“What do you want from a desktop operating system? The real criteria are stability, package management, hardware compatibility, and the people behind the software, the community. For its superiority in those areas, I made Debian my workstation OS.” Read the article at NewsForge.
My workstation OS: Debian
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Gentoo has portage
Fedora has Yum
Mandrake and SuSE have apt-rpm
I am surprised more people didn’t take to Debian earlier when RPM hell was the only way to install software. But nowdays there are plenty of alternitaves, all distros also have a community behind them.
Usually the best distro = the one most people build packages for.
“Usually the best distro = the one most people build packages for.”
precisely where debian is better.
I use fedora and it doesnt have anything even close to debian. agreed rpm hell is no more there. yum and apt4rpm has resolved that problem technically. what it needs is a big repository and community of maintainers…
Debian is a Linux distribution. dont start the bsd vs linux flamewars here. Please keep it relevant
We all know debian is good and stable, but this guy only talks about package management. What about system configuration, how is it done? How about compiling from source? I use Slackware current and compile lots of programs from source, every one of them works flawlessly, add to that Dropline Gnome and you have a great OS + workstation + multimedia apps + server. We have pkgtool for sytem configs and swaret for maintainance. Just wanted to hear about regualr system maintainance (files in /etc) or other thing than package management.
The review is uninformative, maybe a sysadmin wants to share his experience here?
” What about system configuration, how is it done? How about compiling from source?”
maybe you can be more specific.
compiling from traditional source packages isnt a distro specific feature. you have debconf and dpkg-reconfigure for customising debian package configuration if thats what you mean
” Just wanted to hear about regualr system maintainance (files in /etc) or other thing than package management. ”
debian follows a sysv style init scripts which are different from slackware but easy enough to learn since they are very well documented.
debian has extensive amount of policy documents which ensures a high level of quality packagers and has a democractic system and voting for deciding on others. to become a debian developer you need to be recommended by two other DD(debian developer) and go through a qualification process where you need to answer some questions about the debian project and packaging. what else?
“Debian GNU/Linux is one of the most stable and easy-to-maintain operating systems available, free or non-free.”
I have tested a lots of linux distribution and a lots of them are as stable and easy to maintain as debian.
Saying that debian is one of the most stable operating systems is pure trolling… for linux users which use others distribution and for users which use others good OSs as FreeBSD, MacosX…
“Saying that debian is one of the most stable operating systems is pure trolling”
no its not. he isnt saying other operating system or distros are unstable. he ie saying it is *one* of the stable OS which is a FACT
Most people use urpmi on mdk – it does virtually everything apt does (special bonus points to the guy in a previous thread who pointed out the only thing it doesn’t do, which is find leftover dependencies), so there’s no need to go to the trouble of installing apt4rpm. It works fine if you want to, though.
Unstable, contrary to popular belief, is not stable. Neither is testing. Upgrading frequently borks thing. The alternative? Backporting which still requires experimenting or stable, which is hopelessly out of date. I used to use Debian but stopped wanting to update so frequently or be out of date.
“Unstable, contrary to popular belief, is not stable. Neither is testing.”
that isnt exactly news to me. shouldnt be to anyone who understands English.
whats your problem with the article. obviously your requirements of using applications not compatible with Debian or Linux doesnt isnt fullfilled by any review of a particular distro. why not leave the thread and focus on doing your work instead of whining about this
I would imagine that the main purpose of the article was to convert people to his religion. In order to try and do so, he says:
What do you want from a desktop operating system? The real criteria are stability, package management, hardware compatibility, and the people behind the software, the community.
Ok, so here’s my question – if you have a stable and secure operating system that doesn’t run the apps you need, what good is it? The answer: it isn’t good for much of anything. Therefore, the foundation for the entire article is flawed. The very first thing I look at in a desktop operating system is what kind of applications it runs. If the applications are not as good as the ones I’m already using (whether free or not), that operating system is useless to me, therefore all the other criteria the author lists does not mean a thing.
Saying that debian is one of the most stable operating systems is pure trolling
No it isn’t – but denying the fact might be called trolling… Stability just is one of the main goals of Debian, if not THE main goal. The well-known price of it is that the officially stable version of Debian tends to be out of date.
From Distrowatch The Top Ten Distributions page, concerning Debian:
(…)…only declared stable after a very thorough testing. As a result of this, the distribution is possibly the most stable and reliable, albeit not the most up-to-date.
An example: If I remeber correctly, stability was one reason why Debian was used on one Space Shuttle experiement too: http://www.faho.rwth-aachen.de/~matthi/linux/LinuxInSpace.html
From Debian’s own PR:
Debian surpasses all other distributions in how well its packages are integrated. Since all software is packaged by a coherent group, not only can all packages be found at a single site, but you can be assured that we have already worked out all issues regarding complicated dependencies. While we feel that the deb format has some advantages over the rpm format, it is the integration between the packages that makes a Debian system more robust.
Compare that to many other distros where one of the main goals often seems to be to be the first distro on the block to have the newest versions of the most popular software included regardless of the potential bugs or compatibility problems with other programs.
Besides, after the release of Sarge, sometime around the New Year, the stable Debian will not be that outdated anymore (Granted, Debian really should try to release more often, maybe move to time-based releases etc. IMHO. Though Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros come to rescue in this matter.)
Also the excellent and broad Debian documentation provides all the information you might need to know about configuring, compiling etc: http://www.debian.org/doc/ Available in many languages too, btw (though sometimes in too techie jargon/format). Plus there are tons of unnoficial Debian documentation available online too.
Here’s Debian projects own summary of “Reasons to Choose Debian”: http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian.en.html
As far as I know, Debian is one of only two distributions (even operating systems) with a social contract (Gentoo is the other). All Debian developers agree to this contract, which covers important concepts such as being %100 free, giving back to the free software community, promising not to hide problems, stating the first priorities as the users and free software, and more. It is more contract than money can buy.
Now that the article points this out, I must agree that the bug reports I have filed at the Debian BTS (bug tracking system) have always been given serious consideration — unlike in some other Linux distros or BSD flavours where bug reporters can be sometimes treated as troublemakers. In Debian it’s also easy to follow if the reported bugs get fixed or not. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/ Debian is honest and open about its shortcomings and, IMO, this goes a long way to explain why Debian GNU/Linux has become such an excellent OS.
