[HN Gopher] Debian 12 "Bookworm"
___________________________________________________________________
Debian 12 "Bookworm"
Author : Chatting
Score : 479 points
Date : 2023-06-10 12:32 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.debian.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.debian.org)
| oftenwrong wrote:
| The amount of effort put into Debian is truly impressive. I have
| used it for decades and it has been remarkably stable. Use the
| stable release with unattended-upgrades and it's almost zero-
| maintenance.
|
| Also, an estimated 96.3% of packages are built reproducibly for
| amd64.
|
| https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/bookworm/index_...
| swayvil wrote:
| Heck yes. Best distro of the best OS on the planet. I look
| forward to upgrading.
| jlpcsl wrote:
| Wow, and it even comes with the very latest KDE Plasma 5.27.5.
| Quite rare for a stable Debian and makes it more up to date than
| PopOS. Awesome.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Having used Ubuntu and then Pop!_OS, I have been thinking of
| going back to the roots and just sticking with Debian. But I
| also like to get the new stuff (not bleeding edge because I
| don't want things breaking all the time) and I have heard that
| stable is, well, old stuff (hence stable). Which makes me
| wonder how unstable is "unstable" in reality? I have a very
| strong preference for sticking to .deb packages due to their
| wide availability so not really looking at cool distros like
| Arch.
| pessimizer wrote:
| "Unstable" is actually unstable. What you want is "Testing,"
| or if you're a little more conservative, you want Stable +
| backports: https://backports.debian.org/
|
| > You are running Debian stable, because you prefer the
| Debian stable tree. It runs great, there is just one problem:
| the software is a little bit outdated compared to other
| distributions. This is where backports come in.
|
| > Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release
| (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on
| Debian stable. Because the package is also present in the
| next Debian release, you can easily upgrade your
| stable+backports system once the next Debian release comes
| out. (In a few cases, usually for security updates, backports
| are also created from the Debian unstable distribution.)
| nntwozz wrote:
| The gift that keeps on giving, runs perfect on my headless
| 10-year old gaming-PC turned server in the basement.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| I highly recommend installing proxmox and running debian VMs.
| It's really easy and the returns are great.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| In the parent comment to yours, ''runs perfect'' means runs
| perfect. No need for an insertion of an additional layer of
| stuff to just get back to ''runs perfect''.
| drumhead wrote:
| I've was an inveterate distro hopper, but finally settled on
| Debian because of its stability. Its not the most user friendly
| but when you get it up and running "it just works". Debian really
| is fantastic achievement in software.
| DrJohanson wrote:
| [dead]
| jfhr wrote:
| > The new systemd-resolved package will not be installed
| automatically on upgrades as it has been split into a separate
| package. If using the systemd-resolved system service, please
| install the new package manually after the upgrade, and note that
| until it has been installed, DNS resolution may no longer work as
| the service will not be present on the system.
|
| will installing over the internet work without DNS resolution?
| pas wrote:
| yes, as the script adds/replaces the sources.list lines, then
| apt i downloads the packages, only then it starts the
| installation of them
| thanatos519 wrote:
| I installed -rc4 on a new work laptop and it's super nice.
|
| I have some gripes about the installer's partitioning tool but I
| suspect that it would have been fine if I was willing to reboot a
| couple more times. The laptop was locked down and I needed
| someone to type the BIOS password every time I wanted to boot off
| the USB stick.
|
| I wanted 4k blocks all the way down but got stuck with 512b
| sectors.
| kramerger wrote:
| Do you recommend switching from Ubuntu TLS to this one? Even to a
| heavy LXC and multipass user?
|
| What had kept me on Ubuntu so far has been their out of box
| laptop support (I.e. WiFi drivers).
| marcrosoft wrote:
| I switched away from Ubuntu when they started putting
| advertisements in the motd and login screens.
| kramerger wrote:
| That didn't bother me much as it is "advertisement" about
| things related to my system.
|
| What I did not like was Firefox taking 20s to start.
| marcrosoft wrote:
| No I'm not talking about useful things like last login,
| average cpu, etc. they were advertising their cloud
| products.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| Ubuntu has (used to at least) ads as apps in the app
| launcher, served by canonical and not at all related to the
| software you're using.
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| Moved back to Debian because of lxc on Ubuntu requiring snaps.
| Turns out same problem on Debian. Snapd consumes 100% cpu. All.
| The. Time. Hoping Bookworm will solve it. Else I will be moving
| to Archlinux, which has lxc without snapd.
| yrro wrote:
| I don't think lxc on Debian has ever needed snapd?
|
| https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/lxc
| aragilar wrote:
| They're probably running lxd (which is only packaged for
| snap as far as I know), lxd is controlled by the "lxc"
| command (which isn't part of lxc...).
| yrro wrote:
| Ah. This questionable decision is why I abandoned LXC for
| Docker (initially) and eventually Podman/k8s.
| sm1ch wrote:
| lxd (not just lxc) is now also available as a deb package
| in debian:
|
| https://wiki.debian.org/LXD
|
| https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768073
| aragilar wrote:
| The "lxc" command runs lxd, you need to run "lxc-'command'"
| for actual lxc.
| yokem55 wrote:
| Bookworm now has lxd as natively packaged deb's in the main
| repository. It's very nice to setup.
| lairv wrote:
| Had to reinstall ubuntu 3 times already since the beginning of
| this year and thus switched to debian, hopefully I'll be able to
| settle in for a while
| botanical wrote:
| For me Ubuntu has been the most stable distro. I probably won't
| move, since I want an up-to-date system that stays out of my
| way
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Lol. Enjoy relearning the hot new way to configure DNS every
| release.
| suprjami wrote:
| Netplan is garbage. I remove all that and use
| NetworkManager. It's good and just works.
| jacooper wrote:
| Through gnome network settings, the same way it has always
| been(I think GP meant Desktop).
| profwalkstr wrote:
| What happened?
| lairv wrote:
| - Tried 23.04 and found too many bugs (I guess this doesn't
| count)
|
| - Some day 22.04 randomly started without GUI and I couldn't
| get it back either with ubuntu-desktop and startx
|
| - I installed a Python package without a virtual environment
| and it somehow interfered with system Python, bootloader
| broke
|
| It's possible that those errors were recoverable but I'm not
| a linux expert and I couldn't repair it after ~2h of
| stackoverflow
| jacquesm wrote:
| Since I disabled auto-update most of such issues have gone
| away and what works stays working. I suspect the second was
| due to an auto-update if you had that enabled and don't get
| me started on python versioning and the way that can impact
| a system.
