Re: branding debian releases
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Massey) said on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:14:05 +1000: want the very latest and are willing to sacrifice stability. Or something like that. Explain what the release names mean more accurately, rather than use new names that will still need explanation. And one thing that really annoys me is how people misunderstand how *we* use the word stable, and the miscommunications that result. Before my hardware became dodgy on my home box, I was running unstable, with xfree/experimental. I had uptimes of 70-180 days. My unstable laptop stays up for hundreds of days (much better quality hardware, mainly because I can't tinker with it :), only going out when some fool unplugs the power while I am away, when I happen to be in suspend mode already. When most people refer to unstable, they mean it crashes, not that sometimes packages get a big finicky, and need manual intervention to fix. We mean the latter. I sometimes even get the feeling that experienced Debian people forget which stability they are referring to. Certainly, most of the people outside of debian, when I tell them to use testing/unstable if they want recent packages (after they complain about Debian's perceived tardiness), say they don't want a box that crashes on them all the time like Windows. I think *this* is the main cause of confusion with regards to the naming scheme, and I don't think many DDs realise this confusion exists. -- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: I'd say no. If you're tracking sarge/testing, what happens when sarge is promoted to stable? If you specify sarge, your machine tracks what is now the stable distro; if you specify testing, your machine tracks the new testing distro. This is an important distinction. The whole problem here is that we're trying to assign characteristics that just don't exist. The only definitions that exist are here: http://www.debian.org/releases/ Unstable is where active development of Debian occurs. Testing contains packages that haven't been accepted into a stable release yet, but they are in the queue for that. Stable contains the latest officially released distribution of Debian. Experienced users can predict the qualities of these distributions to varying degrees, but the fact is, the above three statements are the only defining characteristics. Instead of changing the naming conventions used to denote the versions, it's better people utilitze that precious time in understanding the actualy theory behind it. It looks like something complicated to understand but isn't so. rrs -- monique Ritesh Raj Sarraf Email: rrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] researchut.com Web: http://www.researchut.com Phone: +91-9899655651 GPG Key ID: 0x04F130BC -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFAg4uX4Rhi6gTxMLwRAqBjAKCdibhiLwvqQsuwOfR644KTQ5mK1gCfURrQ L0xnyPkyjcI9yo2LwnYDRkQ= =6YLP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: AW: AW: branding debian releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oops! Only sent this to Simmel by mistake! Sorry! On Friday 16 April 2004 15:53, Simmel wrote: I believe it is ... I can install a fully functional debian system in less time than a Windows 2000 one. All hardware detected and running, no extrenous crap to remove - no constant reboots for each security update - the list goes on! Here we are again YOU, yes but an average user? I still doubt that, sorry! And I had no sound in my X, I had no | becuase it wouldn't select my keymap, I dunno where this is helpful? I agree with Simmel here - I'm a new linux user, from years of Windows and RISC OS. I've been brought up around computers my entire life, even done a little programming from time to time, and thought I knew what I was talking about when it came to computers. It has taken me 2 weeks to get an (I think) fully functional machine, with sound, keymaps, the lot working properly. And ok, I didn't spend all two weeks setting up my machine, but crunch it down to about 2 full days, and you have the time i've spent scrawling through google searches and IRC. And thats only because I am used to IRC and google. Most people aren't. Give them MSN messenger anyday and they can just about hack it. My two cents worth. Tom -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAg8JkcqOpPRWIadcRAtEoAJ9V0CJaczr3Fk2cC7XANXCkpXgcLACeK6g+ FZLBa6V3rDQyqvrqu4suRHg= =erQQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
s. keeling wrote: So if you install backports, you introduce new releases of packages and maybe libraries on your system which might contain serious bugs. Compiling the source of some apps (to install to /usr/local) might even fail because they need a newer libc6? Perhaps, yes. But consider something as release sensitive as chkrootkit. You do want to be as up to date as you can on something like that, no? That's why I always get the tarball from chkrootkit.org (currently 0.43b?) instead of settling for stable's version (currently 0.35-1). Considering this is Debian, perhaps stable's 0.35-1 has been patched with the latest fixes; I don't know. I just know I'm running the latest chkrootkit. On a related note, I'm trying to understand the whole concept on stable - unstable because in a few weeks time i'm going to get the time from my current company to install some test servers with debian to compare them to windows. They will be running apache, tomcat,jboss and OpenCMS. They will expect stability but also the newest versions