OSNews

Do comment(to me) if debian support for macbook got a whole lot better then the previous release or not.

It'd be very weird if it hasn't, as 4.0 has a much newer kernel...

Well no, the new kernel(you need a custom one anyways) isn't the big hold back on the macbooks. It's more of the small things, like touchpad, grub, wireless, ...
I tell you once and for all, macbooks are the last piece of hardware to run linux well out of the box

I just wondered if you still needed to do as much work as normally is required, see http://wiki.debian.org/MacBook for all the horrors. (in comparison to my dell laptop where by default everything works)

weird these macbooks don't work that well, they all have the same hardware (unlike dell laptops, every second one is different again) and are used a lot by FOSS hackers...

Just out of interest:
Are you going for a double (triple?) boor system, or are you planning on using it as your sole OS?

Do comment(to me) if debian support for macbook got a whole lot better then the previous release or not.

don't know, never had a macbook before, but now they're only nicer PCs... Good ol intel under the hood.


Just out of interest:
Are you going for a double (triple?) boor system, or are you planning on using it as your sole OS?

dual boot with OSX. My g/f loves osx. I think finder sucks and osx just doesn't feel like home...

I have to agree with you garymax, and I cant understand why you were modded down. I hope both distros benefit from each others existence.

Edited 2007-04-08 14:59

You do know that Ubuntu is based on Debian? So Debian being updated will also benefit Ubuntu and other debain based distros.

"""
You do know that Ubuntu is based on Debian? So Debian being updated will also benefit Ubuntu and other debain based distros.
"""

Truth is that Debian is always being updated in the unstable branch and in testing. Ubuntu would benefit regardless of whether the stable branch were updated or not.

True, but debian needs releases to have ppl using it and keep it's developers working on it...

Lol I spend about 11 years with Debian and now since two years I'm with FreeBSD. Ubuntu was never a choice in terms of quality, Ubuntu is "something" but it's not quality and it's definitely not Debian!

It's actually mostly Debian, and they commit their changes upstream, so there's some Ubuntu in Debian too.

Yes this kind of disservice is the best joke around. Take 99% hard work of Debian developers and 1% arguable work of Ubuntu developers. This naive assessment of the situation is a common mistake in Ubuntu community.

Uh, no that's what Opensource is all about. You can bitch about it all you want, but Ubuntu is the best of both worlds, Debian base and bleeding edge technology. and if you contribute back, you're doing your part. Debian is important, and as I said in another post, I am installing it right now, but get over the bitterness. Ubuntu is successful because of Debian, and they acknowledge that. They also develop new ways of doing things, like upstart, so the amount of Ubuntu derived code in Ubuntu goes up with each release. This is a thread about Debian however, and I am very happy about the release of Etch, so I won't continue this off-topic thread.

Edited 2007-04-08 16:27

It was never said that Ubuntu==Debian. Only that Ubuntu has eclipsed it in terms of popularity and to the point that anyone looking for a Debian-based desktop thinks Ubuntu not Debian.

> Debian-based desktop

That's the keyword, desktop. (K)ubuntu is mostly focussed on the desktop, thus a better choice for that. Debian has always been more of a server OS, so nothing new here.

I should probably be modded down for this but I can't help myself. So don't read any further if you don't want to waste your time. Some posters are just so stupid I can't help myself.

Babi Asu, I've read about 5 of your posts today in various threads and not a single one had anything intelligent to say. In fact I find it hard to even understand what you are talking about. So maybe Babi, should just stop posting until he has something even slightly on topic and intelligent to say.

For cryin' out loud. What a party crasher. Can we please celebrate the release of DEBIAN without having to make it about Ubuntu? Grr...

Agreed, let's please stick to Debian. I'm not the least bit interested in Ubuntu and this is not the place to talk about it.

I find it funny actually. It's almost as if people need to convice themselves that Ubuntu is the right thing for them without ever experiencing complete stability first hand.

We all respect Slackware here, but:

1)This is a thread about Debian
2)Debian is at least as stable as Slackware

I will avoid mentioning that Debian is a lot easier to maintain.

