it release and stays there. Only security updates are provided.

BTW: If you really want to run some cutting-edge software on Debian Sarge, you might want to check out the http://backports.org/ [backports.org] website that provide more recent versions of software build for the Sarge distribution.

Re:Do we even care about Debian anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782438)

If your uni ran Windows 2000, would that be Microsoft's fault? OS9 Apple's fault?

May be they're running Debian stable because although you might love dicking around with endless cvs updates and broken lib dependencies, your sysad prefers to go home at the end of the day.

Sweet (0, Redundant)

Achilles2.0 (953325) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781957)

Excellent, great to see such a great server distro getting even more support ^^ Anything to lure people away from the evils of the Microsoft Server edition.

Re:Sweet (1)

bubbl07 (777082) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782022)

I think regardless of how we see this (a late-bloomer, a formality of shifting from unstable to stable, etc.), we can all agree that this only adds to the already competitive market and, hopefully, can detract some of that market away from MS Server.

Biarch support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15781973)

Does this mean that apt-get will support two architectures on the same system (32 bit and 64 bit)? Or, will the user only be able access 64 bit repos on a 64 bit machine?

AMD64 runs linux. (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 7 years ago | (#15781974)

I guess the submitter of the article didn't know that the people who ask the "does it run linux?"-question are actually joking...

How comes I'm running Debian native on AMD64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782004)

Since well over a year...?

gluon:~# uname -a
Linux gluon 2.6.14 #4 Mon Oct 31 16:19:12 CET 2005 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Re:How comes I'm running Debian native on AMD64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782163)

I really hope for you that's a rethorical question...

For people complaining about how Debian is "late" (1)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782008)

My main machine at home is an AMD-64 machine running Debian unstable. Debian has been running on AMD-64 for some time now, but there's never been an official release with it as yet.

The mailing list for the AMD-64 port was created on May 25, 2003.

The Other Way Round (1)

b1ufox (987621) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782074)

I wish it read "AMD's ATI cards to run Linux seamlessly(better than Nvidia offcourse)"...

Now AMD should try returning the Debian favour :)..

apt-get arch-upgrade? (5, Interesting)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782118)

Running Debian/Sarge for i386 architecture on an AMD64 machine I wonder which steps I need to do if I want to change to AMD64 architecture with the new stable release in December. I guess apt won't have the arch-update command, but does it mean "reinstallation" or is there some smart strategy to migrate from i386 to x86_64?

Re:apt-get arch-upgrade? (2, Informative)

fluch (126140) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782210)

Try this (just a rough idea): 1) tar /etc together. 2) get the list off all installed packages with "dpkg --get-selection" 3) Make a fresh but basic amd64 architecture install 4) "dpkg --set-selections" 5) tell the system to install those packages (I guess it was "apt-get dselect-upgrade" or something like this) 6) overwrite /etc with the original content 7) fix any minor issue. 8) profit?
You seem to have a fast processor, so it shouldn't take long time.
I hope you have your /home directory on a seperate partition, that makes things a lot easier. :-)
I have moved my system a few times from one harddrive to another using this procedure and it worked quite well.
And don't forget: 0) backup your data before beginning (but I guess to mention this on slashdot gets moderated "-1 redundant" ;-)

Re:apt-get arch-upgrade? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15782218)

You have to reinstall but that can be done quite easily (make a backup though):
- save the output of dpkg --get-selections
- save the output of debconf-get-selections
- save the important parts of /etc you want to keep
- save other directories (e.g. /home, parts of /var, etc)
- do a minimal amd64 install
- restore the saved parts of /etc, /home, /var and others
- debconf-set-selections saved.debconf-get-selections
- dpkg --set-selections saved.dpkg-get-selections
- apt-get dselect-upgrade

You might need to do some more minor tweaking and be sure to read the release notes though.

I might be on something... (2, Informative)

paulmer2003 (922657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782138)

But wasent this mensioned in the previous article annoncing next version of Debian?
The Debian project confirms December 2006 as the date for the next release of its distribution [CC] which will be named Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 alias 'etch'. This will be the first official release to include the AMD64 architecture.
dark-br writes to tell us TechWorld is reporting that the next Debian release will be able to run native on AMD64 [CC] processors for the first time. From the article: "The GNU/Linux 4.0 operating system, also known as "Etch," is planned for release in December, the group said. It will also have new security features, including encryption and digital signatures to ensure that downloaded packages are validated."
re-fucking-dundant. Come on slashdot editors. I love this site, but im sick of dupe posts. Pay more attention please.

That's good to know... (1)

Goonie (8651) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782150)

Seeing I've been running it on my AMD64 system for what seems like an eternity... :)

Re:That's good to know... (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782563)

BTW, how does Debian AMD64? Is it all 64bit system? Or with "sandbox" for 32bit applications? There is this nasty problem with binary packages some users love too much: Java, Flash plugin.

Debian is for crazy people. (-1, Troll)

Ivan Matveitch (748164) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782157)

Ubuntu is easy, Gentoo is flexible. Debian manages to give you the opposite.

Re:Debian is for crazy people. (1)

osee (944334) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782197)

Debian is well structured and manageable. Ideal for medium scale server deployments. It's not a desktop OS. It wasn't intended to be. Ubuntu was. I love blind generalizations. I am not crazy and I am using Debian on a lot of servers and 2 desktops. I am actually pretty stable. Up until the point someone starts bugging my fav distro. Then I go BERSERK.

