LWN: Comments on "Debian sarge release update"

Debian sarge release update

nix — 2005-06-02T11:11:15+00:00

'95 had substantial changes over 3.x, actually: the entire API changed (Win32 was backported to 3.x, but that doesn't mean that 3.x was its native environment, and it never really worked properly there. Of course, it's debatable if it worked properly *anywhere*...)

Debian sarge release update

kleptog — 2005-06-02T08:21:21+00:00

On the other hand, you seem to be assuming that since it's only a small version number change that only small changes have been made. That's wrong, nearly everything has changed.

For me, I glad Debian has long release cycles, it means that I don't have to upgrade my system continuously just to get something stable. For work it's important to have something that never ever crashes.

As you say, there are a handful of programs like spamassassain which could see more frequent updates compared to the normal, and that is being addressed. But 99% of programs don't obsolete that fast. Many of the GNU tools are 20 years old yet they're used by everyone all the time. Apache 1 is old but the standards havn't changed and it works just as well now as it did three years ago.

Finally, the task of a distribution (in my eyes) is to provide a network of packages from which I can install and maintain a system with complete confidence. For servers, three year old webservers are not "obsolete". Even on Windows many people are sticking with older versions.

If you want a desktop you don't run stable anyway, you use testing or unstable since you'll actually be in front of the machine when it crashes.

Debian sarge release update

amacater — 2005-06-02T08:17:53+00:00

Debian Stable is intended to be stable. The new release has been three
years in the making - and in the testing. The previous release will be
supported for a further year - that will make four years in all. The latest
security update 3.0r6 occurred today. It's anticipated that Sarge, when
released, will be the stable release for a couple of years. If you want
more up to date software, you can use the "testing" branch, which now has
security support or even the "unstable" branch (always codenamed Sid).
Given 16,000 packages and 11 architectures and a volunteer workforce - and
the ease of moving from "old" stable to "new" stable, I think Debian
compares pretty well to say, moving from Red Hat Enterprise 3 to Red Hat
Enterprise 4 (which are less than two years apart) but appears to require a
full reinstall. The new Debian installer may default to kernel 2.4 on some
architectures if you just hit the enter key - if you type linux26, it will
install with kernel 2.6 out of the box. An install of a system running
Sarge and cloning of another system with several thousand packages
installed took me about 45 minutes the other day: one reboot was necessary.
[Disclaimer: I am a Debian developer - I am not speaking here on behalf of
the Debian project]

Debian sarge release update

hensema — 2005-06-01T08:07:42+00:00

You've missed some versions and you've mixed up two families.

However, you also missed the midlife upgrades called service packs. A service pack is essentially a new dot release, so we're now in the third revision of Windows XP. We're still in the first revision of Debian 3 (not counting the small bugfix releases).

Also, when Windows is released, the software is fresh and new (essentially because no one has ever seen the software due to the closed development, I know). Debian releases old software.

Microsoft supports Windows with security updates for far longer than any Linux distributor, including Debian. And also including the Enterprise products of Redhat and Novell, I think (not sure).

I'm not meaning to troll here, but please do know what you're talking about. Debian completely disregards the fact that software ages quickly in the Linux world. Or do you really believe Spamassassin 2.20 is very useful software? It may be stable, it may be bugfree, but it certainly is extremely outdated.
In this day and age the Linux 2.2 kernel is STILL default and Sarge will have the 2.4 kernel as the default. And yes, I know newer kernels are optional and yes, I do know I can compile my own, but that defeats the purpose of a distribution, doesn't it?

Debian sarge release update

Seegras — 2005-05-31T08:52:54+00:00

I actually thought that Windows 95, 98 and ME were only cosmetical changes to Windows 3.x -- When Windows 95 came out, I told myself "What? the same thing again? No way!" and switched to Linux. Windows NT 3.51 was actually really a step forward, and not too bad for its time, but sadly enough they changed some things, like putting the GFX-card drivers into Ring 0, actually a technical step back.

Debian sarge release update

dlang — 2005-05-31T07:23:25+00:00

you missed 98.

but somehow I don't think the argument that they're as good as microsoft in their release schedule would be received as very much of a compliment ;-)

Debian sarge release update

njhurst — 2005-05-31T02:26:01+00:00

How does the Windows major release(i.e. releases that people have switched too willingly, not cosmetic releases like ME) schedule compare? Lets see, Windows 95, Windows NT4, Windows 2k, Windows XP; (have I missed any?)

Debian isn't that bad, and you get continuous security upgrades.

Debian sarge release update

dlang — 2005-05-30T09:27:27+00:00

you could put it in terms of computer lifetimes (how many systems have been released as the latest-and-greatest and then faded into obselesance in the appropriate timeframe)

it's now _quite_ that bad, the systems that I purchased to run Debian 2.2 (just before 3.0 came out) are due for retirement, but I think they'll last long enough to see 3.1 (if only for a few months ;-)

Debian sarge release update

AndyBurns — 2005-05-30T08:43:23+00:00

Just like the return of a comet! Widely expected, doesn't happen very often, but it's amazing when it does :-)

How can I squeeze in a wisecrack about only seeing it once in your lifetime without getting lynched?