of the aformentioned softwares. I want to take this chance to introduce Debian with both hands so i want to now for sure what to install from what branch. At home, i run unstable for my home server. I understand that this is really no comparison with a company server but having said that, i haven't really encountered a real show stopper bug in unstable. Maybe because i do not really upgrade a lot. It seems to me that if you have a server that only has 1 service running, for instance serving webpages, then it could be possible to run the unstable version of that package. If you track the package and watch carefully for security issues, it doesn't seem all that unsafe to me. And definitely so if you jail the service. So in such a case, couldn't you just manage with pinning and thus tracking stable and only install 1 package from unstable or would this trigger the install of a lot more programs due to dependancies? I'm not even sure if having an unstable version of libc6 is so bad? On the other hand, if the service you're installing doesn't need it, then no need to install it off course. In my case, where several services will be installed which will be expected to be stable and bleeding edge, what is the most appropriate way to proceed? I just wonder if the versions of services that other distro's provide are also outdated or rather new compared to those of debian stable? (i can't tell since i have no real experience with other distro's) If those new versions are good enough for say Red Hat SuSE, wouldn't that imply that they are considered rather stable? Regards, Benedict -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
Benedict Verheyen wrote: On a related note, I'm trying to understand the whole concept on stable - unstable because in a few weeks time i'm going to get the time from my current company to install some test servers with debian to compare them to windows. They will be running apache, tomcat,jboss and OpenCMS. They will expect stability but also the newest versions of the aformentioned softwares. snip It seems to me that if you have a server that only has 1 service running, for instance serving webpages, then it could be possible to run the unstable version of that package. unstable refers to the branch (version) of Debian, not to any individual package. The unstable branch may get a new firefox today, a new apache tomorrow, another new firefox late tomorrow. But both of the firefoxes and the apache may very well be stable versions, and may very well play nice with whatever libraries, etc you already have installed. On the other hand, the new version of apache may require a new version of library xyz, which may cause problems with openoffice.org, such that OO.o breaks, which of course means that OO.o is unstable (in the sense of brokeness) until a new version of OO.o makes it the unstable branch. Thus, the Debian branch as a whole is constantly in flux, thus it's called unstable (in the sense of constantly changing), and really doesn't have anything to do with if a particular package is unstable (in the sense of broken). -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: branding debian releases
Hi 2gether, I read your posts with great interest and I wonder if there might be a chance to overthink the strategy the Debian People setup once (maybe not at this moment but in the far future). You know, I'm also quite a newbie with Debian, and YES the strategy is quite confusing. And as I read in several posts, even advanced users have different opinions about what stable/unstable/testing means. Also I would like to bring back a sentence someone said here (can't find the post now there are too many already *lol*). If you are into a subject so deep, you fail to think like the normal or newbie user. That's a good point here! So why not think about using a strategy that almost every company uses (although Debian isn't one), e.g. Redhat, SuSe, even Microdoft... For me as a user and systems administrator something like this would be much much better. Why not do it this way? enterprise - this is for servers only - not much GUI/ focused on servers/ networking,routing/ multiple cpus/driver support and so on workstation - this is for home users and workplaces - not much server stuff here/ focused on multimedia/ x-server/ openoffice and so on sandbox - (I like that word, Monique :-) this can stay the same and is meant for people who would like to help the Debian project with further releases, simply a sandbox to play with to find and report bugs. (maybe there should be two then, something like E-sandbox, for the enterprise stuff, and W-sandbox for the workstation part) THIS would really be a great change for the better in my eyes. -Everybody who needs a server will choose enterprise -Everybody who needs a desktop system will choose workstation -Everybody who would like to be part of the party would choose sandbox And yes, the enterprise version should really differ from the workstation one..! Of course this is a lot of work, but I think it would encourage more people to use Debian, and I guess that's one of the goals here isn't it? Just some thoughts I had reading all your posts. Greets from Germany, Simmel P.S.: And while I'm on it, plez enhance the installation routine, something like a graphical interface. This takes the fear off most users. Take a look at SuSe and Redaht and you'll know what I mean. I know that there are also a lot of small things which aren't good, like the package selection, those are far better in Debian. But the blue screen :-P is really annoying and confusing. My first installtion were more like 3 1/2 installations, if you catch my drift. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
