Debian 5.0 released [LWN.net]

Thank you and congratulations

Posted Feb 15, 2009 21:44 UTC (Sun) by dato (subscriber, #30206) [Link]

Hello,

I don't think we're going to do yearly releases in the foreseeable
future. However, it is our intention to do one of these "Lenny and a
half" releases, as it was done for Etch, that includes normal point
release stuff, *plus* kernel/drivers updates to support new hardware.

I think that's a reasonable compromise for now.

Thank you and congratulations

Posted Feb 15, 2009 22:03 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

That is fine then. Keep it up! World domination is a few releases away.

Thank you and congratulations

Posted Feb 15, 2009 23:53 UTC (Sun) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

I think you meant that as a joke, but let's just give that a more "serious" thought.

For the sake of argument:
More and more governments want to use Open Source. The most sensible thing to do is to use already existing projects that are not tied to companies. So Debian would be (IMHO) the most sensible choice and indeed the German government already uses Debian. So Debian already has a good standing in the EU (biggest market there is). From there it could easily spread to other countries. Debians meritocracy/Do-ocracy nature will help them in the long run. Everybody can integrate Debian and integrate themself into the Debian structure.

I think the next 10 years will be very interesting. At first we will see lots of .gov Distros (Nova, Pradus, Debian etc.), but they will consolidate at some point. That is just the way those things always work.

PS. Great release! And Congrats of course!

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 10:37 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Debian releases are notorious by it's "obsolete on arrival" hardware support. Anykernel older than half-year should be considered obsoleted in today's world. Yet when Debian Lenny is released it carries seven months old kernel! Without alternative! Heck: Ubuntu offered newer kernel three months ago... DOA as usual... But pretty much what I've learned to expect from Debian...

And if this plan of yearly updates will be implemented then Debian will offer user 1.5 years old kernel... Not a good idea...

If Debian wants to be seriously considered by OEMs they need releases with some newer kernels! May be not in stable line but in some "OEM- support" line - where you have "not-quite-100% stable" DVD and additional repository which bring hardware support to the par with other distributions...

I can use somewhat obsolete software (most bleeding edge software are not very usable as KDE4 fiasco shown), but I can not use distribution if it does not work with my hardware!

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 11:15 UTC (Mon) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link]

It's called testing, and is about as stable as any other distribution out
there. From http://debian.org/releases/

"The testing distribution contains packages that haven't been accepted into
a stable release yet, but they are in the queue for that. The main
advantage of using this distribution is that it has more recent versions of
software."

If you want bleeding edge, use a bleeding edge distribution, like
archlinux.org, which works usually great and has *daily* "releases".

Where can I download testing live CD?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 12:43 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It's called testing, and is about as stable as any other distribution out there.

Pehaps I'm unfamiliar with web-site layout but I can not find image of "testing" LiveDVD. If the distribution installer DVD does not support my network card then what good does some repository for me? That's why kernel is special.

If you want bleeding edge, use a bleeding edge distribution, like archlinux.org, which works usually great and has *daily* "releases".

I don't need bleeding edge software. I do need stable distribution - but I need usable and, more important, installable distribution... Ubuntu is less stable but at least I can install and use it...

Where can I download testing live CD?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 19:41 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

To try out Debian testing: always this page. Latest is squeeze. I don't know if there are live images, never cared about them too much.

I do need stable distribution - but I need usable and, more important, installable distribution...

If your hardware needs are so special why not compile and run your own kernel? Debian offers an excellent toolset for the job: you can compile your bleeding-edge kernel, generate your Debian package and install it. It has worked just fine for me when I needed a special configuration not provided by the distro, I'm fairly sure the toolchain works with a later kernel. Otherwise just bring your own kernel to the party. Now if you tell me that you cannot get to the point where you can compile a kernel, or don't want to bother, then I'm afraid we are out of luck.

Where can I download testing live CD?

Posted Feb 17, 2009 12:18 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

Check out sidux. It's Debian "unstable" with quarterly install disks.

Where can I download testing live CD?

Posted Feb 17, 2009 12:22 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

I replied in the wrong place below..... But check out sidux. Debian "unstable" with install disks.