“Unstable, contrary to popular belief, is not stable. Neither is testing. Upgrading frequently borks thing. The alternative? Backporting which still requires experimenting or stable, which is hopelessly out of date. I used to use Debian but stopped wanting to update so frequently or be out of date.
”
very true, I’ve had bad experiences in this!! ONLY stable is stable (unless you wish to see your system someday broken), but it is years out of date when I can’t even use kde 3.1.1 happily. Plus, I’ve never had luck with Debian + sound.
One of the issues I’ve had running Debian or one of its derivatives is the lack of task-oriented documentation. “Task-oriented” meaning “Here is how to perform this action…”.
The Debian site offers voluminous reading material, but it is often difficult to find a clear explanation of how to perform basic tasks. E.g., there’s a great deal of material about systems policy, etc., but I’ve never been able to find a succinct entry that answers this question: How Do I enable/disable a service? Or, How Do I migrate from stable to testing or unstable?
The answers are there if you look for them, but it is sometimes a case of you won’t find them until you know where they are.
Last two times I did an apt-get upgrade of a functioning unstable machine, here’s what happened: First time, I lost all my (Gnome) desktop icons. Second time, everything seemed fine until a reboot. At that point, the machine went into a endless loop of failed boots: the initial Grub message would appear, a split second would pass, and the machine would reboot. The kernel never launched. I got out of by booting to a CD and reinstalling.
”
I would imagine that the main purpose of the article was to convert people to his religion. In order to try and do so, he says: ”
wrong darius. this isnt even remotely close to religion. he has a different set of premises from you. his premises might be valid and yours might be too. no need to call it religion or anything stupid like that
agreed rpm hell is no more there.
Common myth. deb is the real package manager for Debian meaning if you only use deb command, it is no different than rpm for any rpm based distro. Therefore, comparing apt with rpm is like comparing apple and orange.
Debian has many good points, but the unstable/testing/stable branch system is really holding it back.
Things tend to stay in “unstable” until they work perfectly on all platforms. A single platform can hold a package back.
So “unstable” is really a mix of stable and unstable packages and there’s no way to know if a particular package
is really stable for your platform. If you’re on the x86 architecture, you’re probably in luck, but if you’re
on Solaris or some other platform, “unstable” is more risky.
From my understanding of portage, Gentoo has solved this problem through the use of masks. For instance, take a look at the entry for Hal:
http://www.gentoo-portage.com/sys-apps/hal
The main-line stable Gentoo repository contains 3 versions of Hal:
0.2.98-r1 ~amd64 ppc x86
0.4.0 ~amd64 ~ppc ~x86
0.4.1 ~amd64 ~ia64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
Version 0.2.98-r1 is stable on ppc and x86 but it’s experimental on amd64 (no other architectures are supported).
0.4.0 is experimental on ppc, x86, and amd64 (no other architectures are supported).
0.4.1 is experimental on ppc, x86, ppc64, and amd64 (no other architectures are supported).
Using this mechanism, the stable branches of Debian x86 and PPC can rapidly (wrt current Debian) support newer
packages while more exotic Debian platforms won’t have to guess anymore whether “unstable” will work for their
platform.
Plus, I’ve never had luck with Debian + sound.
You’ve never actually configured sound under linux manually then? Because thats all you have to do.
Common myth. deb is the real package manager for Debian
Huh? deb is the package format. I think you mean dpkg is the package manager for debian.
Upgrading frequently borks thing.
Have you tried the excellent apt-listbugs package? http://packages.debian.org/unstable/admin/apt-listbugs
(Debian should advertise it more to those willing to run Debian unstable or testing.)
When doing aptitude upgrade I often simply don’t install any packages that have bugs open acording to apt-listbugs (it automatically integrates itself with apt and aptitude). Because of this I really don’t even remember the last time when my Debian upgrades had borked anything, or any noticable problems or bugs either – though I’m running pure Debian Unstable (with lots of unofficial software too).
When using apt-listbugs, if you cancel the installation of buggy packages, the buggy packages are then automatically pinned and can be found from apt preferences. Those entries can then be removed later if/when the bugs go away.
Oh, and now as I started to write about apt-listbugs:
It could be useful if apt-listbugs was better integrated with apt and aptitude (meaning that one would have to use less time, knowledge and effort when using it). I wouldn’t mind even if apt-listbugs was part of aptitude
I stand corrected
I agree that Debian needs better (more task-oriented, that is) documentation for non-technical users. The following addresses may be of some help but there should really be a website that collects Debian related howtos “for users from users”.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/reference.en.html
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/debian-faq-wiki/
Many new Debian users complain that upgrading software with apt-get breaks their Debian “Testing” or “Unstable” system. There should be a documentation that would point out that you DON’T need to upgrade all packages at one go. And also that you can hold or “freeze” some packages so that they don’t get upgraded by accident.
But how are you supposed to know what packages should be (temporarily) “freezed”? Well, there’s a tool called apt-listbugs that prints a warning before you actually upgrade a package to a version that has been reported to be buggy. These packages should be “freezed” — they can be “unfreezed” later on when the bugs have been fixed. This way you can maintain a relatively stable “Testing” or “Unstable” Debian system.
There really should be more advertisement for this wonderful apt-listbugs tool. There probably exists something similar for the RPM distros too, although I’ve never heard of such. :-p
No.
> The very first thing I look at in a desktop operating
> system is what kind of applications it runs.
Obviously you’re looking for toys. That’s not the subject of the article, the article deals with a *workstation*.
For those looking for extra Debian documentation (and maybe not so techie-style like the official docs) here are three good sites worth a bookmark:
NewbieDoc:
http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/
Linux Desktop Survival Guide:
http://www.togaware.com/linux/survivor/
Debian Help:
http://www.debianhelp.org/
Also, don’t forget the often excellent documentation of Libranet, Ubuntu and other Debian-based desktop distros.
> Unstable, contrary to popular belief, is not stable.
> Neither is testing.
Testing is stable when the release is close, and it is sometimes not stable in the beginning of a release cycle. Are you aware of what “testing” is ?
