Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Dec 2007 22:41 UTC, submitted by Patrik Buckau
Debian and its clones "The Debian project is pleased to announce the second update of its stable distribution Debian GNU/Linux 4.0. This update mainly adds corrections for security problems to the stable release, along with a few adjustment to serious problems. Please note that this update does not constitute a new version of Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 but only updates some of the packages included. There is no need to throw away 4.0 CDs or DVDs but only to update against ftp.debian.org after an installation, in order to incorporate those late changes. Those who frequently install updates from security.debian.org won't have to update many packages and most updates from security.debian.org are included in this update."
Thread beginning with comment 293496
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Congratulations, Debian
by SilentStorm on Fri 28th Dec 2007 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Congratulations, Debian"
SilentStorm
Member since:
2006-09-22

Stable, Testing and Unstable means different things to Debian than other distros.

Stable: It's literally stable. Version numbers don't bump, security patches only. Great for servers and production environments. It's constantly cooked for security && stability and this cooking pays of as we see.

Testing: Your $fav_distro release is Debian testing. Version numbers bump slowly but solid and dependable with no killing security holes. Hundred days of uptime. Sometimes it's a bit outdated (a week or so) but stability pays it off. Great for non-critical / casual desktop.

Unstable: Cutting edge, massively updated but not secure as testing (not to mention stable). Has big security holes sometimes. Great for grabbing latest amarok or kernel if the current one doesn't support a thing or two, nothing more. If you are just curious, update to unstable once in every three months then wait for testing to catch up (catches in ~1 month) if your system is secured using external security mechanisms (firewalls and such).

...and don't forget: debian is not an OOB thing. You make debian what it is. Like Slack, Gentoo or Arch. (I've installed mine as etch beta-1 and it's now lenny. I've cloned it to my office PC instead of installing a fresh one and it's working flawlessly at home and office.)

Also please remember that debian is just a distro which placed itself to the higher, geeker side of the spectrum. They've made their choices and they're very good at them. I beleive that Debian vs. (*buntu, suse, mandriva, etc) comparisons are a bit apples to oranges since the secondary part has different goals than Debian-like ones (geek, technical vs. mainstream, easy to use).

Reply Parent Score: 3

jemmjemm Member since:
2007-08-06

Unstable: Cutting edge, massively updated but not secure as testing (not to mention stable). Has big security holes sometimes.


IMHO security releases are always for stable and unstable (and sometimes for oldstable if needed). Thus unstable is not unsecure. But testing is - because of the time delay in moving packages from unstable to testing (and that's by design).

Reply Parent Score: 2

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Stable, Testing and Unstable means different things to Debian than other distros.


Bullshit. It means what it says.
Except people like to exaggerate the "stable" part.
It's no more stable than most "established" distros, like Slackware, Redhat etc.
And if used for desktop than it's no more stable than even Ubuntu.
And the stable packages are only useful for about a year. After that there is a good chance it will not boot on new hardware. Happened to me.
Debian stable will be ok if they manage to stick to a release at least every 12-16 months.
If not then they'll lose even more users to Ubuntu.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

And if used for desktop than it's no more stable than even Ubuntu.


Without even considering my own experience and that of many other people, who have had endless problems with Ubuntu, what you say is impossible because of one simple reason: Ubuntu is based off Debian unstable!

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Congratulations, Debian
by melkor on Mon 31st Dec 2007 03:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Congratulations, Debian"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

I'd like to argue that stability point. Tell me, why does Redhat release a Enterprise version (rather than Fedora, which is bleeding edge and aimed at the average desktop user?).

My experiences with Debian (vs. other distributions) are that it is more stable. Sure, you might get a bug or a security issue with an 'old', read: stable, package, big deal. It's usually bug fixed very quickly and backported to Debian stable and you can get it via an apt-get update/upgrade.

As to testing/unstable branches (or experimental for that matter), they are also pretty damn stable from my experiences. When I ran Debian, I ran a mostly stable base, with some testing, unstable and even experimental packages. I rarely had issues, and if they were, they usually were simply package compatibility issues, which is to be expected in all honesty.

All these people bashing Debian because it's "too old" get a grip! If you don't like Debian, or its policy (ie. re: iceweasal) then don't use it! Debian won't miss you. For those of us who like Debian because it's dead stable, and it has policies that respect open source and FSF ideals. Many distributions don't respect the FSF these days.

Oh, and go and take the first Ubuntu release from a few years ago, and try and update it to each subsequent release - see how it breaks. Many old users of Debian successfully update to each new stable release without an issue. That's the difference between Debian and other 'debian based' distributions and real stability.

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 1

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

I've installed mine as etch beta-1 and it's now lenny. I've cloned it to my office PC instead of installing a fresh one and it's working flawlessly at home and office.

I really like that about Debian. I've done similar stuff. My install started out as Woody, and is now Lenny, many years on. It's moved from one partition to another, one drive to another, and to a completely different machine in the meantime, as well as being cloned to an office machine sort of like you did.

It's gone from kernel 2.4 to 2.6, Xfree86 to Xorg, supermount to hal/udev/pmount, bootsplash to splashy, OSS to ALSA, GCC 2.95 to GCC 4.2 and so on.

I think it's pretty neat I haven't had to do a clean install in something over four years now. It's done great surviving new hardware, and several upgrades - and by this point it is thouroughly mine. The only thing likely to necessitate a new install at this point is a move to 64 bit.

Reply Parent Score: 5

cushioncritter Member since:
2007-01-12

MamiyaOtaru wrote: "My install started out as Woody, and is now Lenny, ... I think it's pretty neat I haven't [ever] had to do a clean install".

A Debian system that started out as Woody and has been upgraded that many times is NOT the same as one installed cleanly from scratch, for example, using debootstrap and then adding packages (apt-get install xorg, apt-get install kde, ...). Actually, the time package maintainers need to spend on the endless permutations of upgrading from whatever ancient version of the packages you started from (why not pre-Woody, i.e. Potato?), is a total waste in my view. And they DO waste time on this, because sometimes you can upgrade an old system to the latest packages but not a newer system. Learning to do a clean, fresh install is actually pretty simple: mkdir mybootstrap, debootstrap http://my_mirror/debian ./mybootstrap, edit/add a few config files like /etc/fstab, add a kernel (I use kernel.org kernels so I can have one from a few weeks ago, not months or years ago, which is good if you are purchasing brand new hardware and want most/all the stuff to work), and you have a fresh current, supported install, not a series of 10,000 upgrades from an ancient install. Now you can tar up the clean install and blast it out to a million machines.

Reply Parent Score: 1