P.S.: And while I'm on it, plez enhance the installation routine, something like a graphical interface. This takes the fear off most users. Personally I like the current Woody installer :-) I find it quick and easy to use - runs nicely on older hardware due to not having the overhead of any kind of GUI. If you are only brought up in the GUI world of Windows, then I guess it will be a little disconcerting at first, but it's not hard to pick up. Take a look at SuSe and Redaht and you'll know what I mean. I know that there are also a lot of small things which aren't good, like the package selection, those are far better in Debian. But the blue screen :-P is really annoying and confusing. My first installtion were more like 3 1/2 installations, if you catch my drift. At least the task selector and dselect do a good job of resolving any dependancies whilst installing - I have had loads of problems with Red Hat (although I have not installed it recently) and broken packages due to missing libraries etc. Also, how many people in the Windows world actually install their own OS? I suspect *most* buy a computer with it pre-installed, or take it to a shop for upgrades - the few that do it themsleves would have little problem with the current installation of Debian. Without wishing to sound too evangelical, I have had fewer issues installing Debian on a variety of hardware than I have had installing Windows - in fact, my main workstation refuses to run with Windows 2000, so has a nice copy of Woody + backports instead. ...just my 2p :-) Cheers, Pete. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:22:22AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:59:49 -0600 Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstable. I see it more as a developer sandbox than a live distribution. Am I wrong? No, you're quite correct; and it's a point that's missing from most of this discussion. Testing is a box into which the components of the next release are being collected; at any given time, some of the components -- even ones which will be vital to the release -- may not be present at all, or may not be useful because of problems (security bugs) where the fixed component is still being tested (is still in unstable and hasn't made it down to testing yet). This is less true as we get close to release; but in the middle of the release cycle, it's quite common. All one has to do is search the archives of this list to find many many posts asking why GNOME in testing doesn't work right, why KDE in testing is completely unusable at all, etc.; followed by the usual explanations of what testing is. I concur totally. I think that this point could really do with some explanation on http://www.debian.org/releases [1] and http://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/ [2] which if anything, perpetuate the myth that testing is more stable than unstable. I think the only good reason to run testing is if you are willing to help find problems in a potential release. A [1] testing: The testing distribution contains packages that haven't been accepted into a stable release yet, but they are in the queue for that. The main advantage of using this distribution is that it has more recent versions of software, and the main disadvantage is that it's not completely tested and has no official support from Debian security team. unstable: The unstable distribution is where active development of Debian occurs. Generally, this distribution is run by developers and those who like to live on the edge. [2] This release started as a copy of woody, and is currently in a state called testing. That means that things should not break as bad as in unstable or experimental distributions, because packages are allowed to enter this distribution only after a certain period of time has passed, and when they don't have any release-critical bugs filed against them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: branding debian releases
Hi Pete :-) Personally I like the current Woody installer :-) I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos boxes or a blue screen :-) I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (not true for every inst. step though) I find it quick and easy to use - runs nicely on older hardware due to not having the overhead of any kind of GUI. You got me there, keep the old look for old systems, bring up a new look for new systems with 128mb gfx memory, a nice optical mouse and enough sys mem to run 15 xservers at a time. If you are only brought up in the GUI world of Windows, then I guess it will be a little disconcerting at first, but it's not hard to pick up. No I'm not I used VC20, C64, Amiga500, HP-UX Systems, Macintosh, PPC and PC's... but I'm glad that we have such powerful systems now, so why stick to the old crap? At least the task selector and dselect do a good job of resolving any dependancies whilst installing - I have had loads of problems with Red Hat (although I have not installed it recently) and broken packages due to missing libraries etc. I don't argue only on the functionality I argue on the looks. I never used dselect because I still fear doing something wrong. I'm a little bit angry when I know that on other systems like rh I simply press the mouse button and i can (de)select packages without writing down 10 fancy keystrokes, this is too time consuming. Reminds me of my first experiences