| zekrioca wrote:
| Never go through odd versions (19.xy, 21.xy, 23.xy,...).
| krylon wrote:
| One thing I really appreciate about Debian is that when a new
| stable release comes around, I can just upgrade and be reasonably
| sure nothing bad will happen.
|
| It's not exciting, but a fair amount of the time, this is what
| people expect from their operating system. Support my hardware,
| give me the software I need, and stay out of my way otherwise.
| And that is what Debian does very well.
| mikae1 wrote:
| _> One thing I really appreciate about Debian is that when a
| new stable release comes around, I can just upgrade and be
| reasonably sure nothing bad will happen._
|
| That's good feedback and I've heard it from other people.
| Personally I've never been able to dist-upgrade Rapbian or
| Ubuntu without breaking the OS.
| krylon wrote:
| It's been a long time since I have used Ubuntu. In the
| ~2009-2013 era, my desktop ran Ubuntu, and I repeatedly
| upgraded it from 2008.04 -> 2010.04 -> 2012.04. There were a
| few issues, but nothing that made the system unusable. But
| that was over ten years ago, I have no idea how Ubuntu has
| evolved since.
|
| Raspbian has been problematic for me. I tried upgrading from
| Buster to Bullseye, and it went so badly I ended up
| reinstalling from scratch. (To be fair, the docs were clear
| that was a likely outcome.)
|
| OTOH, my ThinkPad x220 has been running Debian since 2016, I
| installed Jessie back then and upgraded as new stable
| versions were released. The upgrade to bookworm has finished
| by now, and it's been entirely unexciting. :-)
| jacooper wrote:
| Its baffling that RHEL-based distros still don't support in
| place upgrades.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Strange; I would have assumed that `dnf system-upgrade` would
| have made it from Fedora to RHEL by now.
|
| Actually searching turns up
| https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
| us/red_hat_enterp... , which... appears to use a totally
| different tool? I don't really know what's going on there,
| but it does looks like they have some sort of support for in-
| place upgrades now.
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| I heard when Bullseye came out that I should wait a bit as the
| initial bugs were found. I'm wondering if that was true then or
| now.
| bacchusracine wrote:
| Does anyone know if Bookworm includes the Ubuntu-Mate version of
| the Mate desktop?
| ech0plex88 wrote:
| Unfortunately no, the panel layouts aren't there by default.
| However, I've written some guides that can help close the
| appearance & capabilities gap.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/12gyjpg/debian_mate...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/13ueaub/debian_12_m...
| bikenaga wrote:
| I'm on testing, which just released as Debian 12. mate-desktop
| is 1.26.0, but a few things (like mate-applets) are 1.26.1 and
| a few (like mate-panel) show up as 1.27.0. I don't use Ubuntu,
| so I don't know how these compare to whatever Ubuntu uses.
| guiambros wrote:
| What a weird announcement. It says " _To install Debian 12
| bookworm ... you can choose from a variety of installation media
| types to Download..._ " and " _If you simply want to try Debian
| 12 bookworm... you can use one of the available live images_ " as
| if it were all available, but in fact the Debian 12 images are
| _not_ ready.
|
| It feels like the blog post was written before images were
| created, but they forgot to add a comment saying _when_ it 'll be
| available for download and published anyway.
|
| I understand by the comments that the apt repos were already
| updated, so you could install bullseye 11.7 and upgrade to 12 in
| the OS, but seems a convoluted way to do it. I guess I won't be
| trying out 12 this weekend.
| [deleted]
| pja wrote:
| The CD images should be downloadable towards the end of the day
| if previous releases are anything to go by.
|
| This HN post jumped the gun a little with the Debian Wiki page:
| the final official release happens when https://debian.org/
| gets updated to point to the new installation media.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| We seem to have this conversation for every release; I wish
| Debian would make it very explicit when exactly a new release
| is "released", perhaps by sticking a banner at the top of the
| relevant pages that says something like "Debian 12 'Bookworm'
| has NOT been formally released but is expected to ship at
| $TIME/$DATE"
| denysonique wrote:
| I see this old-package argument over and over again and I think
| it is inaccurate, considering that an estimated 95% of Ubuntu
| users use the LTS version, the below table demonstrates that
| Debian 12 (stable) packages are newer than those of of Ubuntu
| 22.04. Both Debian 12 and Ubuntu 22.04 are LTS versions with 5
| years of support. Ubuntu 22.04
| Kernel 5.19 (new installs only, existing installs 5.15)
| systemd 249 KDE Plasma 5.24 Gnome 42
| Debian 12 Kernel 6.1 systemd 252
| KDE Plasma 5.27 Gnome 43
| dima55 wrote:
| This is true by definition. Ubuntu releases are forked from
| Debian at the time of their release, so Ubuntu 22.04 is where
| Debian was in April 2022.
| kijin wrote:
| Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS tend to alternate with respect to
| who has newer packages, because Debian ships on odd years and
| Ubuntu LTS on even years.
|
| For most purposes, though, I find that I increasingly don't
| care about 1 or 2 years of difference in the base OS. Most of
| the toolchain is stable and well established. There are only a
| small handful of things I want to pin to a specific version
| (like node.js or Python), but these can usually be installed
| side by side with default packages. If not, I can always
| install it in a container. :)
| suprjami wrote:
| I realised this myself recently. I have used Ubuntu LTS for a
| long time, I don't use the in-between releases. They have about
| the same release cadence as Debian (2ish years) so I'm usually
| not losing anything much by moving to Debian.
|
| Ubuntu probably do the HWE kernel better than stable backports
| kernel, the HWE kernel has a release schedule.
|
| There's been more community support for Ubuntu in the form of
| PPAs but Flatpak has mostly solved that problem for the things
| I care about.
|
| As such, I've already switched all my laptops to Debian, and
| will switch my desktop and work computer when I can be
| bothered.
| _joel wrote:
| Whilst I'm no longer an Ubuntu user due to their snap debacle,
| I don't think this is all that fair, they released over a year
| apart and LTS is LTS for a reason :)
| forty wrote:
| I have always used stable on my servers and testing on my
| laptop but I recently switched to stable on the laptop with
| kernel from backports (I have fairly recent hardware). I have
| never been happier :) (to be fair, staging was fairly stable
| too, but still broke small stuff occasionally, and I feel I'm
| too old to deal with this ^^)
| fb03 wrote:
| Testing this out in a VM. I want to move away from Ubuntu
| (honestly, from SNAPs)
| troad wrote:
| I'm also considering this, but I'm a little afraid of being
| stuck in the slow lane when it comes to software updates. I'm
| aware of Backports, but I'm led to believe it has a somewhat
| limited selection.
|
| Perhaps this is a good opportunity to try a combination of
| Debian, for general system stability, and Nix, for specific
| tools where I need newer releases? Has anyone tried this
| combination before? If so, how did you find it?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I run a mix of Debian and Arch/Manjaro.
|
| Debian is fine right up until you have to build something and
| find that the dep you need is too old so you have to build
| that from source, and that dep has a dep that's too old so
| you have to... basically build hell.
|
| Arch seems to not have these problems but is a hair buggier
| on occasion.
| malkia wrote:
| backports?