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 12:40 UTC (Mon) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

No, but your comment looks like one.

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 13:37 UTC (Mon) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link]

Debian stable releases are, first and foremost, about stability. The kernel devs don't support their releases for long; two months after it's out, they drop it forever and never touch it again. This is great fun for programmers, but it's very difficult on people who have to trust their machines.

It takes at least several months to really shake a kernel out, and some releases have taken years. When you're running Debian, you can be reasonably sure your kernel is fairly well-debugged. It may not have all the chrome of this month's model, but it probably won't lose parts when you drive it off the lot.

You may prefer the chrome; that's fine. Run Unstable. That version of Debian is pretty darn bleeding-edge, and you will frequently cut yourself. "Testing" is usually both fairly current and quite solid, more like what most other distros release. But Stable? That's what you get after 18 months or two years of beating on Testing. So of course it's a little out of date. That's how long it takes to evolve to trustworthy status.

The Debian team, as fractured and political as it can get sometimes, has a real passion for quality. When they call a release done, it's pretty well cooked. It takes them longer than pretty much any other distro, but it also means a lot more when they finally do release.

Sadly I was never able to watch this famed stability...

Posted Feb 16, 2009 15:14 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It takes at least several months to really shake a kernel out, and some releases have taken years. When you're running Debian, you can be reasonably sure your kernel is fairly well-debugged. It may not have all the chrome of this month's model, but it probably won't lose parts when you drive it off the lot.

Not when you're running Debian, but if you are running Debian. I've tried Debian few times in the past and never managed to even start with the beast: some thing or anyther always had no drivers in this distro (while RedHat, SUSE, or, recently, Ubuntu supported my systems just fine). I can not reach the fabled land of "both fairly current and quite solid" testing version because often it had problems with something vital: HDD, network or video. And, sadly, this trend continues with Lenny.

It does not matter how tested and bug-free your system is if you can not even use it...

P.S. Granted: this usually happens when I buy new system and consider distribution for it - but why else will I change perfectly working configuration?

Sadly I was never able to watch this famed stability...

Posted Feb 16, 2009 15:28 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

if you buy your hardware and then go looking for what can run on it, you are going to have significant problems running linux at all, let along the more tested distros (Debian, RedHat Enterprise, etc)

I think that it's unfortunante that Debian ended up using 2.6.26 instead of 2.6.27, but only becouse 2.6.27 is a long-term supported release that is going to be getting updates (not driver updates, but other fixes) for an extended timeframe. there were also an unusually large number of new hardware (especially around wifi) that got added to 2.6.27.

that said, I almost never run a distro kernel anyway, so it doesn't bother me _that_ much ;-)

Sadly I was never able to watch this famed stability...

Posted Feb 20, 2009 7:17 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

You know, that used to be the case, but one of the main selling-points of the moder updated distributions is that it's less and less the case.

Yes, sure, you can still get unlucky. And even if you're not "unlucky" it may well be that some feature of your new hardware isn't supported completely.

Still, the last few years I've several times installed ubuntu on bog-standard new laptops, not spesifically bought for ubuntu or investigated for ubuntu, and nevertheless had them "just work", right out of the box. No tweaking needed, no extra drivers or changing to "unstable" or anything of the sort needed.

Insert Live-cd (good way of testing driver-support), wait for 2-3 minutes, test hardware, everything works.

Notice, I've used Linux since I once installed Slackware from a set of floppies, running the 1.2.13 kernel. I've compiled my own kernel hundreds of times, and am familiar with atleast a dozen distributions. I don't have a problem dealing with needing a custom install-kernel or running unstable.

But get this: I also have no DESIRE to do so. When there's a choice not to, and instead use the laptop for what I bought it for, I know what my choice is gonna be.

For beginners, the choice is even more obvious. Given a choice between "Debian would work with your hardware, if you would just X, Y and Z" on the one hand and "Ubuntu works with your hardware." on the other hand, it's not even really a choice, for most beginners.

Sadly I was never able to watch this famed stability...