with vi. Time is an issue and also the easy-to-install thing. So whenever dselect pops up and asks if it should be run I'm like HELL NO!!! At the moment I even won't use tasksel but only install basic system and then run the apt-get. But remember, I'm talking about the first experience with debian, not people like you who are used to it. May sound lazy too, and yes I'm a lazy guy. If my boss tells me to setup an apache server and tells me to use debian because the cust would like to have especially this distri well heck I'm stuck in the installation routine for hours trying to figure out how dselect works. GREAT :-( And the main part, installing apache, isn't even done yet (this was my first experience with Debian). I know to work with apache, but I don'T know how to install Debian, never seen it before. First time I saw RH and SuSe using X-Server installs I was like YES M$ gets their ASS kicked, this is almost too simple! Everybody can handle that easily! Also, how many people in the Windows world actually install their own OS? I suspect *most* buy a computer with it pre-installed, or take it to a shop for upgrades - the few that do it themsleves would have little problem with the current installation of Debian. Without wishing to sound too evangelical, I have had fewer issues installing Debian on a variety of hardware than I have had installing Windows - in fact, my main workstation refuses to run with Windows 2000, so has a nice copy of Woody + backports instead. I install every system on my own and I doubt that someone like my sister would be able to do a successfull installtion with debian and X. But she succesfully reinstalled win2000 on her own, without me even knowing it sorry you can't seriously tell me that it's simpler to install debian then wintendo, ah c'mon ;o) (we don't have to talk about the os itself, I'm on your side I hate this crash and burn system ;-) And to get away from M$ (winzigweich) you should try a RH and SuSe install and then judge for yourself. which install looks nicer? which installer is simpler to use for the average user? which installer has tons of information on any subject you can click with your mouse? but when it comes to the question which distri is the better one, I'm the first one screaming DEBIAN, because it's a hell of a distri, but still the installer is a thorn in my eye and as I remember there was an article posted recently, and the guy there also said that the installer is crappy, I'd have to agree here To make this ONTOPIC again, THEREFORE I wrote my mail to all of you and I think if you see this from the User's view without any politics in it, just count the facts, the debian installer looks like a golden girl amongst teenagers... and also the debian distribution looks old-fashioned then, for people who are not willing to spend hours just to get it installed. and that's a shame, because the spirit behind this whole project is really really good... Well just my personal thought, Simmel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos boxes or a blue screen :-) I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (not true for every inst. step though) Isn't this down to personal preference tho' - the last time I installed RH or Mandrake it had a console only mode as an option... No I'm not I used VC20, C64, Amiga500, HP-UX Systems, Macintosh, PPC and PC's... but I'm glad that we have such powerful systems now, so why stick to the old crap? :-) The old crap really flies on new hardware, this is the same as having faster CPU's and loading the latest M$ OS that requires more resources... I don't argue only on the functionality I argue on the looks. I never used dselect because I still fear doing something wrong. I'm a little bit angry Wrong in what way?? I always found dselect very straightforward.. Select a package, read the description and choose to install it or not .. it automatically tells you if there are dependencies and resolves them for you. Nice and simple. when I know that on other systems like rh I simply press the mouse button and i can (de)select packages without writing down 10 fancy keystrokes, this is too time consuming. Reminds me of my first experiences with vi. Time is But I don't have a mouse on my headless servers... :-) an issue and also the easy-to-install thing. So whenever dselect pops up and asks if it should be run I'm like HELL NO!!! At the moment I even won't use tasksel but only install basic system and then run the apt-get. But remember, I'm talking about the first experience with debian, not people like you who are used to it. To be honest I don't use Tasksel either ... I also do the basic install then dselect or apt-get (depending on what I am installing). But I don't see it being a problem. May sound lazy too, and yes I'm a lazy guy. If my boss tells me to setup an apache server and tells me to use debian because the cust would like to have especially this distri well heck I'm stuck in the installation routine for hours trying to figure out how dselect works. GREAT :-( And the main part, ..install a basic system ( 10 mins) then apt-get install apache! :-) I install every system on my own and I doubt that someone like my sister Likewise .. I have installed every computer I have owned since 1995 (ish).. would be able to do a successfull installtion with debian and X. But she succesfully reinstalled win2000 on her own, without me even knowing it My wife managed to install Debian, and she is not the most computer literate person around...she likes to play Majong and a few other