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| If you want to run a desktop system, I'd recommend Pop! OS.
| Right now, they seem to be the distro that cares the most
| about desktop experience.
| aragilar wrote:
| Is this a desktop/laptop? You can always run unstable if you
| think stable is too old (I run unstable on my dev systems,
| and stable on servers/anything I want to setup and let run).
| FYI, if you use a Ubuntu LTS release, then unless you always
| run the latest LTS, the majority of the packages (being in
| universe) will actually be older than Debian stable (and will
| always be older then Debian unstable).
| pja wrote:
| I'd suggest testing over unstable as very occasionally
| broken packages get pushed to unstable. Testing has a week
| or two delay, which usually catches such problems.
| sillystuff wrote:
| If you decide to run testing, be aware that while testing
| does get updates that address security issues after those
| updates work their way into testing from unstable, it
| does not explicitly get security updates.
|
| Pinning some security sensitive packages to stable or
| unstable might be worth considering. E.g., if running
| testing on a client, pin firefox and extensions to stable
| + stable-security (note, globbing works too):
| /etc/apt/preferences.d/firefox: Package: firefox-
| esr Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 999
| Package: firefox-esr Pin: release a=stable-security
| Pin-Priority: 999 Package: webext-ublock-
| origin-firefox Pin: release a=stable Pin-
| Priority: 999 Package: webext-ublock-origin-
| firefox Pin: release a=stable-security Pin-
| Priority: 999
|
| The above priorities will not downgrade to stable from
| testing if the packages are already installed. To
| downgrade priority needs to be >= 1000. See 'man 5
| apt_preferences'. If priority >= 1000, probably best to
| only do that temporarily, then adjust to lower to prevent
| setting a landmine for your future-self.
|
| If there are only a couple things you want to update to
| newer versions that are not in backports, you can just
| run stable, and pin those packages to versions in testing
| or unstable (but only if those packages pull in no / only
| a few dependencies not used by other packages). If you
| add e.g., testing/unstable sources to a stable system,
| add a catchall pin to force those packages to a low
| priority by default to prevent accidentally updating your
| entire system e.g., for sid:
| /etc/apt/preferences.d/sid: Package: * Pin:
| release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 10
|
| Pinning without thinking can result in a broken system.
| But, I'm typing this on a box running testing (I guess
| stable, as of today) with packages pinned from Bullseye,
| Sid, and experimental and I've never had worse issues
| than an update being blocked due to dependency version
| conflict which was easily worked-around by pinning
| another package/removing or downgrading a pinned package;
| I run unattended-upgrades on all my boxes too. But, my
| hard rule is no scary deps e.g., a diff version of libc
| being pulled in, no deps shared with other packages that
| I would not want to have to pin to the same release
| (e.g., shared with any package with tons of deps itself),
| and no package that wants to pull in a lot of deps
| regardless of how benign they appear.
| pja wrote:
| Personally I use the official Mozilla releases of firefox
| & thunderbird & drop them in /opt so that they get
| updated as soon as an update is released.
|
| Otherwise this is good advice.
| [deleted]
| cardanome wrote:
| Why not use Linux Mint?
|
| It is Ubuntu-based but without the bad parts like snap. So
| you get to keep access to all the Ubuntu packages but also
| your sanity.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I've been maintaining a machine deployed to my mother-in-
| law's house for ~4 years with Mint.
|
| She went from needing tech support every time I was at her
| house to never overnight.
|
| I highly recommend Mint for this scenario.
| chungy wrote:
| Combining Debian with Nix or Guix is a fairly excellent way
| to go. Stable OS base, selective bleeding-edge apps (or hell,
| multiple runtime versions that would otherwise conflict).
| Win-win.
| blihp wrote:
| You can run a reasonably current Debian install by just
| switching to the testing repos after you install a stable
| release. This _mostly_ works pretty well but occasionally[1]
| you 'll have an issue. While you could get absolutely up to
| the minute software (from a Debian standpoint) using the sid
| (i.e. unstable) repos, I wouldn't recommend it as breakage is
| quite common there as they are working through various
| packing issues and that repo lives up to its name.
|
| [1] every couple of years in my experience... typically as
| they're getting closer to a new release and package breaking
| changes are needed/slip through.
| secondcoming wrote:
| I tried the same move but I couldn't find any reason to
| permanently move to Debian. The biggest problem is that some of
| the package versions are quite old. Ubuntu is far better when
| it comes to software updates. The snap stuff is crap though.
| [deleted]
| denysonique wrote:
| I see this old-package argument over and over again and I
| think it is inaccurate, considering that an estimated 95% of
| Ubuntu users use the LTS version, the below table
| demonstrates that Debian 12 (stable) packages are newer than
| those of of Ubuntu 22.04. Both Debian 12 and Ubuntu 22.04 are
| LTS versions with 5 years of support.
| Ubuntu 22.04 Kernel 5.19 (new installs only,
| existing installs 5.15) systemd 249
| KDE Plasma 5.24 Gnome 42 Debian
| 12 Kernel 6.1 systemd 252
| KDE Plasma 5.27 Gnome 43
| samtheprogram wrote:
| Just use Debian testing. I've essentially been running
| Bookworm for about year now (that's actually the version name
| used in my apt conf). Ubuntu is pretty close to Debian
| testing version-wise.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Were you trying out Sid, or stable/testing? Stable tends to
| contain ancient software, but sid should be recent enough.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I suspect that a lot of people who are saying that Debian
| is behind don't understand Debian.
|
| for them: Whatever you download is going to be "Debian
| Stable." Debian Stable is as fresh and up-to-date as it's
| ever going to be at this moment, but it will not change
| significantly in the future, because its goal is
| _stability._ You throw it on something you want to run for
| years and not crash.