Posted Feb 20, 2009 8:02 UTC (Fri) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link]

Debian stability is of a grade most attractive to system administrators. It's all-caps STABILITY, which can also be construed as 'BORING' for people whose lives or careers aren't dependent on their hardware working. Me, I love boring. Boring means it hasn't broken yet. :)

For end-users, Ubuntu is often a better choice. It's closer to the Windows model of features over stability. I mean no disrespect toward Ubuntu in that statement, but it clearly is focused first and foremost on features and usability, with stability being whatever they can provide given the first two.

Debian is more for people providing computing services to others, whether personally or professionally. If you want to be very confident about the quality of the server you install, and want to be able to administer it remotely and upgrade it smoothly, Debian stable is probably the single best Linux distro available.

For your average user, if his or her desktop crashes, it's annoying, but usually not life- or career-threatening. Users don't need the paranoia that sysadmins do, and trading away testing and shakeout time for broader hardware support is often a sensible choice. And you can always drop back to an LTS version if want something that's attractive and tested reasonably well, but can still drive fairly recent hardware.

Ubuntu is, basically, shiny Debian without much testing, and it makes a better desktop for most.

Sadly I was never able to watch this famed stability...

Posted Feb 20, 2009 11:15 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Sure. But my point is, there's a fundamental difference between hardware, primarily in the form of the kernel, and userspace-programs.

If Apache is from last century, and we're running KDE 3.* alongside Python 2.4, that's okay. Assuming it's really more stable, there's many people who'd be perfectly fine with that. Not only on the server, but on a laptop too.

My father, for example. It's much more important to him that things consistently work, and stat working for a long time, rather than new shiny features.

But, hardware is different. A more stable, well-tested kernel that FAILS to actually WORK AT ALL on my hardware isn't an alternative. *EVEN* if I highly value stability over new bleeding-edge features.

Thus, the result is that many people who WOULD like a stable and "boring" distro, nevertheless are forced away from Debian. Because they insert the Debian-DVD, and up comes a blank-screen, or a non-working wireless, or a non-working audio, or a non-working integrated web-camera or whatever.

Yes, they can avoid this by spesifically looking for an ancient-kernel-compatible laptop. But it's not that easy.

Sadly I was never able to watch this famed stability...

Posted Feb 20, 2009 14:45 UTC (Fri) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link]

But, hardware is different. A more stable, well-tested kernel that FAILS to actually WORK AT ALL on my hardware isn't an alternative. *EVEN* if I highly value stability over new bleeding-edge features.

I totally hear you. Maybe the Debian guys will too; they could possibly include a linux-experimental tree (probably just pulled from Testing) in an otherwise-Stable distribution. Or, I suppose some other entity could do a boot CD of Debian Stable + the kernel from Testing or Unstable. But they'd have to maintain a separate repository for kernel updates, or else your shiny new system would probably fail after the first kernel patch in the Stable tree. It'd be an ongoing project, not just a one-off thing, and you could potentially run into some real snarls with dependencies from Testing also needing a backport. Sometimes, pulling a Testing kernel back to Stable can be pretty painful.

I don't speak for Debian, but as an outsider, it seems like people with cutting-edge hardware just aren't the target market. It feels to me that their goal is serving people who value stability enough to custom-choose their hardware to get it. To a professional-level mindset, you pick your software FIRST, and then you get the hardware that best suits your performance and budget needs. You don't buy your software to go with your hardware; that's buying a suit to match a tie. The software's the important bit; the hardware is just the method of getting the software to the place you want it.

If you're buying whatever's on sale at Best Buy, a super-reliable distro probably isn't what you want anyway, since the hardware on those machines tends to be so awful. The risk of hardware failure is so high that the increased reliability in using Debian over Ubuntu will be largely irrelevant.

Honestly, it's not like Ubuntu is terrible, you know. It's pretty solid. You're probably not going to run into any serious bugs that will mess you up, and they seem pretty responsive to problem reports, if you do a good one.

I guess... Debian is for people who fear system failure, and plan accordingly. If you're not actively afraid of what will happen if your computer crashes, Ubuntu's probably fine.

Sadly I was never able to watch this famed stability...

