Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 5th May 2013 21:40 UTC, submitted by Anonymous Penguin
Debian and its clones That rare event where tried and true Debian releases a new version. "This new version of Debian includes various interesting features such as multiarch support, several specific tools to deploy private clouds, an improved installer, and a complete set of multimedia codecs and front-ends which remove the need for third-party repositories. Multiarch support, one of the main release goals for 'Wheezy', will allow Debian users to install packages from multiple architectures on the same machine. This means that you can now, for the first time, install both 32- and 64-bit software on the same machine and have all the relevant dependencies correctly resolved, automatically."
Order by: Score:
Multiarch support?
by dorin.lazar on Sun 5th May 2013 22:24 UTC
dorin.lazar
Member since:
2006-12-15

Isn't that in all the 64bit distributions nowadays? For like 6-7 years already, to say the least?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Multiarch support?
by tidux on Sun 5th May 2013 22:34 UTC in reply to "Multiarch support?"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

You'd think so, but no. Usually there was a hackjob "ia32-libs" package and a bunch of other kludges to make it work. This way there's none of that, you just dpkg --add-architecture i386 && apt-get update && apt-get install foo:i386. There's no library dependency collisions or anything because the libraries go in /usr/lib/$ARCH/ instead of /usr/lib/. It's very well done.

Reply Score: 15

RE[2]: Multiarch support?
by toast88 on Mon 6th May 2013 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Multiarch support?"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

It goes further. Install the package "qemu-user-static" and you can actually run foreign architecture binaries through qemu.

That means, even if you decided to drop x86 in favor of ARM in the future, you will still be able to run binary-only x86 applications on ARM as if they were running on native hardware.

It's as seemless as Rosetta on MacOS, but it supports all architectures Debian supports.

Adrian

Reply Score: 10

RE: Multiarch support?
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 5th May 2013 22:53 UTC in reply to "Multiarch support?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

The below linked Debian wiki page gives a good overview of it. To put it simply, it is "true" multi-arch; it can be used outside of x86 entirely. It goes far beyond just letting 32-bit programs run on an AMD64 machine.

http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch

Edited 2013-05-05 22:53 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Multiarch support?
by thesunnyk on Mon 6th May 2013 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Multiarch support?"
thesunnyk Member since:
2010-05-21

And AMD are thinking of building fully cache-coherent x64/ARM combo CPUs:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/amds-heteroge...

NOW KISS!

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Multiarch support?
by dorin.lazar on Mon 6th May 2013 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Multiarch support?"
RE[3]: Multiarch support?
by avgalen on Mon 6th May 2013 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Multiarch support?"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

And that is why nobody said that. From the original post: "install both 32- and 64-bit software on the same machine and have all the relevant dependencies correctly resolved, automatically."

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Multiarch support?
by Risthel on Mon 6th May 2013 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Multiarch support?"
Risthel Member since:
2010-12-22

Yeah. Say that to the skype guys that insists on making 32bit dependencies on their "64bit" package for example...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Multiarch support?
by Drumhellar on Sun 5th May 2013 23:10 UTC in reply to "Multiarch support?"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Debian Multiarch is more than just 32-bit libraries on 64-bit Linux. It allows for completely mixed instruction sets, such as ia64/x86 for older Itaniums that have x86 emulation built in, or emulated architectures, such as arm/amd64 when used with qemu.

It also allows for mixed OS setups, say installing Linux libraries along FreeBSD libraries when using the FreeBSD kernel, or Irix binaries alongside Linux on MIPS architectures.

There's more that comes along with it, too.

http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/TheCaseForMultiarch has a good rundown of the capabilities and changes that come with Multiarch

Reply Score: 9

Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by MacMan on Mon 6th May 2013 00:22 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

It took until 3.6 for Gnome to start to suck less. What's they're to gain by sticking with such a buggy version like 3.4 when 3.6 is finally sucks less and 3.8 is actually almost usable.

Also, what's what's to be gained with Linux. 3.2 when there have been so many improvements in 3.4 - 3.8?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by gan17 on Mon 6th May 2013 01:03 UTC in reply to "Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Also, what's what's to be gained with Linux. 3.2 when there have been so many improvements in 3.4 - 3.8?

People were saying similar things when Debian 6.0 got released as well. If memory serves, I think they released 6.0 with 2.6.32, and some folk were disappointed because there was some SSD-specific feature in 2.6.33 or .34 (I think it was TRIM support).

Most people should really run Testing (and backports) if they want anything even close to recent with Debian. The Stable releases are really for the moss-grown servers that have been up since the first Woodstock.

Anyways, congrats to the Debian team.
My condolences to Sid users who'll soon suffer massive trauma once the frozen repos thaw out and bucketloads of borkage head their way.

Edited 2013-05-06 01:04 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by yahya on Mon 6th May 2013 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
yahya Member since:
2007-03-29

For me, the difference is, that even though the GNOME version shipped with Debian Squeeze was dated at the time of release, it was not quite as dated, but what's more relevant than that: It was incredibly usable. I found GNOME 2.32 to be a very mature, elegant and user-friendly desktop.

I have been using Debian on the desktop since 1999 or so. Most of the time I used GNOME as my default desktop, and Squeeze was certainly my favourite release. Compared to that, GNOME 3.4 feels rather incomplete. It takes away more functionality than it provides. E.g. I really regret loosing all my panel applets, loosing the ability to use Compiz with GNOME. I hate the solid black of the panel. I can't understand why anyone would find this elegant. GNOME 3.4 feels half-baked. GNOME 3.8 by contrast is much more snappy, it is faster, more mature, offers more functionality.