|
| If you don't mind your system crashing every once an a
| while because you like new stuff, you use "Debian Testing."
| There is no place to download this directly from Debian,
| although some third-parties (like Canonical with Ubuntu)
| distribute customized versions of it. The way you get a
| non-customized version is by installing _Debian Stable_ ,
| changing sources.list to point at Testing (which you can do
| as "testing" or by its nickname), then dist-upgrading.
| Debian Testing is being _tested_ to be the next Stable.
|
| "Debian Unstable" afaict is where individual pieces of
| software are being tested to go into Testing. Nobody should
| be running it unless they are contributing to Debian,
| although there are apt-get masters who know exactly what
| they're doing who will pull bleeding edge packages from
| unstable _individually._
|
| About the nicknames: Stable, Testing, and Unstable aren't
| releases, they're an indication of the current status of a
| release. Each release has its own goofy name. "Bookworm"
| has just moved from Testing to Stable. "Bullseye," which
| until just now was Stable, has now become "Oldstable."
|
| Also important is the "[yourrelease]-backports" repo, which
| Stable users can add to take newer packages from Testing
| that are 99% certain not to mess with the stability of
| Stable. Stable + backports is a compromise between Stable
| and Testing for people who want new stuff that doesn't
| break things.
|
| I'm sure most people know all of that, but 1) when it comes
| to things like this people are often afraid to ask because
| they're afraid they'll look stupid, and 2) the Debian
| website is very utilitarian and not marketing oriented, so
| there's no clear entry point for people who don't already
| know what they're looking for.
| tomatocracy wrote:
| Just to add - I think the backports repositories don't
| get enough attention when this occasionally comes up.
|
| Trying to run a mix of stable and testing packages can be
| a pain as occasionally a package you want to bring in
| from testing will try to bring with it new system
| libraries, which in turn often conflict with the "stable"
| versions of packages (so you are forced to move a lot
| more of your system to "testing" packages than you
| originally wanted to fix this).
|
| The key advantage (at least for me) of using the
| "backports" repositories is that it avoids this -
| packages are compiled against the "[yourrelease]" system
| libraries.
| still_grokking wrote:
| Just to correct the most glaring mistakes:
|
| Ubuntu is based on Sid (Debian Unstable).
|
| You can download Debian installers for Testing.
|
| Usually nothing on Testing crashes, as such severe bugs
| are considered blockers to move a package form Unstable
| to Testing. (Of course once in a few years something
| slips through the testing period in Unstable. But it's
| than usually repaired within a few hours.)
|
| People are running Sid. (Even I personally wouldn't
| recommend it.)
|
| But one point of the parent I strongly support:
|
| Debian's web page is a mess. I'm using this system for
| decades but still don't find anything on the Debian page
| without the help of some search engine. Also, when I need
| Linux related documentation I go to the Arch Wiki (and
| sometimes to the Gentoo docs), even as a Debian user.
| OTOH, you only seldom need docu, because Debian "just
| works" for the most part.
| butz wrote:
| > The overall disk usage for "bookworm" is 365,016,420 kB (365
| GB)
|
| Time to flex new SSD drive and install ALL the packages. Of
| course, I'll do it a bit later, when downloads will get back to
| normal levels.
| ErneX wrote:
| All my VMs are Debian. Thanks a lot to everyone involved.
| tuomosipola wrote:
| Finally. I migrated from the snap-cursed Ubuntu to Debian. I have
| been running Bookworm since last summer, and now I can stay in
| the stable distribution until I really need a new version of some
| software. Should not happen too soon.
| BaudouinVH wrote:
| https://i.imgur.com/X9B5kFb.png <-- 365 Go (or should that read
| 365 Mo?)
| haunter wrote:
| Congrats! Been using it on a 2017 Thinkpad X270 with MATE.
| Everything works perfectly. Honestly might not be the "flashiest"
| distro but does the job perfectly well. And personally I always
| recommend it to people new to Linux.
| ctippett wrote:
| Just upgraded my Debian WSL distro and the experience couldn't
| have been more anti-climatic - I had to double-check lsb_release
| to make sure I'd actually upgraded, it was that seamless.
| nairboon wrote:
| Nice! Debian just works, since decades. Except when you break it
| yourselves or update Nvidia drivers.
| unpopularopp wrote:
| A bit offtopic... are there any distros besides PoPOS that comes
| with the proprietary Nvidia drivers preinstalled? I tried to use
| (live image) Debian on an RTX 4070 PC and nothing worked just
| black screen after GRUB. PoPOS works out of the box but honestly
| I'd prefer something more simple as Debian.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| I have been thinking of switching to Debian from Pop!_OS and
| have a Thinkpad X1 Extreme Gen 2 with Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 -
| if graphics drivers are an issue, then my wish is dead in
| water.
| paines wrote:
| Why preinstalled? They are not even preinstalled on PoPOS. If
| you choose nvidia via powermanagement and they aren't
| installed, only then they will be downloaded and
| installed..... If you think of the hazzle because of
| offloading (intel by default and nvidia by demand) just purge
| bumblebee(at least that was the issue before boowkworm) and
| you have mostly the same experience.
| winrid wrote:
| I would play with the livecd for a while first. Even straight
| ubuntu gave me problems on my gen1 (wifi, sleep,
| graphics...). I switched it back to win10 and have a Carbon
| for Linux now.
| m463 wrote:
| A lot of times you can fix boot issues like this by adding
| "nomodeset" to the boot command line
|
| I always had trouble booting proxmox the first time, because
| even though it is a server os with no graphics, the installer
| is graphical. I would get black screen at boot.
|
| I would just interrupt hte boot use 'e' to edit the command
| line, add 'nomodeset' and it would boot.
| yrro wrote:
| How does PoPOS accomplish this without violating the license of
| the kernel and the NVIDIA drivers?
| dezgeg wrote:
| The sad truth is the license of non-GPL Linux kernel modules
| is very rarely cared about nor enforced. There are ton of
| embedded devices that don't bother with the NVIDIA shim
| scheme but ship with straight proprietary .ko:s on the
| device.
| chungy wrote:
| Since it is a distribution by a hardware vendor that ships
| NVIDIA GPUs, I'll assume that they got a licensed from NVIDIA
| to ship their operating system with the proprietary drivers.
