Randy Edwards said:
> (Ken wrote me this note and I thought it might be of interest to the list,
> so I'm CCing it here.)
>
> > I've been thinking of trying Debian. I'm a long-time Linux user
> > (Slackware 2.x and SLS somedamnthing, c. '94), and the one major
>
> SLS, "Soft Landing (From DOS Bailout) Systems". Whoops, I'm dating
> myself.:-)
>
> > push: can you give me some reasons why I'd like Debian more than
> > the others? I mean, apt-get (sp?) sounds cool and all, but for what
> > reasons, for example, do *you* enjoy Debian?
>
> First I like the entire non-commercial attitude. This is more than
> just the GNU versus "Open Source"<tm> angle. Debian's non-commercial
> attitude means that everything is brutally public, and that technical
> issues are always first and foremost. There's a bit of a perfectionist
> attitude in the project -- Debian's stable release is rock-solid stable
> and the developers don't give a damn how out of date it may seem;
> stability is job 1.
As I tell people, if you want a stable Debian, use Debian Stable. And it
is. Rock-solid stable. And the next release won't come out until it's
rock-solid stable. That's why the 2 years this last time (hopefully
they'll speed up the process, but I know they won't compromise on the
result). Last release went through three brutal, public, test cycles to
get it right. (everything is public - it's open source to the extreme!)
Remember also that the Debian Free Software Guidelines became the Open
Source Definition.
Also, the come out with security patches very quickly (I've noticed on lw.net that
they're normally one of the first distros out with a security patch). A
part of this is due to the maintainer requirements/checking done prior to
someone being accepted as a package maintainer (see below)
They're also the only release with a Constitution, public election of
their leaders, etc.
>
> For example, I understand why Red Hat released their buggy compiler and
> made all of the changes they did in RH7. I'm impressed by their
> boldness/recklessness (take your pick). But something like that would
> just never fly in Debian. The compiler maintainer would have been raked
> over the coals by his fellow developers for wanting to do something so
> stupid. Commercial Linux distros are feeling the same pressure as
> Microsoft to pump out upgrade versions and to charge for updates, or
> whatever. Such pressures are simply unknown in Debian and this allows
> that perfectionist attitude to grow.
Yep. One debate / thread on debian-devel right now (or at least as of a
few days ago) was about the move from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc (required
by FHS). They're committed to doing this before Woody becomes stable. So,
it doesn't matter if Woody takes a long time to release. They're not
under pressure to "get it out for revenue."
>
> This perfectionist idea trickles down to the individual packages.
> Everything in Debian has to follow the policy of what goes where --
> packages do this religiously, it is just mandatory. Similarly, packages
> tend to be more polished than what I've seen in other distros. Since
> developers aren't getting paid, they're doing this to impress their
> peers. This results in some pretty neat packaging. Once in a while
> you'll run into a newbie Debian developer whose package will be rough, as
> a whole, Debian's packages are done well.
>
> Apt-get doesn't just sound cool, it's awesome! :-) I'm just amazed at
> how crude, in comparison, package management is with other distros.
> Debian takes the idea of GNU/Linux being "the Internet's operating system"
> to its next logical step. For example, I recently installed Debian on a
> friend's system. I knew he had a cable modem, so I went to his house with
> 3 floppies. He was amazed that was all that was needed; in a couple of
> minutes the rest of the base install was pulled down from the net.
Having installed Conectiva's Linux on my laptop, I've got to say it's more
than Apt. For those who missed last Wed, Conectiva is a RPM based distro
that uses Apt. They maintain their own package listing (mirrored several
places, including rpmfind.net). However, now that I'm running it, I
continually find issues, not due to Apt, but the back-end rpm or policy.
Debian Policy insures extreme consistancy in how things are done. This
enables debconf, dpkg, and the other back-end stuff to work well in
configuring the packages. I am amazed that rpm blindly moves my
configuration files to .rpmsave, and I end up having to run a diff on the
new file and my original one. Debian's debconf asks me if I want to: 1)
replace my configuration with the new, 2) keep my old configuration (_the_
default), or 3) see the differences. If you choose 3, after looking at
the differences, you go back to the original choices. Another major issue
has been the number of packages with file conflicts. It's not unknown in
Debian, but Policy will quickly force the two package maintainers to
figure out who does what (or create a common third package that both
depend on). And it would be solved before the packages go into Stable.
Bottom line is the entire package management system (from the front end to
the back) is well-designed for building consistant, easy to maintain
systems that are stable (everything works together). There are still some problems,
but they're admitted & being worked on (it's hard not to admit a problem when there's
bug reports on it). Some of these include internationalization of the
Packages.gz file, ability to "pin" a package so it doesn't upgrade,
ability to pull a package from higher up the chain (example: you're
running stable, but there's a package in testing you want. You could grab
it without having to upgrade your whole system to testing), and it looks
like they're working on ability to downgrade. They're also working on the
ability to do something like the BSD "ports" - grab the source for the
package, and for all the packages that one is dependent on, compile, and
install.
Also, all packages are built by maintainers who have to prove their
ability to follow policy, their ability to meet the time commitments of
maintaining their packages, and their ability to code. Yes, you can grab
debs from elsewhere on the web (although with over 6,000 packages in
unstable, most things are properly maintained), you can be certain if you
stick to the debian project, the packages will work well together.
>
> Debian does have its rough spots -- no graphical install, the X
> configuration is still being worked on, hardware detection routines are
> still crude -- but these things are being addressed. In the meantime,
> installing Debian means you have to note what NIC, sound, and video card
> you have. I don't see that as a big knock but some do. The way I look at
> it, I only install once -- I update and/or maintain the system daily and
> this is where Debian's strengths lie.
Yep, install once is normal. I installed Potato at home, and then
upgraded to Woody over a 25K connection (took about 12 hours). After
that, the only problems I've had have been due to the transition of Woody
from unstable to testing. Having said that, I do think they're
installer needs work (so do they, there's a project working on it). Storm
did some neat work, and Progeny is also helping. This is one place the
commercial distros based on Debian could help out.
>
> But overall I think my love for Debian comes back to its attitude and
> goals. It sees GNU/Linux as something more than just making a buck, and
> it has an idealistic streak that always reminds me of why I spent $200+ to
> download my copy of SLS -- that "free" Unix-like operating system -- over
> 9600bps long distance lines...
Much as I like they're philosophy, I find the maintenance alone makes it
worthwhile. But it is proof - love of the product ensures better products
(or - craftspeople matter).
jeff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: snivitz /sniv'itz/ n.
A hiccup in hardware or software; a
small, transient problem of unknown origin (less serious than a
snark). Compare glitch.
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