I know, I used urpmi for a long time and I don’t miss it. I can recall many times running ” urpmi to find my dependency, download it, run urpmi again to find another dependency and repeat the process say 20 or 30 times. Great for installing a text editor, shit for updating KDE, Gnome, or XFCE.
Let the n00bs mess with dependency hell, because once most people start using a repository based system they don’t generally look back.
It is not like I learned anything with all the hours I wasted trying to get software installed on various linux distros.
Especially on a work station where time is money, you can’t be spending your time fiddling with crap.
“Then I’d like to know why most people doing real work are not using Linux… and especially not Debian Linux.
”
bad assumption. how do you people doing “real” work are not using linux/debian linux. how qualified are you to troll like that
That sounds like a really useful tool. On Mandrake we have a lower-tech version called a mailing list. When you see a post on the Cooker ML titled ‘new Perl update broke my system!’, that’s your cue to add perl to /etc/urpmi/skip.list (the equivalent to ‘pinning’ a package through apt, or whatever it is you called it).
um, what? A previous poster said in passing that Mandrake has apt4rpm as a apt-equivalent. I was just pointing out that using apt4rpm on mdk is actually quite rare. ‘No’ what?
Um…what? urpmi *is* a repository based system. You must not have had it properly set up. With properly defined repositories (either CDs or remote sources), it downloads and installs all necessary dependencies, like apt.
> The very first thing I look at in a desktop operating
> system is what kind of applications it runs.
Obviously you’re looking for toys. That’s not the subject of the article, the article deals with a *workstation*.
So then, what are you saying? Workstations don’t need apps? What else are you going to use it for?
I tried a lot of distros before I settled on debian.
I think debian has the best package management in the business. I know about swaret, yast, slaptget, urpmi, etc. But, from my experience, debian is easier, more reliable, and faster. Others are good, debian is better. JMHO.
In particular, debian package management is better than the package management of debian derivitives, such as linspire, or Xandros. It just works better with pure debian from my experience.
I consider debian to be a pain to set up. From my experience, debian has the worst install and hardware detection in the business. But, once you get it set up, pure debian is the easiest to maintain. Also, unlike some distros, debian lets me set it up the way I want it – I chose the file system, I chose the windows manager (or chose not to have a windows manager), I chose the apps.
Of course, that’s just me, your milage may vary.
The big selling point of Debian’s APT system is not so much just some simple tool like APT (it or other such tools can indeed be used with other distributions too) but the very well integrated and tested Debian packaging system as a whole.
Lots if not most Debian resources are dedicated to exactly that goal: to keep to whole Debian packaging/software system and repositories as integrated, bugfree and well tested as possible in an open and thorough manner.
Really, a package tool like APT may not be of so much use if the package repositories of a distro and packages themselves are not maintaned and tested well enough.
I’ve tried Debian several times. It has a lot going for it, but it’s such a pain to set up, I usually give up and head back to Slackware.
“So then, what are you saying? Workstations don’t need apps? What else are you going to use it for?”
for only specific apps which are usually stuff like browsers are office suites. debian has been used for these kind of stuff for years. ask HP
> So then, what are you saying? Workstations don’t need apps?
> What else are you going to use it for?
Sure workstations need apps. But flashy and pointless toys are not apps needed on workstations.
There has to be an architectural design which envisions the capability of incremental updates to packages instead of updating an entire package, especially for static packages that don’t have executable binaries.
For instance, all the doc packages should be managed by revision control and augmented accordingly, not by downloading a 20 MB file to replace say 5 files.
“You’ve never actually configured sound under linux manually then? Because thats all you have to do.”
Yes I have. it just doesn’t work on Debian, I don’t know why.
bad assumption. how do you [know] people doing “real” work are not using linux/debian linux.
Because their install base is extremely low compared to many OSes out there? Debian is a good OS, there’s no doubt about it. There are probably many people doing real work on Debian because it suits their needs… but what I am telling you is that the applications are usually more important than the operating system. How many people would not even consider Debian because it doesn’t run what they need?
GNU/Linux itself is quite good but it lacks many commercial/industrial-grade applications. And I am not talking of stuff like the lastest version of Streets & Trips, but scientific/engineering stuff, multimedia (video, audio, picture, 3D) manipulation, office suites (OOo is getting good but the MS-DOC compatibility isn’t perfect, something unfortunately needed)… Thus, it’s currently a poor workstation for most people, not because it’s unstable or has poor hardware compatibility but because of applications. That will change, but there are better platforms right now.
how qualified are you to troll like that
And how qualified are you to label me as a troll?
> > So then, what are you saying? Workstations don’t need apps?
> > What else are you going to use it for?
> Sure workstations need apps. But flashy and pointless toys are not apps
> needed on workstations.
Would you please give some examples of “flashy and pointless toys”? You keep mentioning “toys”, but it’s unclear whether you’re referring to productivity apps with a visually appealing interface, actual ‘toys’ (by definition) like games, or programs with far too much eye candy.
”
Because their install base is extremely low compared to many OSes out there?”
bad assumption again. why do always assume things like that?.o you how much debian workstations and thin clients HP sells or that its most used distro right after redhat in a recent survey
“And I am not talking of stuff like the lastest version of Streets & Trips, but scientific/engineering stuff, multimedia (video, audio, picture, 3D) manipulation, office suites (OOo is getting good but the MS-DOC compatibility isn’t perfect, something unfortunately needed)… ”
all of these exist but might not be suitable for you and certainly is NOT required in every *workstation*
“And how qualified are you to label me as a troll?”
because you dont hesistate to claim stuff about debian based on stats you just assume. thats close to trolling if not just that
“You keep mentioning “toys”, but it’s unclear whether you’re referring to productivity apps with a visually appealing interface, actual ‘toys’ (by definition) like games, or programs with far too much eye candy.”
i havent repeatedly mentioned it and I mean pointless eye candy. not productivity apps regardless of their interface
While I fully support your point of view, I think you’d better state
“usabilty: remains to be discussed”
in order to not enforce silly flamewars.
> If you don’t agree with this, then you probably never did real work on your computer.
May I ask what makes the work you are obviously doing particularily real?
