“The results of the latest round of Debian Project general resolutions are in. The resolution to recall the project leader failed, while the counter-resolution reaffirming support for the leader (and the Dunc-Tank initiative) passed. The attempt to make section 2 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines apply to all programmatic work (and firmware in particular) failed, with the project voting (narrowly) for ‘further discussion’. While this discussion takes place, however, the project has voted to release etch when it is ready without requiring a complete and final solution to the firmware problem first.”
The people have spoken.
First we hear that Vista will meet its latest shipping deadline and now comes news that Debian Etch will actually ship ahead of schedule. Next thing you know dogs and cats will start setting up house together! What’s the world coming too?
By earlier release, I believe that they are refering to the lack of a delay due to the frimware issue. Typical to Debian, Etch will be released when it is TECHNICALLY ready, though there still will be POLITICAL problems. The title is confusing with regards to this. However, since they have accepted the Dunc-Tank issue, we may very well see Etch released early.
A very wise decision. Keep on rockin’ !
Agreed. But it was imho from the very start “Much ado about nothing”. And: Etch is a fine release already.
Keep up the good work, guys!
I was getting sick of problems in ubuntu, like trying to upgrade. Upgrading in debian has always been smoother, and ever since the patch directly from ubuntu that broke my system I have lost confidence in ubuntu and their way they patch(or in that case test patches). I have switched to debian because I can count on them to keep my system stable, do you trust ubuntu to do the same?
A release cycle of ~ 1,5 years should fit the bill, IMHO. The release cycle up to Potatoe was fine. From Potatoe to Woody it was just a bit too long and from Woody to Sarge it was a disaster in my opinion. I hope they’re able to release in December this year.
I know: Once it’s stable, it’ll be released. I still think it’s good to have a somewhat realistic idea about the time this takes.
Ubuntu rushes the releases which is exactly the contrary to Debian. It’s just too bleeding edge – for me. And no, I don’t trust Ubuntu in this respect – you really wouldn’t if you ran a bunch of servers,
Which patch?
The 6 month upgrade cycle sucks, IMO, but it seems like most distros have moved to it. You can pretty much expect to reinstall every 6 months if you use a distro that follows that path and want to stay current. On the other hand, you could run Slack or Arch or any of several source based distros if you are worried about what patches are being applied to your packages.
It’s not important that Debian Switch to a 1 year, or 6 month cycle because everybody else it doing it. And the thing about most distros requiring a clean install every 6 month DOES NOT apply to Debian. Really.
The big advantage to a more timely release cycle for Debian is that it will encourage more people (Other than server farms) to run ‘stable’. As it stands pretty much everybody runs testing or unstable. Getting this release out on time, won’t change the fact that most users run testing or unstable, but if they can do this for a couple of years, they may very well end up with a more normal distribution of users between, stable, testing, and unstable. This can only be a good thing as it would allow conservative users to run stable without feeling like they are in the stone age, testing for the bleeding edge folks, and would give unstable more room to be unstable.
Then again, I’m typing this from a Debian Unstable box
I didn’t mean to include debian in the list of 6 month distros. Of course, debian stable would be pretty far down on my list of desktop choices because of it’s, erm, “stability.” Then again, I’m a die hard Archer – what can I say?