A new revision of the stable branch of Debian GNU/Linux (“woody”) is now available: This is the third update of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (codename ‘woody’) which mainly adds security updates to the stable release, along with a few corrections to serious problems.
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r3 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
1 million people downloaded 3.0r3 one day before Sarge was released causing all of them to strain their bandwidth again. Debian.org was asked for comment in regards to this waste of resources.
umm, most Debian woody users will wait on sarge.
Are there any indication on when next major release from Debian is due ?
does it have kde 3.3? and sata support?
sh#t i’m tired.
osnews rocks. someone mod this as “dude get some sleep!”
😉
p.s. i loaded debian on my 1ghz g4 ibook using a snapshot ISO of the Sarge installer. I’m so impressed. It didn’t kill OS X, it configured just about all my hardware (cept that stupid airport extreme). i’ve got sound. i’ve got accelerated X (played tux racer). I tell you what. You don’t want to be waiting for your ibook to compile everything you might want…that’s why i had to nuke Crux PPC. With Debian providing the love you can get your fix real quick.
apt-get install this
apt-get install that
profit.
g’night all.
apt-cache search goodnightsrest
Yep dude, you sound tired, get some sleep
I am pretty sure that the newer kernels support the Airport Extreme Card, I know Mandrake 10.1 PPC does.
Can you use NVIDIA’s 3D graphics card drivers on a Powerbook, I didn’t think this was possible.
Any documentation on that Airport Extreme comment? from what I’ve read, it’s still unsupported.
>>Can you use NVIDIA’s 3D graphics card drivers on a Powerbook, I didn’t think this was possible.
i don’t think so either.
but my ibook has a radeon 9200 in it.
Can you use NVIDIA’s 3D graphics card drivers on a Powerbook, I didn’t think this was possib
low-end radeon, with DRI open source 3d, i presume.
does it have kde 3.3? and sata support?
woody? **** no. kde 2.2, and no support for hardware released in the last 2 years.
There was a post a few days ago on this site stating that Mandrake PPC Beta had been released and that it had support for Airport Extreme cards. I have never actually tried it, but have a look at the news posting.
Sorry, need to correct my last post.
You can use Airport, but not Airport Extreme, just re-read the post.
Gee, I remember years ago, when I started with Linux, Debian was at version R3, and it still is?
I wonder who is geting off on such old software?
Most computers sold in last 3 years are at Pentium 4 level.
How are they gonna support the new hardware with that old kernel?
I guess that woody just won’t go away. Just like mine.
People, this is a *security update*, for people already using Woody. People already using Woody, for computers which need to be ultra-stable (or whatever).
If you want to install Debian as your desktop, grab Sarge installer, (which *is* released, independent of Debian Sarge as a whole) do the base install, and install packages you need from the net.
Debian testing/unstable is very up-to-date.
woody allows a choice of 2.2.20 or 2.4.18 kernel (2.2.20 by default).
sarge offers a choice of new or newer, new by default (2.4.27 in current release candidates).
sarge & sid are up to date. woody was released 2 years ago. believe it or not, a 2-year-old product tends not to magically become not-old.
But how many OSes can you not get a stable version younger than 2 years old?
i mean, people running woody just apt-get upgrade, who’s actually gonna download the cds?
Woody users can just upgrade to sarge when it released as a stable without the need to reinstalling or download CD images.
I use woody on my servers. They hardly upgrade and all the software works. I never worry about an update frying anything. It’s really nice and leads to some nice uptime.
Now on my dev desktop I use the Sarge RC. There is just about always 3-5 package updates a day and I get to run things like GNome 2.6 and the 2.6.7 kernel. It’s not the latest, but I’ve yet to have a stability problem and being back one version is close enough for me most of the time. If not I can always find another apt-source like dotdeb to get php5 packages and things not yet available.
I used to use Gentoo for the breadth of packages. I finally got tired of everything compiling from source but didn’t want a hand-holding distribution. Debian fits this bill while providing more packages.
Compiling from source and encountering random compiling bugs gets old. After you use apt, dpkg, etc. you come away with a better appreciation of Debian’s package management toolset, too.
I use Debian Sid (unstable) on my T20 notebook. I’m running the 2.6.8 kernel, 2.8 Gnome (from experimental) and it’s fabulous. It’s such a breath of fresh air the way Debian manages its packages, boot scripts, kernels, etc. and Synaptic is a cool way to add/remove software.
I used Gentoo for about a year but I found it really had no performance benefits for me and all the compiling really got ludicrous, wasted a lot of electricity and generated a lot of heat. I’ve never had an easier-to-use system than Debian Sid and it’s perfect for a low power system like my T20.
The only thing I had with Gentoo was X.org instead of Xfree but until the fancy compositing stuff etc. goes mainstream, I don’t think I’m missing anything.
The most surprising thing about Debian is it’s so solid there’s nothing to really tinker with.
The problem with Gentoo is that you waste most of your precious uptime compiling daily new ebuilds. And I find that highly inefficient thing to do…wasting time compiling Gnome and Kde…:P
And to me, Gentoo is too unstable for my taste.
– Do you like tinkering with your computer?
– Do you like to try out new stuff?
– Do you fear you aren’t using your powerful new hardware to the fullest?
Then Debian Woody is NOT for you!