> Debian is a Linux distribution. dont start the bsd
> vs linux flamewars here. Please keep it relevant
Hmm.. there’s Debian Hurd and Debian-k*BSD too (apart from the fact that FreeBSD carries linux libraries and binaries). Just wondering what people find so great about Debian.
Just wondering what people find so great about Debian.
Do you mean when compared to FreeBSD?
BSDs are great too, there’s no doubt about that… And Debian are FreeBSD are actually quite similar projects in many sense (large worldwide communities, lots of packages, not very newbie friendly but not too hard either). Also having large binary repositories plus a well working ports system for source packages like in FreeBSD seems great, a bit like Debian and Gentoo put together.
I would like to use some flavor of BSD more too. However, I don’t, for example, have 3D support for my video card (Matrox) on any BSD. On Debian it works (though unfortunately Matrox’ Linux support mostly sucks nowadays). There are many programs I like that work on Linux put not on BSD. I love Debian’s debconf for automatic package configuration (saves time). Debian just works for me (though some initial configuring is needed). And yet another thing: I happen to like the GPL and the Debian free software philosophy… Though I see nothing wrong in BSD licenses or philosphy either, and the philosophy is certainly not the main reason for choosing Debian. Things like stability, security and the amount of well tested software are.
bad assumption again. why do always assume things like that?.o you how much debian workstations and thin clients HP sells or that its most used distro right after redhat in a recent survey
For HP, I don’t. Do you? As for surveys, they are usually meaningless unless they are scientific stats. It’s just too easy to manipulate statistics.
“all of these exist but might not be suitable for you and certainly is NOT required in every *workstation*”
Talk about assumptions… I did not said that they are required on every workstation, nor that all commercial alternatives are better. However, I believe I have enough experience on Linux to claim that open-source software for desktop/workstation usage still need some polishing before getting widely accepted by the general public.
because you dont hesistate to claim stuff about debian based on stats you just assume. thats close to trolling if not just that
Exactly like you do? I am waiting for your stats, you know…
Yup, i use it too. If there are people out there who use redhat but having tried debian, get on it. I have not and have no plans to, look back.
Is it any wonder why all the latest commercial distros are chosing debian as their base? Not to me it aint!
I like debian. Its the only linux distro I do like. I’m sure urpmi and similar systems are great, but it looks to me to be merely apt clones – So thats a tie as far as pkg management goes.
I like that in the debian world stable *means* stable.
As far as testing goes, I’ve been using that for the past ffew weeks and I’d have to say I’ve had zero problems thus far.
As far as unstable goes….everyone knows the deal, if it breaks, you get to keep both halves. Please dont use such a experimental branch like unstable then complain that its not stable enough.
I personally prefer Gentoo for most things. That might be because I come from a FreeBSD background, so I really appreciate the ports system.
Certainly Gentoo is a bit harder to get up and running because you have to install by hand. But once it is going, it is awesome.
“Linux to claim that open-source software for desktop/workstation usage still need some polishing before getting widely accepted by the general public.
”
that depends on invidual needs. your experience only applies for you. we have a 14000 system wide deployment in central bank of India – all linux workstations – just for example
“Exactly like you do? I am waiting for your stats, you know…”
unlike you I DID NOT claim debian isnt being used on workstations. Go look into HP websites. search for debian netcraft survey(these surveys are not your vanilla untrustworthy ones) . so if you claim something like that you need to back it up, not me
May I ask what makes the work you are obviously doing particularily real?
You don’t get my point. When you need to do something, you usually get the best tool for the job.
In my opinion, giving more importance to the operating system is like giving more importance to the manufacturer of the tool than the tool itself.
I like Linux. I have two Linux servers at home that I have configured myself. I wanted a reliable server and a reliable router and I believe Linux was the best tool for the job. However, I need electronic/computer engineering software for doing my work… That’s why I use MS Windows on my laptop instead of running Linux with WINE (where my programs wouldn’t run reliabily) even if I would actually prefer to run Linux. Trying to make them work in Linux when I already have an environment where they can already run flawlessly would not be something productive.
“I’ve tried Debian several times. It has a lot going for it, but it’s such a pain to set up, I usually give up and head back to Slackware.”
Define a “pain to set up”? If you’re having more trouble with something than you would on Slackware, I don’t think you’re using Debian right. You didn’t really explain yourself, so I can’t offer advice. There are plenty of ways to make your life a pain if you don’t do things how they should be done.
Debian has been around a long time and it has a lot of “infrastructure”, if you will, to take advantage of. However, if you learn these systems and helpful utilities, you’ll see how Debian truely shines.
Good examples are the alternatives system (see /etc/alternatives and update-alternatives). Never seen anything like it. Strong dependency checking so no stale packages left around. See deborphand and debfoster. Automatic module building, see module-assistant.
My only complaint about Debian is that there’s nothing in between stable and testing. I like most of the packages in testing, it’s just that there are constantly updates. No problem if you’re on a good connection, though. Ubuntu fills the gap here, mostly. I’ll probably stick with Debian-testing though.
You don’t get my point. When you need to do something, you usually get the best tool for the job.
Don’t waste your time – these people will never understand the meaning of ‘the best tool for the job’ because as far as they’re concerned, Linux is the only true path to God. It’s a religion for them.
some of the other package management systems have functionality apt doesn’t – urpmi, for instance, has a parallel mode which you can use to update multiple machines simultaneously. it’s not very well-known, but it’s there.
, Linux is the only true path to God. It’s a religion for them.
——
you seriously need to consider other view points too. lets take a real world example of my organisation
here we have a IT team that has been for various reasons gained great expertise in unix like operating systems so Linux is a very good choice for us. when we make decisions, operating system compatibility becomes one major priority. we choose hardware and applications that are compatible with Linux and possibly other unix like systems. so its not necessarily applications that determine the OS all the time.
the alternative would be to choose the best applications and then just get the operating system the application supports but that certainly creates problems of support and migration so we have *standarised* on the operating system that happens to be Linux. Also here the cost is pretty much less that any other operating system we can reasonably standardise on/
its not religion. its just a practical thing to do. people who attack others just because they have a different opinion should really get things straight and consider stuff beyond them
that depends on invidual needs. your experience only applies for you. we have a 14000 system wide deployment in central bank of India – all linux workstations – just for example
No shit, Sherlock? Isn’t what I said? I’ll quote my own post:
Unless you develop your own applications, the most important criteria in choosing an operating system is the availability of quality software.