Debian ports (2, Informative)

xsuchy (963813) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782283)

Do you know, that Debian has 8 ports (additionally to 10 main official ports), which has not been released officially, because they have compiled only e.g. 90% of packages (from 15 000 packages). You usually do not need any package from missing 10 %.

Re:Debian ports (1)

anno1a (575426) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782591)

Except, of course, that often the missing 10% are useless things like openoffice, which can be quite annoying programs to be missing.

Sigh (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782349)

The summary is wrong. It's not misleading, or sensationalist, or vague - just plain wrong.

It's wrong in such a way that it causes half the comments to be explanations of why it's wrong (the other half are about how the poster dumped Debian long ago, and no one cool uses it anyway, and how they love Ubuntu/Gentoo/Vista/MacOS 9 etc., and besides Debian is teh sux).

I mean, what the fuck, ScuttleMonkey?

Not a big deal (4, Interesting)

Rorian (88503) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782384)

First, this is just an announcement that 64bit support will be included in a stable branch, and secondly.. how many people truly benefit from 64bit?

Not to be negative, but I'm yet to see any benchmarks showing a marked improvement (for general PC usage) from going 32bit to 64bit. All it really does is let you use more RAM (REALLY not useful for the average desktop user at this time) and perform 64 bit calculations natively (really only useful for scientific applications, certainly useless for desktop users 99.99% of the time).

On the downside, binaries become larger (64bit addresses instead of 32bit) and old binaries may have to be emulated (if using a 64bit-only CPU).

Still, I guess it'll excite some desktop users, wanting the "full functionality" from their brand new 64bit dual-core system. Personally, I only went to a x86-64 chip recently because it was the best price/performance chip I could find - 64bit processing had and continues to have no positive influence on my computing experience.

P.S. Sorry to be so negative, but I'm sick of hearing all this phwoar! stuff about 64bit, when it really isn't that exciting. Guess I haven't had my morning coffee yet..

O'RLY. amd64 support already? (0, Troll)

2fakeu (443153) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782411)

now that was fast. i thought debian would need another 10 years to hop on that wagon... well at least on the rails, if they are not withered away already. i mean wtf is wrong with debian and those friggin sysadmins using it? on my university, they are using debian for years. i don't mind if i have to use firefox 1.0.8 instead of 1.5, but 1.0.4? eclipse 2.x? heck i'm trying to get some WORK done there too from time to time. for me, one of the strengths of open source is it's rapid development and even though my love for the bleeding edge caused me some serious cuts, there's a always a golden cut, which should make it on the work horses of the working men's desk, but try to argue against security with a sysadmin.

debian clusters (2, Interesting)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782527)

I've been running a debian MPI cluster for, ooh, two years now.

Ok, it wasn't simple getting everything to work, as it wasn't in the stable release, but I got there in the end.

In all that time it hasn't had any problems, nd only needed rebooting when the mchines were moved once.

64-bit Debian != 64-bit Fedora (5, Informative)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782532)

Many "64-bit" GNU/Linux distributions are actually partly-32-bit. There are directories /lib and /lib64 {with analogues in /usr and /usr/local} for 32- and 64-bit libraries. An application may be compiled as 32-bit and use the 32-bit libraries in /lib, or as 64-bit and use the 64-bit libraries in /lib64. You can tell whether a binary is 32- or 64-bit by doing ldd on it; if the hex numbers are 16 digits long, then it is 64-bit.

Debian 64-bit is designed from the outset with all 64-bit libraries. /lib64 is just a symbolic link to /lib. This is both Pure and Beautiful. If you want to run 32-bit software, the recommended method is to set up a chroot environment in which to do so. The thinking is simple: software which is "i-tal" can just be recompiled 64-bit native {except OpenOffice, which demonstrates some very dubious programming techniques based around the assumption that the word length and addressing space are exactly 32 bits. OpenOffice of course began life as StarOffice, a closed-source project, and shows just what sort of bad code people will write if they don't expect anyone else ever to see it. Apparently, removal of "embarrassing" code was what delayed OpenSolaris for so long, and look what they left in! How naïve would one have to be to believe that "choosing a suitable licence" is what's really holding up OpenJava?} and software which isn't "i-tal" can go and fuck itself.

Ubuntu have just added 32-bit libraries, to enable 32-bit applications such as OpenOffice to run. I believe they are also using a 32-bit Firefox, to allow non-free plugins such as Flash to work. It's neither Pure nor Beautiful, but it gets half the job done. Personally, I'd like to see Ubuntu play a bit faster and a bit looser with some of the closed-source stuff: maybe actually reverse-engineer it for the benefit of the whole community, rather than just kowtow to obnoxious licence agreements.

Re:64-bit Debian != 64-bit Fedora (2, Informative)

greyc (709363) | more than 7 years ago | (#15782588)

You can tell whether a binary is 32- or 64-bit by doing ldd on it; if the hex numbers are 16 digits long, then it is 64-bit.
Or you could just use any half-recent version of file(1):

$ file /bin/cat
/bin/cat: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.0, stripped
$ file /chroot/deb32/bin/cat
/chroot/deb32/bin/cat: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.2.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.2.0, stripped
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