While I stayed with squeeze until shortly before the release of wheezy, I think I won't stay long with wheezy, I'll probably upgrade to Jessie as soon as it has stabilized a bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by gfolkert on Tue 7th May 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

To late 211 updates so far today.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by SzoylentGreen on Wed 8th May 2013 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
SzoylentGreen Member since:
2013-05-08

To late 211 updates so far today.


Huh??? 211 updates to what?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by Peter Besenbruch on Mon 6th May 2013 05:54 UTC in reply to "Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

It took until 3.6 for Gnome to start to suck less. What's they're to gain by sticking with such a buggy version like 3.4 when 3.6 is finally sucks less and 3.8 is actually almost usable.


It depends on the version available when Debian freezes. I don't use Gnome, but I suspect that version 3.4 has had most of the bugs worked out of it.

Also, people who use Debian for a desktop tend to keep certain items up to date. I run Wheezy, but am also running XFCE 4.10. For Iceweasel, I am running version 20. For LibreOffice I run 4.0.3.

Also, what's what's to be gained with Linux. 3.2 when there have been so many improvements in 3.4 - 3.8?


What's to be gained? Stability and long term support. Drivers from later kernel versions also tend to migrate into version 3.2. Later kernels and versions of Xorg will migrate into Wheezy via backports.

No, I run a stable and up to date desktop with Debian Wheezy, but you do need to know your way around.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by judgen on Mon 6th May 2013 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Kernel 3.9 is coming to trunk for experimental. 3.8 is screaming fast on this machine, but there is a header missmatch in 3.8-trunk so i can not get vmware workstation up and running so i still have 3.2 up and about for now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by Peter Besenbruch on Tue 7th May 2013 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

Kernel 3.9 is coming to trunk for experimental. 3.8 is screaming fast on this machine, but there is a header missmatch in 3.8-trunk so i can not get vmware workstation up and running so i still have 3.2 up and about for now.


I look forward to the newer kernels hitting wheezy-backports. When moving from Squeeze to Wheezy, there wasn't any real kernel update, as I was running a backports version of the Wheezy kernel in Squeeze.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4
by JPisini on Tue 7th May 2013 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow, still Gnome 3.4"
JPisini Member since:
2006-01-24

Kernel 3.9 is coming to trunk for experimental. 3.8 is screaming fast on this machine, but there is a header missmatch in 3.8-trunk so i can not get vmware workstation up and running so i still have 3.2 up and about for now.


try this I am running Wheezy with a 3.8 kernel and I was able to get the latest VMWare Workstation running http://mergy.org/2013/03/three-tips-to-get-vmware-workstation-9-goi...


Thanks to all the Debian developers Wheezy is really nice.

Edited 2013-05-07 14:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

upgrade
by l3v1 on Mon 6th May 2013 06:22 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

If anyone around here is through a squeeze-wheezy stable upgrade I'd appreciate (I'm sure others would as well) any "bad news" reports before I jump into upgrading our web&db servers. Maybe it's too early after the release, but I didn't see many reports on upgrades (with or without success).

My previous Debian stable upgrades have all been relatively painless, so I'm hopeful.

Reply Score: 4

RE: upgrade
by judgen on Mon 6th May 2013 09:45 UTC in reply to "upgrade"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Worked great for us in al our scenarios, but on the other hand wheezy has been feature-add frozen and stable as a rock for a long time now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: upgrade
by Peter Besenbruch on Tue 7th May 2013 02:44 UTC in reply to "upgrade"
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

If anyone around here is through a squeeze-wheezy stable upgrade I'd appreciate (I'm sure others would as well) any "bad news" reports before I jump into upgrading our web&db servers. Maybe it's too early after the release, but I didn't see many reports on upgrades (with or without success).


I have had several failures, all attributable to running a version of Wine from an Ubuntu Lucid PPA (a major no-no). The Debian replacement fails and halts the upgrade. You force the failed package to install using dpkg --force-all. Then you run apt-get -f install, and then run another dist-upgrade.

Reply Score: 3

RE: upgrade
by l3v1 on Tue 7th May 2013 07:06 UTC in reply to "upgrade"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks. I'll also add a reply of my own: I upgraded 1 server yesterday, without any major problems. Since the old stable had a custom early 2.6 kernel, I compiled a 3.2.44, dist-upgraded, made sure udev is installed, and basically that was it. I didn't notice any problems as of yet. So, nice job again from the Debian team.

Edited 2013-05-07 07:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Yay!
by BluenoseJake on Mon 6th May 2013 14:32 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

Time to buy a new desktop to go with this. I've been holding off, waiting for it to be released.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Yay!
by gan17 on Mon 6th May 2013 21:56 UTC in reply to "Yay!"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Uhm, I dunno .... The words "Debian Stable" and "new desktop" don't exactly go together.

Unless you're getting something really barebones that's been on the store shelves a while, you're probably going to need newer kernel, xorg, lm-sensors, Nividia/Ati drivers and some other libs from a more recent branch to play nice with brand new hardware, I'd wager.

Then again, I don't run Stable (or even Debian anymore), so what do I know.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yay!
by BluenoseJake on Mon 6th May 2013 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Yay!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I run Stable, I like stable, a 3.2 kernel will be new enough, and I can eventually update what I want from Backports, when things become available. My current rig runs squeeze, with some software from backports, it's amazingly stable, and fast.

ATI and NVidia drivers are in non-free, so there is no issue there, Virtualbox from oracle, and xfce 4.10, and I'm good.

Reply Score: 5