There is a world of difference between using commercial applications and developing/using your own applications. In the second case, you are not dependant on the vendor. In that situation, enterprises (or even particulars) cannot migrate as they wish, especially when they have a lot of history (e.g. they have a LOT of old files they would need to migrate to the new system).
unlike you I DID NOT claim debian isnt being used on workstations. Go look into HP websites. search for debian netcraft survey(these surveys are not your vanilla untrustworthy ones) . so if you claim something like that you need to back it up, not me
You’re the smartass claiming that you have seen this survey or that statistic and you can’t even give me an single answer?
And how a search on Netcraft will persuade me that Debian is the second most used distro on workstations? Hell, I did one just for fun and it turns out that Redhat has a 50% share in web serving while Debian has 15%, 5% behind the dead Cobalt Linux from Sun.
I have tried Debian Linux for some time but I have an hard time to get used to the underlying system… I have used Gentoo Linux for more than two years and I got used to the filesystem layout, the init system, etc. dpkg with Aptitude is incredibly nice but I seem to have some issues with the configuration of the system itself. I wasn’t able to modify the services I want, the configuration of a custom kernel was a tedious task even with a tutorial, I had some issues with the configuration of a wireless card (because contrib stuff doesn’t seem to be fully supported)…
That’s all newbie stuff but I guess it’s hard to change when you have some habits. So I respect the guy but Gentoo is definitely my favourite Linux OS… I will give a try to Ubuntu soon, though.
One thing I noticed in here at OSNEWS is that every TOM Dick and Harry seek pleasure in posting their comments (;-) I guess I fall into this crowd too), be it relevant or not. There is no point in dissecting an article and beating it to death like this. Give these people a break, guys..not everyone is perfect. I welcome constructive comments on articles, perhaps from the technical point of view, not 1,000,001 different opinions about THEIR choice of OS. Do comments like this serve any purpose other than being a sheer waste of precious time.
My goodness..will this ever end ?????
sigh…guess not
I simply don’t understand people who says installing Debian (currently Woody) is hard. I find it roughly equivalent to installing Redhat 7.3 (in text/curses mode). There’s really nothing overly complicated about it: choose your partitioning layout, select and install packages, install boot manager, boot, and you’re on the login prompt.
So please enlighten me which specific part in Debian installation is “so difficult”?
The posting of this Linux-centric article is quite obviously a response to the similar one a couple weeks ago, that explained the possible merits of FreeBSD.
Both of are similar structure and style, or lack thereof.
My 2 cents on what finally made me (and lots of other people) choose Debian, and what really makes Debian one of the primary choices.
1. The REPOSITORY. Many Linux distros now offer the equivalence of apt-get (yum, portage, etc), but what matters is not the tool, it’s the repository itself. Debian repository is very high quality and has better QA than even commercial ones (like Mandrake!, sorry, I’ve had some bad experiences with Mandrake).
2. The server-oriented “STABLE” BRANCH, which is maintained for 3-5 years. Many people (which obviously are desktop users) continuously complain that the stable/testing/unstable branching is the thing that’s “holding Debian back” because “stable” often contain older software. But this is exactly what most servers want. Stable is not only in the sense of “not crashing”, but also “not changing”. Most often when you setup a server you want to install stuffs and then just leave it alone. Software upgrades are for security or bug fixes only. New versions of software not only introduce new features and new bugs but also incompatibilities. I still remember the pain of having to upgrade from PHP 4.2 to 4.3 for a bunch of hosting servers and lots of stuffs suddenly stopped working.
3. The free and “stay legal” PHILOSOPHY. The Debian team really tries to make sure that users who only want to install free software on their system can easily do so. And making sure that the whole project is legal. Not many distros put emphasis on this aspect. They just bundle useful and cool stuffs without careful license/legal considerations.
After trying lots of distro; RedHat during my early days aroud 1996, SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, Gentoo and I even build my own from scratch but after sometime, I felt that wht I need is to do my daily work on a stable but updated OS which cause me to stick to Debian for about 2 years already.
I did my report, a little programming and some other works on Pentium 800 machine which serve as a database server for my units whole units. So far this computer never failed me. What I loved most is that I can upgrade my OS/application using “dselect” or “apt-get” at any time without downtime, and I normally did at least once a month.
“So please enlighten me which specific part in Debian installation is “so difficult”?”
I too found it very easy to install (the 1 time I tested it out, I much prefer FreeBSD but thats another system and definatelly another story). The only part I didn’t like was trying to install extra programs during the install, for example choosing the correct dependecies requires a lot of pressing space, and enter, but an enter instead of a space could mean accidentally starting the install. (I would have installed all of my programs later but it was only for testing purposes)
pfah, QA is for wimps!
😉
everything in the freely downloadable versions of Fedora and Mandrake is 100% free software, it’s a policy of both distributions.
Oh, and which part of a Debian installation is hard? If you understand what a partition layout is, how to choose packages and what a boot manager is, probably none of it. If you don’t, all of it…
So please enlighten me which specific part in Debian installation is “so difficult”?
I don’t find the installation to be hard, cumbersome yes, but not hard. One thing i absolutely hate about it is that it uses fdisk for partitioning. I didn’t mind fdisk in the 90s, but i really appriciate simpler alternatives today, doesn’t even need to be graphical.
What i find hard is getting everything working once installed. Things that just works on other systems needs tweaking in debian. Why do i have to worry about setting up sound manually? Why do i have to worry about permissions for cdburning? I just find i have to know about a lot of things to get it working. Some of the things are the way they are because of a reason, like the cdburning permissions, but they still get in my way when trying to use it as a desktop.
Now once installed and configured it works ok, and i do like the size of the repository, which is basically why i use debian.
One thing i don’t like is the outdatedness. I mean, when sarge is released it will at least be one version outdated of both KDE and GNOME, and i won’t be surprised if it ends up being by 2 releases, since KDE 3.4 is scheduled for release in march.