things, writes the odd letter etc. - doesn't know about the internals, just a regular user. sorry you can't seriously tell me that it's simpler to install debian then wintendo, ah c'mon ;o) (we don't have to talk about the os itself, I'm on your side I hate this crash and burn system ;-) I believe it is ... I can install a fully functional debian system in less time than a Windows 2000 one. All hardware detected and running, no extrenous crap to remove - no constant reboots for each security update - the list goes on! And to get away from M$ (winzigweich) you should try a RH and SuSe install and then judge for yourself. which install looks nicer? which installer is simpler to use for the average user? which installer has tons of information on any subject you can click with your mouse? Just because the installer is prettier, doesn't make it better.. I have installed SUSE 9 today, yes it looks good - but I don't need a GUI to install an OS. I agree that these things have their place, but then we all have a choice too - personally, like I stated before, I like the current installer and find it quick and easy to use get a systemup and running in as short a period of time as possible. I agree that some people may be initially disorientated when presented with a console screen for installation, but then I think we have been spoilt by fancy graphics, mice and windows! :-) This, like so many other things, comes down to personal choice I guess - and right now there is no choice. Having said that, one of the reasons I initially chose Debian was that the installation was clean and simple! Goes to show how much attitudes towards this sort of thing have changed over the past few years. Cheers, Pete. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Simmel wrote: Hi Pete :-) Personally I like the current Woody installer :-) I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos boxes or a blue screen :-) I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (not true for every inst. step though) I find it quick and easy to use - runs nicely on older hardware due to not having the overhead of any kind of GUI. You got me there, keep the old look for old systems, bring up a new look for new systems with 128mb gfx memory, a nice optical mouse and enough sys mem to run 15 xservers at a time. I don't mean this to sound rude, but it probably will do. If you need it and no-one else is willing to do it, we look forward to submission of your patch. If no-one else is willing to devote resources to it, then take a step back and ask why. Also, please note that Debian doesn't only run on PC's, which makes the install significantly more complex under the bonnet. If you are only brought up in the GUI world of Windows, then I guess it will be a little disconcerting at first, but it's not hard to pick up. No I'm not I used VC20, C64, Amiga500, HP-UX Systems, Macintosh, PPC and PC's... but I'm glad that we have such powerful systems now, so why stick to the old crap? Because the old crap works, and is quick and functional. Bloating the OS to fit into newer systems is much more of a MS approach. At least the task selector and dselect do a good job of resolving any dependancies whilst installing - I have had loads of problems with Red Hat (although I have not installed it recently) and broken packages due to missing libraries etc. I don't argue only on the functionality I argue on the looks. I never used dselect because I still fear doing something wrong. I'm a little bit angry when I know that on other systems like rh I simply press the mouse button and i can (de)select packages without writing down 10 fancy keystrokes, this is too time consuming. Reminds me of my first experiences with vi. Time is an issue and also the easy-to-install thing. So whenever dselect pops up and asks if it should be run I'm like HELL NO!!! At the moment I even won't use tasksel but only install basic system and then run the apt-get. But remember, I'm talking about the first experience with debian, not people like you who are used to it. Perhaps you should try aptitude. Lots of people don't use tasksel or dselect after install, or ever. Aptitude has a GUI, and can be run from the command line like apt-get. May sound lazy too, and yes I'm a lazy guy. If my boss tells me to setup an apache server and tells me to use debian because the cust would like to have especially this distri well heck I'm stuck in the installation routine for hours trying to figure out how dselect works. GREAT :-( And the main part, installing apache, isn't even done yet (this was my first experience with Debian). I know to work with apache, but I don'T know how to install Debian, never seen it before. First time I saw RH and SuSe using X-Server installs I was like YES M$ gets their ASS kicked, this is almost too simple! Everybody can handle that easily! Different people have different criteria for what constitutes an arse-kicking. Some people want more bells and whistles, some want reliability etc. Also, how many people in the Windows world actually install their own OS? I suspect *most* buy a computer with it pre-installed, or take it to a shop for upgrades - the few that do it themsleves would have little problem with the current installation of Debian. Without wishing to sound too evangelical, I have had fewer issues installing Debian on a variety of hardware than I have had installing Windows - in fact, my main workstation refuses to run with Windows 2000, so has a nice copy of Woody + backports instead. I install every system on my own and I doubt