Posted Feb 20, 2009 15:08 UTC (Fri) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link]

One other thought, a thing I really didn't touch on: you say your father prefers stability over anything else, but Debian really _can't_ provide both stability and brand new kernels. The kernel dev process is completely borked from a stability-lover's perspective; the two-month cycle times, with vast numbers of new features going in every sixty days, is completely antithetical to anything resembling a truly trustworthy or secure machine.

That dev cycle has put me through hell. I used to track linux.org kernels, but I haven't for years now, because they're such a mess. Their focus on features features features has cost me hundreds of personal dollars in replaced hardware that didn't need replacing, and uncounted hours dealing with server crashes.

I just don't see any way that Debian can both provide stability AND anything resembling a current kernel, because stability means 'no new features'. But the kernel team refuses to ever let anything shake out, and they don't backport much of anything.

I don't think you should be blaming the Debian team for this. I think they do an amazing job of extracting user-level stability from a programmer-oriented wankfest. Their inability to provide a stable kernel with recent hardware support is a problem with the kernel team, not the distro.

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 14:25 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

Do not use new hardwares if you want a stable system. New hardwares do not
have stable and well-tested drivers.

There is no much point to install a stable distribution if you do not get a
stable system afterward.

Why should I use obsolete hardware?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 15:05 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Do not use new hardwares if you want a stable system. New hardwares do not have stable and well-tested drivers.

With Debian you often don't have any drivers at all. Basically the story goes like this: I'm buying system for 2-3 years. Of course when I buy it I prefer to use most recent hardware (it increases longevity of the system). And yes, I do know hardware support will be flacky for a time. But when I find out that both Ubuntu and Fedora support my ThinkPad T500 just fine while brand-spanking-new Debian does not (and there are no promises about support in near future and I not even with "I know what I'm doing" option) it's just indescribable...

Why should I use obsolete hardware?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 15:15 UTC (Mon) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]

This is more a consequence of the kernel developer's policy of tying drivers to kernel versions, so that you can't use new drivers with old kernels without lots of (dangerous) backporting work. Debian understandably want to offer well-tested kernels, and due to this policy they can't offer more recent drivers for hardware which has no others available.

Note that this comment is not intended to condone or to condemn this policy, merely to draw the connection with Debian's hardware support.

Why should I use obsolete hardware?

Posted Feb 18, 2009 21:18 UTC (Wed) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]

Yeah. But Debian is, for all practical purposes, incapable of changing how the kernel development cycle happens.

It would be like building a roof, that leaks, and then telling your customers "Hey, I don't control the universe, I didn't make it rain."

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 16, 2009 15:52 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

Debian releases are notorious by it's "obsolete on arrival" hardware support.

You must run very strange hardware. I run Debian on around 20+ systems of various hardware heritage and haven't yet encountered anything for which Debian (even Etch) has lacked a driver. Sounds like a troll to me.

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 17, 2009 14:46 UTC (Tue) by riteshsarraf (subscriber, #11138) [Link]

You don't seem to have done your homework on support model.

RHEL5 (Red Hat's latest Linux offering) - 2.6.18
SLES10 (Novell's late offering) - 2.6.16
SLES11 (Novell's latest offering) - 2.6.27 ?? (I'm not sure)

Now please don't say that you'd want to compare Debian Stable Point
Releases to Fedora.

Yearly driver updates? Is this a joke?

Posted Feb 17, 2009 16:43 UTC (Tue) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]

I see an easy solution to the problem. Debian should offer two kernel images, one which is stable as they mean it, and another that is as new as possible and updated regularly. Call it "alternative" kernel, and encourage people not to use it if the regular image works for them.

Thank you and congratulations

Posted Feb 15, 2009 21:48 UTC (Sun) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link]

Indeed, many thanks to the Debian folks for releasing another version of a quality distribution. Personally, I think a 18-24 month release schedule is fine, as long as there are option kernel + X.org upgrades (like etch and a half) and a backports repository.

Thank you and congratulations

Posted Feb 16, 2009 3:45 UTC (Mon) by tdwebste (guest, #18154) [Link]

I am very happy that debian puts so much effort into ensuring well tested package upgrades. Debian is my preferred release, simply because I know I can come back to an untouched computer after 2 or 3 years and upgrade it. This is important because many end users are afraid to touch their linux server.