I also find testing/unstable to be less than stable, even though i still hear people claim they both are more stable than the stable version of most other ditros. I can’t for the life of me get KDE 3.3 from SID to install, it complains about broken packages, which is a fairly common event for me. Maybe it is my system that is borked, but i just can’t be bothered to reinstall, i just keep doing what i have done for years, compile KDE myself, which is much easier since i long ago automated it 🙂
If there are so many things i dislike, why do i keep using it? Because i am too darn lazy. I might have to try serveral alternatives before i am happy, and i might just never be totally satisfied. At least i know the problems of my current system, and can avoid them. The days where i switched system every time there was a new release of a distro is over 🙂
I can’t for the life of me get KDE 3.3 from SID to install, it complains about broken packages, which is a fairly common event for me. Maybe it is my system that is borked, but i just can’t be bothered to reinstall, i just keep doing what i have done for years, compile KDE myself, which is much easier since i long ago automated it 🙂
It’s trivial to get KDE3.3 installed on debian.One quick and dirty way is to edit your /etc/apt/sources.lst and add the unstable repository.After updating the source list a simple upgrade with synaptic is enough.
I have used debian for quite some time now.One thing that irritates me is that cdrecord gets broken all the time with the 2.6 kernel images.Sound support is very good, but in order to rip something one would like to be able to access a cd/dvd drive.I installed Mandrake 10.1 on a other box.The niam back hand was automatically installed and my snapscan touch usb-scanner worked right out the box as well did the HP inktjet printer and the adi1980 sound chip.Debian has a superior package management system whereas Mandrake has superior hardware compatibility.Besides that Mandrake has more accessible ways of hardening the kernel and or overal system.The Mandrake kernel-secure is patched for Lids,SeLinux and RSBAC support.Furthermore Mandrake has a build-in msec feature that has it’s GUI via “security” in the control panel.If you set the security to paranoid,which i tend to do,very strict file permissions are set.This wouldn’t lock the skilled hacker ,however this would certainly help to get a more secure workstation.A server wouldn’t necesarily need X11.In that case you could configure for eg: RSBAC without X11 suport and enable all it’s features including PAX.
For real world server security one might focus on Adamantix “Trusted debian”,which is based on debian but is more a breed on its own.Not per se suited for a workstation install but an exellent hardened whatever mission critical dependable server system.
There has to be an architectural design which envisions the capability of incremental updates to packages instead of updating an entire package, especially for static packages that don’t have executable binaries.
For instance, all the doc packages should be managed by revision control and augmented accordingly, not by downloading a 20 MB file to replace say 5 files.
Certainly, but how you know what version the user runs when he upgrades? Do you make patches for one version or for various. Do you make patches for patches for patches? Binary patches aren’t new either, but they have various practical side effects. Also, the BSDs suffer from the very same effects.
Debian is, like Gentoo and Slackware, more of a DIY OS with no support although there’s probably 3rd party support. That is not to say its not used in commercial or professional situations let alone home or hobby usage. In some of these situations, these OSes get used mostly for server-related work though also for workstation/desktop related work. This has advantages and disadvantages, and therefore its not perfect, which leaves room for other OSes.
Darius always comes around in threads like this one, claiming how its not Good Enough for whatever he wants to do with it (audio related work) even though some people use it for that purpose, too. They must be crazy. Then he calls you religious fanatic, troll, or whatever but i know better — Debian saves me and others headache, license costs and gives me the control i wish for. Besides, it brings life toold hardware such as Alphas and SPARCs which is plain fun in the free hours.
There are more useful APT-related applications such as apt-listbugs which are to be found at packages.debian.org
I don’t find the installation to be hard, cumbersome yes, but not hard. One thing i absolutely hate about it is that it uses fdisk for partitioning.
I knew someone was going to say that. I hate fdisk too, I don’t mind fdisking my test box but I am too afraid to b0rk something with fdisk on my main system.
The first time I intalled a linux distro (I believe Red Hat 6.1 maybe) the GUI installer didn’t load so I used the “expert/text base” install option, even that had a better tool than fdisk.
There are enough open source partitioning tools out there that they don’t need fdisk. My guess is it is still there by design to keeps n00bs and dual booters out of their “community”.
There are enough open source partitioning tools out there that they don’t need fdisk. My guess is it is still there by design to keeps n00bs and dual booters out of their “community”.
(Other architectures include a different partitioning tool.)
Ah, guessing. That’s an interesting hobby. My guess is thats why they made their Sarge installer far more user-friendly. My other guess is that the reason is Debian developers are Symantec shareholders… My third guess is you’re a conspiracy theorist. Am i hot yet? Does your guess include some research about the alternatives and their various (dis)advantages? Have you become aware of the bugs surrounding Disk Druid? The fact RedHat included Disk Druid and a *GUI* partition manager? I guess not.
Wanna play Cluedo or Scottland Yard with me? Lets see who’s better at guessing…
> Don’t waste your time – these people will never understand the meaning of
> ‘the best tool for the job’ because as far as they’re concerned, Linux
> is the only true path to God. It’s a religion for them.
What? I was merely pointing out that the term “real work” is quite ill defined. If that makes me a Linux zealot in your eyes, then you’re the zealot.
> “usabilty: remains to be discussed”
> in order to not enforce silly flamewars.
Yes, you’re right, there are a few good points which may happen to fit well with some kinds of applications, so usability is probably ok in some cases.
The nifty little Windows Notepad clone Leafpad http://www.gnomefiles.org/app.php?soft_id=365 is not yet available in the official Debian repos but here’s an unofficial sources.list entry for downloading&installing it via apt-get:
deb http://chinese.alioth.debian.org leafpad/
Debian is just “the” distro. do you think i’m biased?
yeah i love debian but at this point i guess all distros are somewhat equals.
except debian is more equal (cit.)