that someone like my sister would be able to do a successfull installtion with debian and X. But she succesfully reinstalled win2000 on her own, without me even knowing it sorry you can't seriously tell me that it's simpler to install debian then wintendo, ah c'mon ;o) (we don't have to talk about the os itself, I'm on your side I hate this crash and burn system ;-) And to get away from M$ (winzigweich) you should try a RH and SuSe install and then judge for yourself. which install looks nicer? which installer is simpler to use for the average user? which installer has tons of information on any subject you can click with your mouse? but when it comes to the question which distri is the better one, I'm the first one screaming DEBIAN, because it's a hell of a distri, but still the installer is a thorn in my eye and as I remember there was an article posted recently, and the guy there also said that the installer is crappy, I'd have to agree here
Re: branding debian releases
I don't mean this to sound rude, but it probably will do. If you need it and no-one else is willing to do it, we look forward to submission of your patch. If no-one else is willing to devote resources to it, then take a step back and ask why. :-) well said. Also, please note that Debian doesn't only run on PC's, which makes the install significantly more complex under the bonnet. Indeed ... I believe the PPC PA-Risc ports are particularily good. Because the old crap works, and is quick and functional. Bloating the OS to fit into newer systems is much more of a MS approach. I run a couple of Compaq 850's (Pentium Pro) which make superb servers under Woody and an old Compaq Professional Workstation 5000 (again, PPro) as an X terminal - Debian works flawlessly for this, try getting Windows XX to run reliably and effeciently on that hardware.. I used to sell computers for a living, and most people who bought the most up-to-date computers only wanted to write the odd letter, email and surf the web - not the best use of system resources. Just because your hardware is not the latest/greatest, doesn't mean it's useless... Different people have different criteria for what constitutes an arse-kicking. Some people want more bells and whistles, some want reliability etc. For me, the ability to install a system from scratch in less time than it takes the Windows 2000 installation to format a 40gb disc is arse-kicking! :-) Working on beautifying something that is rarely used is possibly not the best use of resources. If you disagree, like I said before, then please contribute your resources! :) I would say that the Debian installer is used (on a per-system basis) less than M$'s one anyway ;-) regardless of how many machines you have. Cheers, Pete. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
- Simmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-04-16 14:18:37 +0200]: May sound lazy too, and yes I'm a lazy guy. If my boss tells me to setup an apache server and tells me to use debian because the cust would like to have especially this distri well heck I'm stuck in the installation routine for hours trying to figure out how dselect works. GREAT :-( And the main part, installing apache, isn't even done yet (this was my first experience with Debian). I know to work with apache, but I don'T know how to install Debian, never seen it before. First time I saw RH and SuSe using X-Server installs I was like YES M$ gets their ASS kicked, this is almost too simple! Everybody can handle that easily! You might like to try the new debian installer (http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/) which is in development at the moment. It's at beta 3. It autodetects a lot of hardware, and if you're lucky consists of mostly pressing enter. And to get away from M$ (winzigweich) you should try a RH and SuSe install and then judge for yourself. which install looks nicer? which installer is simpler to use for the average user? which installer has tons of information on any subject you can click with your mouse? The installer is currently all text based, but it's modularised and will allow people to write a graphical frontend to it really quickly. I'll assume there will be lots of information in the frontend on the particular options that presented. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: branding debian releases
Look guys, I think we're talking on different subjects here I'm talking about getting newbies into Linux, especially Debian. And if you tell me that it can't get more popular with a nice installer, well, erm, I dunno what else to say, I'm stunned!?! And if you then tell me it would make no sense to divide Debian into a workstation part and into a more special enterprise or server version to make it even more visible to users, well then I scratch my head in disbelieve. And I don'T say DO IT NOW, I'm more like Ever had a thought about it? thats what discussions are for :-) :-) The old crap really flies on new hardware, this is the same as having faster CPU's and loading the latest M$ OS that requires more resources... Huh, I'm talking about installation NOT the OS itself, pls. read more careful :-) And as much as I hate M$ the installer is pretty nice. Much easier to handle and better to get along with then the debian installer. XP is neat, doesn't take that long and you have all the drivers you need, even for older crap. The system itself is a pile of crap indeed, takes up lots of mem, yes. Well, I installed more systems with Windows, but that doesn't mean I can't get along with other stuff, at