| yrro wrote:
| Possibly, but what about the license of Linux? Surely
| nvidia.ko (being a derived work of both the GPL-licensed
| Linux kernel and the proprietary NVIDIA kernel object
| files) is non-distributable? Otherwise why does every other
| distribution faff around with akmods/DKMS, etc?
| janzer wrote:
| For those wanting to try this out note that the download links in
| this post are still giving the previous Bullseye (11.7) release
| at the moment.
| encom wrote:
| But it's /not/ released though. Their own news section mentions
| that cd images are still being built, which seems like something
| that should have happened already. There's nothing but 11.7
| available for download.
| OfSanguineFire wrote:
| The bookworm apt repository is in the final state, so Bookworm
| is released for those with existing Debian installations who
| can just do a search/replace of "bullseye" to "bookworm" in
| their apt.sources file, and run apt dist-upgrade.
| encom wrote:
| Sure, but the announcement mentions and links to Bookworm
| media downloads which are old 11.7 media. It's confusing,
| annoying and honestly kind of amateurish. I like Debian, but
| this is a screw-up. 20:00 in mainland Europe and it's still
| not out. My work laptop is in a sad state of semi-brokenness
| (self-inflicted), and I had been looking forward to giving it
| a fresh start over the weekend. Now I'll have to wait another
| week.
| jedisct1 wrote:
| The dnscrypt-proxy package doesn't exist any more?
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| It is amazing how this group of volunteers create the foundation
| for many more commercial Linux ventures and use by billion-dollar
| companies.
|
| A lot of end users of different distros do not even know that
| Debian is the foundation. I will as go as far as to say Debian
| had solved a lot of the hard issues and then other sprinkle it.
| (Probably not a popular view)
|
| Anyways thanks to all the Debian team members. Your work ought to
| be better known.
| kayson wrote:
| This is great news! I really like Debian as a docker host for
| self hosting since it doesn't have a lot of fluff. The old
| package versions do cause occasional problems though...
| guerby wrote:
| And first beta of proxmox 8.0 based on debian 12:
|
| https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Roadmap#Proxmox_VE_8.0_beta1
| lockhouse wrote:
| If any of the Debian team is here, congratulations and thank you
| for putting together such a solid, consistently high quality
| Linux distro.
| _joel wrote:
| Have they released netinst images yet, can only see 11.7
| hosteur wrote:
| Fantastic! Can't wait to upgrade my servers and desktop. Debian
| is an absolute marvel.
| sylware wrote:
| Finally with init system alternatives or do they still shove
| systemd down our throat (if so I'll stick to devuan gnu/linux
| instead)?
| yrro wrote:
| Finally? Debian has always shipped sysvinit and a bunch of
| other less-used init systems.
| sylware wrote:
| I cannot find install images without systemd and with
| sysvinit.
|
| Do I miss something?
| biorach wrote:
| That's because systemd is the default. You can choose
| sysvinit during installation
|
| https://wiki.debian.org/Init#Changing_the_init_system_-
| _at_i...
| sylware wrote:
| Allright, I may not need devuan gnu/linux in the future
| since I can choose at installation time the init system
| on debian.
|
| But it seems the efforts to actually restore the
| compatibility of some components with sysvinit is from
| devuan, not debian. May be wrong again.
|
| Those are steps in the right direction. But I stay alert:
| I know that sysvinit experience could be actually
| desastrous on debian compared to devuan. Not to mention
| the debian "default" is systemd: we all know how critical
| is the choice of the "default" on the long run, that's
| why I may still go to devuan.
| yrro wrote:
| > But it seems the efforts to actually restore the
| compatibility of some components with sysvinit is from
| devuan, not debian.
|
| Don't blame Debian if the Debuan contributors fail to
| send their patches upstream.
| sylware wrote:
| This is not what I recall which was strong resistance to
| raw blockade.
|
| Well, it seems it did not last.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| One one hand I am thankful for the fact that this guide
| exist. On the other hand, I am getting strong HHGTTG
| vibes [1] from them: "you can choose sysvinit as long as
| you follow a complex set of steps that's likely to go
| wrong detailed inside a hard-to-find package".
|
| Maybe I'm asking too much, but for me "official" support
| would mean that I can do it from the installer directly,
| no terminals and chroots required.
|
| [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-
| were-on...
| zh3 wrote:
| Or post-installation. Basically install sysvinit-core,
| copy inittab to /etc and reboot (systemd can then be
| removed/autoremoved/purged according to taste).
| vbezhenar wrote:
| That's one of the reasons I don't like Debian. All this old
| cruft for compatibility with stuff nobody should be using. Just
| embrace systemd, jesus.
| sylware wrote:
| Actually, on my custom elf/linux distro, I have neither
| systemd nor sysvinit.
|
| But one is grotesquely and absurdely bigger and kludgier than
| the other one, so this is more about choosing the lesser
| evil...
| shawnz wrote:
| You have it backwards: Devuan shoves sysvinit down your throat,
| whereas Debian is the one that supports alternatives
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Devuan does exactly what it says on the tin. If that suits
| you, use it, otherwise you are free to not use it. It follows
| that since nobody forces anyone to use Devuan, nothing is
| being shoved down throats.
| shawnz wrote:
| Yes, I was only copying the hyperbolic language of the
| parent commenter.
| gsich wrote:
| systemd is the superior init system.
| stracer wrote:
| How did you came to that conclusion? In my experience,
| sysvinit comes with less bloat, and hangs randomly much less
| than systemd. I've worked with both old debian (sysvinit) and
| current centos (systemd) systems, and if I had a problem with
| init, it was always with systemd. If something related to
| disks or user login sessions fails, with sysvinit most of the
| time things proceed promptly, while with systemd, you're in
| for a waitfest/eternal hang.
|
| Systemd seems to be propelled by distro packagers and
| developers, but for admins/users, it's not that great.
| sylware wrote:
| Its superiority in kludge and bloat is not a matter of
| discussion, we all know that.
| ycombin23918 wrote:
| [flagged]
| troad wrote:
| Congratulations to the Debian team!
|
| An important change appears to be the inclusion of non-free
| firmware by default in the official install image for the first
| time, as a result of this vote:
| https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003
|
| Intriguing. I feel a little torn on this. One the one hand, I
| appreciate being able to install Debian from an official image
| onto a bothersome device. On the other, I can't help but feel
| we're losing something when even a purist distribution like
| Debian is forced to concede in the fight against proprietary
| blobs.
|
| Edit: dropped the word 'kernel' from 'proprietary blobs', as
| rightly picked up by kind commenters below.