Debian GNU/Linux is really good distro but if only you use stable version.I mean no sarge or sid.it will take long time that Sarge will be stable.I don’t want to install twice in a week sid or sarge after upgrade,which really sucks!because usually after upgrade,system is unuseable.I know that they don’t recomend to use sid or sarge.but why should I use old version of almoust all programs while Gnome 2.8 and KDE 3.3.1 is out there?network installation takes about 2h then you have to configure which takes 1h if you’re not contented you default Debian kernel which doesn’t support alsa and bootsplash,then you have to compile your own kernel.I am relly hoping and waiting that sarge will be the stable
My first experence into the Debian world has come through Ubuntu, I have been a long time fan of RedHat/Fedora, but after my hard drive crashed on me, I decieded to try Ubuntu. Now I know that Ubuntu is not *pure* debian, so I can’t really speak for the rest of the Debain users, but I have found Ubuntu to be extreamly easy to use, and very stable on my system. I look at debian more like a base to start a good Linux Distro, just look at the number of distros based on Debain, and where they are at today. That is just what I think.
~Alan
1. It is common to see posts here and elsewhere asserting that Debian’s unstable branch is more than stable enough for daily desktop use, that Debian’s stability standards are very conservative and target the server side of things. That may be true (although Debian apparently makes no such claim), but it implies that desktop users should accept less stability than the guys running the servers. I can’t accept that. If you’re making your living, or paying employees, to bang on keyboards allday, then desktop downtime is as costly as server downtime.
2. The new Debian installer defaults to the testing distribution. Why not stable?
3. Does a “backport” distribution exist? That is, one based on stable with backports replacing the major components?
I have used debian unstable on all my desktops for a couple of years now and I have _never_ had any major problems. I usually upgrade(apt) a couple of times a month.
1. If you feel that way, then maybe you should try Ubuntu that claims stability of its releases. But you might want to try also Debian Unstable with apt-listbugs installed. I have only my own experience as evidence to assure that Debian Unstable upgrades (when used with apt-listbugs and a dose of common sense) hardly ever cause any unstability in my workstation system. Sometimes I encounter small bugs, but that’s what you get in any distro.
2. It’s Sarge installer and Sarge, although it’s currently the Testing branch, becomes the next Stable release. Then a new Testing branch is established, called Etch I think, which on its turn will in time become a Stable release. The Unstable branch will always be called Sid.
3. Perhaps you’ll find what you want here: http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/installers.html
The new Debian installer defaults to the testing distribution. Why not stable?
But that’s exactly what the goal is. The new installer will be the default installer for stable Debian (+ already for testing & unstable) as soon as Sarge will become officially stable (early next year?). The current stable, Woody, released 2002, naturally still defaults to the old installer, as no new technology is officially backported to the stable release, only important bug fixes.
Does a “backport” distribution exist?
Is there really a need or a room for a dedicated distro to do that as you would usually install only some selected backports that are probably a bit different from what others would choose? Besides I don’t see any problems in mixing stable & backports (or testing, for example). If you want support, there’s Ubuntu, Libranet and others that offer security and other support for their own selection of Debian packages (mostly close to Debian Unstable).
Like I wrote above: I’ve been running pure Debian unstable for many months now, and I really don’t remember the last time when I had met any significant bugs. The reason: I use apt-listbugs and usually simply don’t install any packages that have open bugs. That is quite stable a system, don’t you think?
Because of my own package/bugs policy, I suppose my system is probably rather close to Debian testing though. Also I still don’t have some things like Firefox 1.x as it still has some open bugs. But that’s a small price to pay for stability, I’m happy with the older version of Firefox.
There’s this one bigger problem: Debian is a big project and rather slow to make big changes like the move from XFree86 to X.org that for most other distros has already happened. But they should have X.org in the unstable sometime early next year, I suppose. (the testing version of Ubuntu, based on Debian unstable, already has it). I sure would like to have X.org already, but I have to wait for it to be stable enough on Debian. :/ Hmm… Although, by then I might have already moved to use Ubuntu
“1. It is common to see posts here and elsewhere asserting that Debian’s unstable branch is more than stable enough for daily desktop use”
Actually, its common asserted _testing_ is stable enough for daily desktop use. I’d assert that really depends on the situation though. Btw, did you know that a lot of desktop distributions use Debian Sarge as base for their OS?
“[…] but it implies that desktop users should accept less stability than the guys running the servers. I can’t accept that. If you’re making your living, or paying employees, to bang on keyboards allday, then desktop downtime is as costly as server downtime.”
Actually no, desktop downtime is almost never ‘as costly’ as server downtime. It very much depends on the infastructure. If you have an 8-node VAX cluster and you shut down 1, everything is fine. If you have 200 employers and 1 of those computers (based oncommodity low-reliable x86 hardware) goes down (due to hard- or software failure) then 199 are up. But say that same corporate network has 1 server for authentication (lets say a LDAP server) which goes down then 199 or 200 are not able to authenticate.
Anyway, in the past years of Sarge, which bugs were around which were a hazard for stability and were unfixable after a bit of reading? The only big one was the was in Unstable (Sid) and that was the glibc bug. If those simple problems are too much for you, you need 1) hire one or more competent admins 2) get a support contract.
Regarding the latter, Yahoo! handles their FreeBSD servers pretty well without one. So did Hotmail before they got bought by Microsoft. And so do various NGOs as well as commercial entities, also with Debian.
X.Org is in Experimental. If enough people test it, file and fix bug reports then it’ll enter Unstable faster.
> 2. The new Debian installer defaults to the testing distribution. Why not stable?
Are you seriously asking this question ?
> I can’t accept that. If you’re making your living, or paying employees, to bang on keyboards allday, then desktop downtime is as costly as server downtime.
Desktop downtime with testing ? Once again, are you serious ? “stable” corresponds to the Debian standards, you don’t have to expect more downtime with testing than most other “stable” versions of major distributions. Just avoid unstable, and only use testing if some packages are too old.
No person with an ounce of common sense would use stable/Woody for their desktop: it is simply obsolete software.
When Sarge becomes the next stable release, it will be “new” enough for some time. But it will become old eventually, if we must wait 3 years for the next release.
Unstable/Sid has too many bugs, no matter what people claim.
So why not use testing all the time? I might have had one single issue with testing, and not a serious one.
Besides testing is never too old.
So it makes a very good compromise between stability and bleeding edgeness, IMO.