least I managed to get more then 15 machines running with Debian. But my first installtion was a mess and I was sweating the whole day long. Wrong in what way?? I always found dselect very straightforward.. Select a package, read the description and choose to install it or not .. it automatically tells you if there are dependencies and resolves them for you. Nice and simple. Really? I may be not so sophistacted but I have had it with dselect after 15 minutes, I've even wrote down the keys, but this is not straight forward. Dselect is very confusing and ugly looking. The explanation a mess in my eyes. But I don't have a mouse on my headless servers... :-) See here we go again, I'm talking about MAINSTREAM, not server administrators. I also have about 15 systems here running debian on them, no mice, no keyboard, no monitor, no x, nothingjust plain console and ssh ;) To be honest I don't use Tasksel either ... I also do the basic install then dselect or apt-get (depending on what I am installing). But I don't see it being a problem. Yeah, if you google around for about half an hour, here we go again. There'S not even a hint in the isntaller that something like aptitude can be used, isn't even installed by default if you install x, as far as I know? So how can that be userfriendly and helping and convincing people to use debian? And that'S what I also meant when I told you about Suse and RH, on the right side you always have info WHATs happening WHAT you are doing. ..install a basic system ( 10 mins) then apt-get install apache! :-) Well after 15 installations okay, but the first time I installed, reinstalled, reinstalled and reinstalled, I don'T like it when I'm not in charge @ inst time. I'd like to get more info from the inst routine. My wife managed to install Debian, and she is not the most computer literate person around...she likes to play Majong and a few other things, writes the odd letter etc. - doesn't know about the internals, just a regular user. Okay then your wife's more clever then me, the first time I tried to isntall my workstation I had to use 2 days to get X running. Never used X before, or only from a SuSe or RH Inst. and they worked the very first time my system fired up. I believe it is ... I can install a fully functional debian system in less time than a Windows 2000 one. All hardware detected and running, no extrenous crap to remove - no constant reboots for each security update - the list goes on! Here we are again YOU, yes but an average user? I still doubt that, sorry! And I had no sound in my X, I had no | becuase it wouldn't select my keymap, I dunno where this is helpful? Just because the installer is prettier, doesn't make it better.. I have installed SUSE 9 today, yes it looks good - but I don't need a GUI to install an OS. That's okay so ... *laugh*. Personally yes I think it's more comfortable to do 200 klicks when the system is capable to do so, then e.g. writing down the help page from dselect. I agree that some people may be initially disorientated when presented with a console screen for installation, but then I think we have been spoilt by fancy graphics, mice and windows! :-) Aha, gotcha Pete :-) Nice to see that you at least agree a bit *giggle*. But why are you so negative about it? Sounds you prefer riding a horse rather then a car, if the comparison is not too much out of the way :-) Isn't it a good thing to have a workstation with an X-Server, a mouse and fancy gfx? I like to have an evironement where I feel at home. And before you reply I say YES this is nothing for servers. Eats up mem, X can be dangerous, isn't safe in some environments. Try to step out of your
RE: branding debian releases
You might like to try the new debian installer (http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/) which is in development at the moment. It's at beta 3. It autodetects a lot of hardware, and if you're lucky consists of mostly pressing enter. And to get away from M$ (winzigweich) you should try a RH and SuSe install and then judge for yourself. which install looks nicer? which installer is simpler to use for the average user? which installer has tons of information on any subject you can click with your mouse? The installer is currently all text based, but it's modularised and will allow people to write a graphical frontend to it really quickly. I'll assume there will be lots of information in the frontend on the particular options that presented. Hey Hey, sounds nice. I'll take a look at it next week and try it out for sure... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:40:19 +0200 Simmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So why not think about using a strategy that almost every company uses (although Debian isn't one), e.g. Redhat, SuSe, even Microdoft... For me as a user and systems administrator something like this would be much much better. Why not do it this way? enterprise - this is for servers only - not much GUI/ focused on servers/ networking,routing/ multiple cpus/driver support and so on workstation - this is for home users and workplaces - not much server stuff here/ focused on multimedia/ x-server/ openoffice and so on sandbox - (I like that word, Monique :-) this can stay the same and is meant for people who would like to help the Debian project with further releases, simply a sandbox to play with to find and report bugs. (maybe there should be two then, something like E-sandbox, for the enterprise stuff, and W-sandbox for the workstation part) [ snip ] In making suggestions like this, and