| bayindirh wrote:
| I was involved in the discussion, and I'm also torn on that
| issue, but at least you can disable installation of non-free
| firmware and install Debian without any non-free software.
|
| On the other hand, firmware is a convoluted issue. It was
| always present, but became increasingly visible over the years.
| While I'm a strong Free Software supporter, firmware is one of
| the hardest parts to convert, because of the IP it entails and
| trade secrets it embodies.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That and the simple fact that without it the hardware you've
| invested in won't work. So this is very much an individual
| choice, if you don't have such hardware you are fine but
| shouldn't be voting on whether or not someone who _does_ have
| hardware that won 't work without proprietary blobs has to go
| out to buy new gear. There are all kinds of considerations
| that go in to this decision (for instance: environmental
| impact) and I'm all for compromise when it helps out others.
|
| At the same time, you have a good point, these decisions are
| difficult and need to be very carefully weighted. Debian and
| RedHat are the two distributions that everybody else always
| ends up following so a major departure from established
| policy there has potentially huge impact downstream.
| enriquto wrote:
| > the simple fact that without it the hardware you've
| invested in won't work
|
| How is that different from the "if you want to run linux
| don't buy a winmodem" that we said convincingly twenty
| years ago ? Would you have approved that linux 2.0 added
| binary blobs to the kernel in order to correctly work with
| the hardware that you had invested in (some random
| winmodem) ?
| boricj wrote:
| Usually, people first buy a computer and then hear about
| Linux later, not the other way around.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| It's also close to impossible to choose fully Linux-
| compatible hardware for some of us. Whatever decent
| Thinkpads there are left are practically unavailable in
| my country, unless you're willing to buy from foreign
| sellers without any warranty and pay hundreds of dollars
| for shipping. Things like Framework are completely
| unavailable and probably will be for the foreseeable
| future. I use desktops exclusively so I can pick and
| choose, but I am in the minority of a minority.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Winmodems had plenty of alternatives, for PCs the choice
| is usually limited to 'what you were given' or 'what you
| recycled from a dumpster'. Linux is typically not the
| first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware
| (even if brand new plenty of people pay either the MS or
| the Apple tax). And because those are exactly the people
| that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for
| maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury.
| Karellen wrote:
| > Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on
| any given piece of hardware. And because those are
| exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC
| I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury.
|
| But they don't have to choose Debian.
|
| If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people
| could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box
| simply by picking another distro that did include non-
| Free firmware in the installer. There are plenty of them.
| Like, 99% of all other distros.
|
| Not all distros have to be everything to everyone. It's
| OK to have a niche.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Fortunately Debian recognized that being a 'niche' would
| sooner or later spell the end of Debian and that would be
| a loss.
| bayindirh wrote:
| When you are one of the biggest "root" distributions, and
| the template of countless big and small time derivatives,
| you don't have the luxury to have niche.
|
| When thought with a clear and unbiased mind, Debian did
| the absolute best they can do.
|
| Add firmware, be open about it, install only when
| necessary, allow people to opt out when they know what
| they are doing.
| nunesvn wrote:
| We're on the laptop age, most people can't pick and
| choose the components of their computers.
| blihp wrote:
| While I'm glad to see proprietary firmware both included and
| segregated in its own repo, I'm wondering why RISC-V wasn't
| added as a supported architecture in Debian 12? It seems like
| that supporting at least an open ISA would move closer to the
| possibility of what Debian wants to see happen... so why
| isn't it as a distro helping to make it happen?
| [deleted]
| teddyh wrote:
| https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V
| blihp wrote:
| That doesn't answer the question. It's still 'unofficial'
| per https://wiki.debian.org/SupportedArchitectures
|
| If you want the maintain the status quo you support the
| hardware that has the most users, if you want to change
| it you also support the hardware you want them to use.
| teddyh wrote:
| Who is the actor in this scenario who wants to change the
| status quo and therefore support the RISC-V platform in
| Debian? I.e. who are the people with the motivation to do
| that?
| bayindirh wrote:
| In Debian, there's no single entity which decides on
| things. There are rules, and processes.
|
| The relevant documentation is here:
| https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New
|
| Also, the rules for becoming an official port is here:
| https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
|
| When RISC-V satisfies the relevant criteria, they can
| become official.
|
| Also, maintaining a port is tremendous amount of work.
| Debian users only see the tip of the iceberg. There's so
| much beneath that.
| mikae1 wrote:
| _> you can disable installation of non-free firmware and
| install Debian without any non-free software._
|
| Including but making it optional was an excellent decision.
| Those who need will get what they want, those who don't will
| have the same result as with Bullseye.
| arp242 wrote:
| As I understand it "firmware" is essentially just the same as
| an EEPROM, except that using volatile memory is cheaper and
| easier to upgrade. No one seems to have great issues with
| EEPROMs (FSF doesn't anyway), but uploading that same code to
| the device when it starts is a huge problem? I never
| understood this, and especially given the huge practical
| trade-offs the entire thing seems fighting windmills.
|
| The Linux-libre people even removed the warning that the CPU
| is vulnerable to spectre/meltdown if you don't update the
| microcode. But ... your CPU already comes with that microcode
| out of the factory, just a different version of it. How is
| running an older known to be buggy microcode better?
| jasomill wrote:
| Debian distributes firmware stored in volatile RAM because
| it is either required to use the hardware, or, as is the
| case for CPU microcode updates, highly recommended for most
| users.
|
| As far as I know, Debian does not distribute proprietary
| EEPROM firmware updates at all, as these are generally not
| required to use the hardware (and, depending on the device
| and update in question, may or may not be recommended for
| most users).
|
| In other words, the difference is practical, not
| ideological.
| arp242 wrote:
| Organisations like the FSF recommend that you don't use
| devices that require "non-free firmware" at all. They
| _don 't_ recommend anything like this for devices with
| "non-free EEPROMs at all". Stallman himself has stated he
| has no problem with such devices (I can't find a direct
| quote on this right now, but I'm 100% sure I've seen
| Stallman write or say this at time point).
|
| My point was that the entire position just doesn't make
| any sense: either you reject all non-free software no
| matter how it's loaded (which means there are very few
| computers you can actually use), or you just use your
| hardware with "non-free firmware" that would be baked in
| anyway and stop worrying about the entire thing.
| yakubin wrote:
| I've never had a computer which would work with the official
| ideologically-pure installer. Always had to use the non-free
| one. I'm glad this vote turned out the way it did.