Is there a ‘clean’ way to run Debian w/ a bsd style init. I just don’t like (possibly my own ignorance – doubtfull
) sys-v. I’ve just recently begin to like Debian again. All the dpkg-configuring it did was pissing me off before (few years back). If something where to break I didnt know how to fix it, so I quite using it. I recently tried it again, but now if something is screwed I can always fix it, so its actually pretty convenient.
-adam
I have allso used Gentoo,the insignificant performance gain
doesn’t outweight the compiling from source bugs and overall
hassle.I must admit they have a broader range of documents on
various subjects.Again for me personnally this doesn’t mean that much.What i like about Debian is it’s dpkg front-end apt-get with it’s GUI Synaptic.If you can’t find that particular app in the stable/testing/unstable repositories
you can with “wajig rpm2deb” make a *.deb from a *.rpm. and install the package with dpkg –install *.deb (if one has installed:wajig and alien).Apt-get is a nifty package-manager.
With dpkg you can easily make a local repository of the debs
made out of some rpm’s or debs (not) in either three mentioned repositories.
“Is there a ‘clean’ way to run Debian w/ a bsd style init?” — Yes, it’s called FreeBSD.
Seriously, arguments for stable, package based distributions could be made for FreeBSD using packages. Then again arguments for source-based, bleeding edge distributions fit FreeBSD with current Ports as well — Choose either or a mixture of both! And it uses the ne RCNG init system which has all the simplicity of BSD init with the flexibility of SYSV and WITHOUT (thank god) the complexity of SYSV.
where is the server for this?
I love both FreeBSD and Debian. In my opinion, when choosing an open source operating system for production purposes, these are the only true options. Out of the two, I think FreeBSD basically has a lot more things Debian can learn from than the other way around. In my opinion, this is what Debian needs to do:
1) Better Documentation – FreeBSD has two excellent commerical books that dwelve into the inner workings of the OS and help to optimize it. It also comes with a very well organized and in depth handbook for basic configuration.
2) Separation of Base System from Applications – FreeBSD does this extremely well, they have their base system and things you install on top. Releases only focus on getting the base system updated and extremely stable. The obvious benefit of this is that the rest of the applications can always be up-to-date and releases can focus on getting base stable. If Debian did this, their three year stable release cycles will not seem so out of date anymore and it wouldn’t take so long to do new releases. They shouldn’t add new versions of applications everytime (since this will make it difficult to administer) but they should add new versions when or even if they see fit.
3) Packaging of Only Popular Binaries, Sources of Everything Else – In terms of convenience, it’s nice having 10,000 + applications precompiled for me and ready to install. But I don’t think this is sustainable or a good allocation of resources. With the evergrowing number of architectures and increasing amounts of supported applications, this starts becoming a major resource burden. Instead, they need to focus on building packages for the extremely popular applications, and provide source-code compilable versions for the less popular versions. This will allow a lot of resources to be freed up since they won’t have to provide a binary for 15 + architectures when there might only be 15 users in the entire world of that application. Just add a nice Ports/portage system to Debian and they will be all set.
Instead, they need to focus on building packages for the extremely popular applications, and provide source-code compilable versions for the less popular versions. This will allow a lot of resources to be freed up since they won’t have to provide a binary for 15 + architectures when there might only be 15 users in the entire world of that application. Just add a nice Ports/portage system to Debian and they will be all set.
—–
which would then end up with users trying to compile software from source which is the primary reason I wont even consider freebsd. Give me well test binary packages anyday
>>woody? **** no. kde 2.2, and no support for hardware released in the last 2 years.
dh, try re-reading the thread again. NOBODY mentioned woody until you did. The article is about woody, but everyone commenting (till you) was discussing sarge.
“…which would then end up with users trying to compile software from source which is the primary reason I wont even consider freebsd. Give me well test binary packages anyday”
I get very frustrated with the lack of knowledge regarding binary packages with FreeBSD. Nearly every single compilable port has a pre-compiled binary package available with the “pkg_add -r <package-name>” command. Most are also available via ISO cd at release time (space on the CD’s permitting.) Where does this misinformation of “FreeBSD requires me to compile everything from source…” come from???
Repeat after me…
“FREEBSD HAS BINARY PACKAGES FOR NEARLY EVERY PORT”
“FREEBSD HAS BINARY PACKAGES FOR NEARLY EVERY PORT”
“FREEBSD HAS BINARY PACKAGES FOR NEARLY EVERY PORT”
….
“Then again arguments for source-based, bleeding edge distributions fit FreeBSD with current Ports as well — Choose either or a mixture of both! And it uses the ne RCNG init system which has all the simplicity of BSD init with the flexibility of SYSV and WITHOUT (thank god) the complexity of SYSV.”
————
————
I’ve used FreeBSD for a Desktop for well over a year. I do like it. Why do you think I asked if you could use debian with a bsd style init (cleanly)?
Anyway, I much prefer NetBSD over FreeBSD. Where do you think FreeBSD got their RCNG init from!?
Doesn’t get much better than NetBSD IMHO. I use it for my routers, servers one of my desktops and MacOS X for the other.
-adam
fakeempire
For whatever it’s worth –
I used Debian now and again over the past two years but mostly I like Slackware.
So anyway now I have a cable modem and I just installed Debian with the new installer via a network connection.
It does in fact seem to be easy to use and also I used Synaptic to upgrade the kernel to 2.6.7.
All of this took about 2 1/2 hours time, but a fast internet connection was definitly needed.
Peace man,
Jim