Debian has been eclipsed by the Ubuntu project

No, it's just that the low watermark of technology and functionality available across Debian's vast array of architectures and target audiences has been eclipsed by the high watermark of technology and functionality available for desktop users on Intel platforms.

It's a simple matter of the FOSS community working towards the goals that matter the most. So long as we have apache running on MIPS, that's pretty much sufficient. But the challenge for FOSS right now is leveraging mindshare to grow marketshare, and that means that the bar is set really high for the commodity desktop experience and for the mainstream datacenter applications. These are priorities 1 and 2 (in whatever order) right now, and there's just not enough people interested in many of the niches to keep up with the blistering pace of mainstream development.

But what kills me about Debian is that they let these niches hold up the show. Some of their architectures don't support the 2.6 kernel, ergo no NPTL, ergo no glibc-2.4+ in the stable branch. I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. First, it seems that there should be a stable branch for each architecture. And second, if an architecture is stuck on the 2.4 kernel, then it needs its own project to support it, because the differences here are like comparing Win9x to NT.

Ubuntu was created in part because Debian was holding up the show for most of us. I'm glad that Etch was released, but for most of us it's bittersweet. Debian won't deliver the most recent collection of software that they can stabilize for our platforms or our intended applications. They'll instead give us the most recent collection of software that they can stabilize for every platform and every conceivable application. And this is an unfortunate compromise.

You do realize that many bugs in existing software are found thanks to debian's policy of having software work on all platforms. Even if the x86 makes up the majority of home and SMB computers, there are many other platforms out there and people like me are very thankful for Debian.

It is the only Linux distribution that works across all these platforms, which means that your skills carry over for all of them.

I just upgraded a live server that is in a different continent from sarge to etch without a single problem. I would never dare such a stunt on any other distribution. Debian provides incredible quality assurance and incredible robustness in its package management.

My only question was why after doing a dist-upgrade I had to change my sources.list from:

#deb http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/ stable main
#deb-src http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/ stable main

#deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main

To:

deb http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/ etch main
deb-src http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/ etch main

deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main

Isn't etch the new stable release and thus the above lines shouldn't have had to change?

If anybody can comment on what their etch sources.list looks like, I'd be thankful.

Thank you, Debian developers.

I'd guess the server hadn't synced yet?

I'm sure Debian is a fine server OS from a technical point of view, but the advantage of Ubuntu over Debian is that it have better financial backing and a fixed end of support date (2011 for the current server version). This makes Ubuntu much more attractive to e.g. CEOs.

Other than that, without Debian there would have been no Ubuntu. So there is all reason in the world for Debian developers and users to celebrate the new release.

Edited 2007-04-08 17:52

Debian is one of the giants of linux distros, and ubuntu and many other distros merely stand on its shoulders.

That was true six months ago. Now I think that both distros complement each other.

Edited 2007-04-08 16:17

Ubuntu is nothing without Debian.

Also, Ubuntu isn't giving back as much as they say they do, for instance Ubuntu holds back Gnome upgrades to Debian until after Ubuntu released...

Great compliment to Debian... not so much.

With my previous post, I'm not being disrespectful to the debian distro.

Features like...
upstart
Live CD/DVD
Different branches eg Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu
Launch pad

Are great for both distros, sharing repositories is also good for both Ubuntu and debian.

(PS my previous post also did not go against this sites rules, loosen up people <-;)

Umm, *buntu is one repo... that is incompatible with Debian's repo's due to different glibc (amoungst other things...)

Launchpad certainly isn't giving back to the community either, it is closed source... Although I hear DD's were really happy to hear they'd been signed up for Launchpad automatically.

"Any other decisions yet about the new things that they plan to develop for Etch+1?"

Replying my own question: the general guidelines for the next release (like shortening the release cycle) are quite well outlined in the Etch release email announcement by Andreas Barth:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/04/msg00005.html

Looks promising to me. Good luck!

Well, now that stable has been released, I expect to see Gnome 2.18 in Sid soon, then in testing.

same here, though i heard unstable has 2.16 and should get 2.18 soonish.