| cesarb wrote:
| > I've never had a computer which would work with the
| official ideologically-pure installer.
|
| I had more than once, back when I first installed Debian in
| the late 1900s and early 2000s, and I believe my experience
| wasn't unique.
|
| Back then, not requiring any loadable firmware was common;
| the hardware either didn't require firmware, or came with the
| full firmware in a ROM chip in the device itself. And that
| explains the issue: Debian is an _old_ distribution, coming
| from these times when not having non-free firmware (or even
| any firmware at all) in the distribution was viable, and
| often fully usable.
| NikkiA wrote:
| Same, and I used to keep a little cache of 'known working
| without firmware issues' wlan cards (pcmcia), I probably
| still have some somewhere; though I don't think I have any
| pcmcia capable laptops anymore
| progval wrote:
| For devices which have firmware, does it matter whether the
| firmware is loaded by the OS rather than hardcoded inside the
| device? The former at least gives an opportunity to fix bugs.
|
| And if I'm not mistaken, this isn't about kernel blobs (which
| run on the CPU as kernel code), only code that gets loaded on
| devices (including CPU microcode).
| zajio1am wrote:
| There is a difference from legal point. If the firmware is
| hardcoded in device, you do not need to accept any license
| contract with IP holder. You do not need to copy it, and your
| right to run it is implied from ownership of the device. If
| the firmware is independent part bundled with OS, then anyone
| who wants to run it or even just distribute the OS must
| accept the license.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you
| actually know the answer here?
|
| The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying that
| aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a copyright
| context judges talk about a computer loading software into
| RAM being copying.
|
| Intel microcode comes with a license:
| https://bugs.gentoo.org/664134
| zajio1am wrote:
| > Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you
| actually know the answer here?
|
| IANAL, but this is a general concept of exhaustion of IP
| rights when the IP is sold as a part of physical medium,
| see (28) and article 4 of EU copyright directive 2001/29.
|
| > The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying
| that aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a
| copyright context judges talk about a computer loading
| software into RAM being copying
|
| This is handled in (33) of the directive:
|
| "The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to
| an exception to allow certain acts of temporary
| reproduction, which are transient or incidental
| reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of
| a technological process and carried out for the sole
| purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a
| network between third parties by an intermediary, or a
| lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made."
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| The term you're looking for regarding the numbers you
| have in parentheses is _recital_.
| roenxi wrote:
| There is a little ritual we do here from time to time where
| someone writes a comment that starts something like "Well, I
| didn't expect Stallman would be right about [issue now being
| reported on] but he predicted this years ago".
|
| If it can go wrong it will, and if software isn't free then
| its owners will do things that the users really do not like.
| In this case, if they can fix bugs they can reduce
| functionality post-hoc. That is consequential. It is better
| to have freedom or certainty as to what a device does.
| dezgeg wrote:
| How can you ever really be sure that there is no way to
| change the code running on the hardware, either
| unintentionally via some exploit, or intentionally via a
| deliberate backdoor or a debugging interface enabled in
| production?
|
| As a practical example, I have never heard anyone
| considering the freedomness of firmware in eMMC flash
| memory chips. But the talk "eMMC hacking, or: how I fixed
| long-dead Galaxy S3 phones" from CCC reveals that actually,
| Samsung eMMC chips have an undocumented debug interface to
| read/write the RAM of the firmware running on the ARM core
| inside the eMMC chip.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Firmware is not kernel blob. It's executed on separate device
| and has nothing to do with Linux. It's about open hardware, not
| open software. I don't think that it's worth to pursue this
| direction for Debian.
| hahhahanananana wrote:
| > when even a purist distribution like Debian is forced to
| concede in the fight against proprietary blobs.
|
| As far as I'm aware, nothing has recently changed in this
| regard. It's more of a reflection on the mentality of young
| members, those who tend to treat software as if it's in a
| vacuum, separate from all the social and moral concerns of the
| meatspace.
| rollcat wrote:
| > On the other, I can't help but feel we're losing something
| when even a purist distribution like Debian is forced to
| concede in the fight against proprietary firmware blobs.
|
| The software needs hardware to run, and the whole point of the
| software is to make the hardware useful. If you can't use the
| hardware, what's the point of the software?
|
| In my book, freedom is a function of usefulness. No amount of
| redistributable source code has any value to me if I can't run
| it.
|
| Enabling the use of hardware I already own is not a compromise,
| it's a solution. It's what operating systems exist for. Debian
| is fulfilling its primary function. I'm glad that this
| necessity was finally recognised.
| still_grokking wrote:
| I disagree. I'm very disappointed that this "necessity" came
| into existence in the first place.
|
| By being forced to install non-free BLOBs to be able to use
| "our" devices we actually admit that we're not the ones who
| actually control "our" computers. That's admitting full
| defeat! You're not the owner of "your" devices.
|
| Given that computers are now kind of "brain extensions" this
| means you're not in control of a substantial part of
| yourself.
|
| This has quite some implications! And I'm not even thinking
| about such things like future computer devices connected
| directly to human brains...
| arp242 wrote:
| You don't control the hardware in the first place. Can you
| modify the microchips on your hardware? Can you modify the
| printed circuits? Can you modify a ROM in hardware? In all
| those cases the answer is "not really", short of some
| spectacular reverse engineering effort and specialized
| hardware and skills that even most technical users don't
| have (you can modify anything with enough effort). All this
| focus on firmware seems rather misplaced.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| Let's not conflate hardware with software. The first one
| is practically impossible to modify for a completely
| different reason than the second one (physical
| limitations and the need for specialized hardware that
| costs serious money vs artificial limitations imposed by
| developers). You can at least repair it (unless you
| bought into the Apple ecosystem -- you knew what you were
| getting into then), and a relative of mine makes good
| living doing just that.
| arp242 wrote:
| Firmware is inextricable tied to hardware; you could
| pretty much say it _is_ hardware. Hardware has had
| "software" in it for decades and no one complains about
| it either, except when this software is loaded in a
| particular fashion.
| rollcat wrote:
| Then don't buy hardware that requires non-free firmware.
| labawi wrote:
| While I don't like proprietary firmware, I'm not sure if the
| line is drawn at a useful place.
|
| If you have firmware/software/whatever in a device, which is
| _updateable_ (as opposed to mask-rom or hard logic), I 'd much
| rather have it transparently managed by an OS I can control,
| than some EEPROM with often proprietary, inscrutable, I-ask-
| you-nicely-please-update-your-firmware update mechanism.