1. I’ve seen any number of posts, some in direct response to me, stating that the unstable branch is as stable as many other distribution’s mainstream releases and, hence, appropriate for desktop use.
Of course, all that is anecdotal evidence and doesn’t prove anything. Regardless of the labels attached to Debian’s branches, or to the number of open bugs maintained by one distribtion or another, actual reliability will vary from one installation to the next.
One thing that intrigues me is the fact that some packages remain in unstable while they’re are also included in other mainstream distributions. Either those distributions are fixing bugs and not releasing the fixes, or knowingly releasing buggy code. I have no way of knowing. But, it would be interesting to compare the reliability of desktops running unstable with desktops running, say, Fedora, SUSE or Mandrake.
2. Yes, a variety of scenarios can be imagined to show that server downtime is more costly than desktop downtime, or vice versa. But, if I, as an individual, cannot get my work done because my desktop is unreliable, that’s an unacceptable loss.
3. As a SOHO Linux user, the notion of hiring an admin or buying support is out of the question. If something doesn’t work and I can’t fix it, it isn’t used. Certainly, in terms of the broader consumer market, notions like buying a support contract or hiring admins will never apply. Products intended to be used by that market need to work correctly out of the box. And, I’ve never met a manager who doesn’t want that for his IT products, too.
Ok, so I also switched to debian, like, 5 years ago. Do I write articles about it ? No. Why ? Waste of time. Do others ? Yup. I read them ? Yep. Waste of time, ditto.
The only reason I don’t bash further is because it’s debian
And, btw, my PC is gray. I should write a few columns about why it is. Naah, not this life.
twice in a week sid or sarge after upgrade,which really sucks!because usually after upgrade,system is unuseable.
Never had this problem. It’d be hard to completely hose your system unless it was a libc package or some such that was terribly wrong. If it was, it would have probably gotten caught in unstable.
network installation takes about 2h
Maybe if you’re on dial-up. If you’re doing this a lot, then you’d want to create a local mirror.
then you have to configure which takes 1h if you’re not contented you default Debian kernel which doesn’t support alsa and bootsplash,then you have to compile your own kernel.
ALSA is part of the 2.6 kernel, so that’s a simple `apt-get install kernel-image-2.6-k7` or whatever your architecture may be. In addition, ALSA modules are compiled for the 2.4 kernel and included in the repositories.
Yeah, I wish bootsplash was included too. Their reasoning, however, is that a bootsplash isn’t a kernel thing. It should be in userspace. So I just deal without the bootsplash and save myself the time of custom compiling the kernel–it’s just not worth 1 minute of bliss when I reboot. I love the binary kernel packages.
as has been noted above, debian doesn’t have a better package management system. In some ways it has better *packages*, but the systems themselves – urpmi and apt – do the same things.
The difference is that server downtime has a wider effect. The average setup has many fewer servers than it has desktops. This the whole point of a client / server relationship, after all. If one server goes down, it’s likely to have a substantial impact on lots of people (for instance, a departmental print or mail server). If one desktop goes down, one person is screwed. Big difference.
One thing that intrigues me is the fact that some packages remain in unstable while they’re are also included in other mainstream distributions. Either those distributions are fixing bugs and not releasing the fixes, or knowingly releasing buggy code. I have no way of knowing.
It seems pretty clear to me which one of those two choices is the correct answer…
However, one should also remember that many Debian bugs are related only to certain (often rather exotic) platform. Often the software has no known bugs when running it on i386 boxes. Many distros use only i386 (plus maybe PPC) while Debian tries to run reliably and bugfre on about a dozen processor architectures.
“Yes, a variety of scenarios can be imagined to show that server downtime is more costly than desktop downtime, or vice versa.”
Where the former is more likely than the latter, yes.
“[…] But, if I, as an individual, cannot get my work done because my desktop is unreliable, that’s an unacceptable loss.”
Individual doing what. For doing something important or -as on OSnews- chit-chat? If you as individual do not know how to fix simple problems related to Debian Sarge (which you’d have to even if you were running another OS) or do now want to invest time in learning how to fix these (which you’d have to even if you were running another OS) or do not want to read a simple bug list (which you’d have to even if you were running another OS) whereas you do not wish to run Debian Woody then you near the point of “Debian is not for you”. But i’m afraid neither Gentoo nor Slackware would be. Heck, there are these people who can’t even get basic security measures on their Windows production machines. Full with spyware. And our poor tech support friends have to fix all of these machines…
“Products intended to be used by that market need to work correctly out of the box. And, I’ve never met a manager who doesn’t want that for his IT products, too”
There are these IT managers who prefer people to build up a competent, cheap setup with easy failover.
Don’t forget i named my previous examples with sidemarks as intended. An 8-node VAX cluster with 1 node going down is no problem. Replace 1 while the system continues to run. A x86 desktop box not working? Here, have one of the many replacements. If you’d just read apt-listbugs and apt-listchanges with that the chances something goes wrong are next to 0. Ofcourse, as competent as you’d be, you also would know when to upgrade. E.g. how stupid cvan one be to replace an authentication server at the moment everyone needs to authenticate? One could also decide to actually test the updates on a test machine.
“As a SOHO Linux user, the notion of hiring an admin or buying support is out of the question”
Then again, Debian is not meant for the casual home end user who don’t want to learn or read. If you want that, try one of the many more user-friendly alternatives instead.
Single point of failure?
X.Org is in Experimental. If enough people test it, file and fix bug reports then it’ll enter Unstable faster.
I believe it has much more to do with the idea that XFree86 runs on the 11 architectures that they support, and that Xorg won’t hit unstable until sarge is released and they can make bigger strides.
“Single point of failure?”
Capiche.
“I believe it has much more to do with the idea that XFree86 runs on the 11 architectures that they support, and that Xorg won’t hit unstable until sarge is released and they can make bigger strides.”
I stand corrected IIRC those were indeed the reasons.
In truth, I have no way of determining if distributions are fixing code and not sharing the fix, or releasing buggy products. I just have to use their products and see what happens. Ditto with Debian. Unless I spend all my time tracking every bug against every distribution, all I have to go on is reputation and trust. (Even if I did track every bug, how am I to determine if the fix actually works? Again, reputation and trust.)