|
| IMO, the difference is:
|
| - with OS provided firmware (and preferably no writable
| storage), I can be sure my device is running the same SW as the
| rest of the world
|
| - with dozens of EEPROMs in my device, I can never be sure what
| is running on it.
|
| Firmware that is legally not redistributable is a non-trivial,
| though perhaps less bothersome issue. Firmware that requires
| manufaturer's signature is bothersome but I would still prefer
| it over inscrutable hidden firmware.
| yrro wrote:
| Debian was never a purist distribution. If it was then there
| wouldn't have been a non-free section in the archive in the
| first place.
|
| The sad truth is that the Linux distributions recommended by
| the FSF have approximately zero users.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Is it sad? Actually working Linux on real hardware is far
| more important than purity IMO.
| nvy wrote:
| >Actually working Linux on real hardware is far more
| important than purity IMO.
|
| I agree, but I also think this depends heavily on who you
| ask. Stallman for example would rather have poorer
| functionality than compromise his personal (extremist)
| ethical principles.
|
| There are a lot of folks who use laptops without wifi
| because the blobs are non free, so they're using ancient
| ThinkPads plugged into Ethernet.
|
| Much depends on your personal computing needs.
| amiga386 wrote:
| > Stallman for example would rather have poorer
| functionality than compromise his personal (extremist)
| ethical principles.
|
| Stallman is open to pragmatism now and again. For
| example, on this very topic:
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-
| designs.en.html
|
| > We can envision a future in which our personal
| fabricators can make chips, and our robots can assemble
| and solder them together with transformers, switches,
| keys, displays, fans and so on. In that future we will
| all make our own computers (and fabricators and robots),
| and we will all be able to take advantage of modified
| designs made by those who know hardware. The arguments
| for rejecting nonfree software will then apply to nonfree
| hardware designs too.
|
| > That future is years away, at least. In the meantime,
| there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs
| on principle.
| m463 wrote:
| Ubuntu is based on debian and is pretty pragmatic in that
| respect.
|
| it makes it easy to get working
|
| ...and it also carefully attempts to lock you in using
| packages that can't1 be disabled.
|
| just saying it is a slippery slope.
|
| [1] well with effort you can
|
| https://www.baeldung.com/linux/snap-remove-disable
|
| https://gist.github.com/jfeilbach/f4d0b19df82e04bea8f10cdd5
| 9...
| Arnavion wrote:
| It's sad for the people who don't share YO.
|
| Eg I intentionally got an old ath9k PCI-E wifi card for my
| Debian 11 router because it works without proprietary
| firmware, unlike newer ath10k etc cards.
| yrro wrote:
| Sad in that I'd love to purge all non-free software from my
| life, but that has proven to be impossible and increasingly
| more so as the years go by.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| at those great (FSF) heights, the light is bright but the air
| is thin!
| kmos17 wrote:
| Congrats and major props to the Debian community! Running Debian
| in vm's is such a pleasure, very fast boot times, rock solid,
| easy install. In contrast recent ubuntu installs have only given
| me problems.
| igtztorrero wrote:
| This is a Real Hacker News
|
| Yeeei My favorite Fast Linux distro keep going !!!
|
| Congratulations
| juujian wrote:
| Didn't expect for shiny-server to be mentioned so prominently. I
| might actually give Debian a shot for my personal machine. The
| five years of updatea sounds great, the LTS option is the main
| reason why I went with Ubuntu so far.
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| Never ceases to amaze me. There is all kinds of things wrong with
| Debian I am sure. But at the end of the day, what that community
| does is mindblowingly impressive.
|
| Much gratitude from a Slink-and-a-half user, back in the day.
| whatwhaaaaat wrote:
| All kinds of things wrong? It's the base for half the Linux
| distros. What could you possibly mean?
| still_grokking wrote:
| Half the Linux distris? I've once counted on Distrowatch.
| When you go by number of distris there it's more like 80% are
| Debian based.
|
| If you go also by how much those distris are used it's even
| like 9x% of the stuff running out there is Debian based.
|
| There are almost no independent distris. You have Arch, you
| have SUSE, you have RedHat and a few clones, you have Gentoo.
| But more or less _everything else_ is Debian based.
| gwhl wrote:
| And Slackware!
| still_grokking wrote:
| There are of course some niche distris that aren't based
| on the "big ones".
|
| But I'm not sure Slackware is still at this point
| relevant enough to be named in a row with the others I've
| mentioned.
|
| Of course the sampling was subjective, and I didn't
| intended to marginalize any not mentioned distris. I just
| thought the others are too niche to be included in such
| kind of pick.
| mongol wrote:
| Do I get it right that you mean > 90 percent of distro use
| is Debian-based? Because that can hardly be the case
| tuukkah wrote:
| Ubuntu and its derivatives are included.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Is Ubuntu still Debian based? What's the criterion for
| that anyway? Just using debs?
| tuukkah wrote:
| I wouldn't call Ubuntu a flavor of Debian as they have so
| big differences, but ultimately it's still mostly Debian.
| You can see a numerical comparison of packages here:
| http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/mdt/all.html
| chungy wrote:
| Ubuntu releases are, effectively, snapshots of Debian sid
| every 6 months. That's a pretty strong basis.
| eikenberry wrote:
| Yes, Ubuntu is still Debian based with just a little
| added on top.
| marpstar wrote:
| I think they were referring to the fact that _everything_ has
| _something_ "wrong" with it, but that those things don't
| invalidate the value of the greater whole.
| pietro72ohboy wrote:
| Seems to be an extremely charitable interpretation of the
| parent comment. I also read it as -- "Despite the plethora
| of issues with Debian, it manages to surprise". Like the
| second-level commenter, I'm also curious to hear more about
| these "issues".
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| You poor person, reading malice where none was intended.
|
| marpstar was correct.
|
| I am a Debian fanboi since Slink. Since it was drilled
| into me by rvdm, ssmeenk, miquels, jdassen and dth.
|
| And have seen Debian survive and thrive a lot of
| critisism. "Too slow release cycle, not Free(Dom) enough,
| Too free, systemd, too much politics, too many
| architectures, etc....etc....etc.."
|
| Yes, any large community will be flawed and deliver
| flawed solutions. And I for one celebrate those flaws and
| features, and appreciate the sheer magnitude and
| accomplishment of this enormous, complex, great project.
| whatwhaaaaat wrote:
| Gross
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| Reddit refugee? Grow up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-10 23:02 UTC)