like many others in this thread, the implicit assumption is that the reason the three distros (stable, testing and unstable) exist is so that users have a choice of distros, and can then choose the one that suits their needs best. With that assumption, it is of course very important that the explanations be as clear to users as they possibly can; and it would make sense to even consider structuring the contents (and thus titles) of the distros differently, so that they'd better achieve that goal of giving users choices. But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to track unstable or testing (and many of us do); but the existence of those distros is to help the developers do what needs to be done to get packages into good shape and get releases out. Period. And thus, the most important thing is that the descriptions of these distros be clear to developers, and that their functions be useful for developers. Re-branding the distros, and changing their descriptions, isn't sensible: testing and unstable don't cleanly fall into categories that are sensible for users, and trying to label them that way is (as Monique said) trying to assign characteristics that don't exist. But that's not a bug; that's a feature. It's intentional. Their purpose is to facilitate the job of the developers. Looked at this way, the problem with your suggestion above is that it doesn't accomplish the goal of facilitating the next release. It tears down some of the infrastructure the developers use without replacing it with something that helps them do their job as well or better. Well, OK, you may be saying, but what's wrong with giving users choices as well? Instead of having unstable, testing, and stable, why not have unstable and testing to help developers (and helpful users), and also distros like `server' and `workstation' and so on? But this is a false dichotomy: users already have the choices that other distributions provide with such focussed releases. Put another way, what people are concerned about in this thread is getting more recent versions of packages than stable provides; creating server and workstation releases of Debian like other distributions do wouldn't solve this. Server and workstation releases of other Linux distributions don't typically differ in the versions of the packages they provide. Rather, they differ in *which* packages are provided. The server release may include apache but not frozen-bubble; while the workstation release may include frozen-bubble but not apache. But they'll both typically have the same version of X (provided the server has X at all, of course). So functional releases wouldn't obviously address the thing that people have been concerned about in this thread -- more current versions of software. Furthermore, functional releases would go against Debian's philosophy. Perhaps you want a machine with one or the other, or perhaps *both*, or perhaps *neither*. Rather than decide for you what you'll need, Debian lets you decide. The purpose of tasksel is to make that a little less onerous, so that you don't have build your system up entirely from scratch; you can select Web server or Java development and get a bunch of packages relevant to whatever you need. But you can install whatever you want. Want server packages? Install them. Want workstation packages? Install them. It's your machine; do what you want with it. P.S.: And while I'm on it, plez enhance the installation routine, something like a graphical interface. This takes the fear off most users. Take a look at SuSe and Redaht and you'll know what I mean. I know that there are also a lot of
Re: branding debian releases
Incoming from Chris Metzler: But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to I was around when Ian Murdock first introduced Debian. Back then, we had SLS and Slackware, the latter having been produced because the same un-fixed problems tended to be reproduced in subsequent issues of SLS. Debian's raison d'etre was stability in response to the lack of it in existing distributions. I still think that's what Debian should be striving for. I don't see any point in catering to bleeding-edge-itis in Debian. If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides, the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of backports or even /usr/local. Debian has proven itself robust enough to support the creation of dependent distributions like Libranet and Knoppix. If the user demands bleeding edge, that's where they should be looking. No change is necessary. If the user thinks stable is obsolete, it should be up to them to deal with that, and that means they should learn to add what they want onto stable, or go elsewhere. testing and unstable are for those who know what they're doing and are willing and able to understand the consequences, in the spirit of wanting to help Debian produce a future stable distribution. Debian should not be bothering to cater to bleeding-edge-itis in a misguided attempt to open up Debian to more users. Leave that to the Libranets and Knoppixes. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling - - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
s. keeling wrote: Incoming from Chris Metzler: But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to I was around when Ian Murdock first introduced Debian. Back then, we had SLS and Slackware, the latter having been produced because the same un-fixed problems tended to be reproduced in subsequent issues of SLS. Debian's raison d'etre was stability in response to the lack of it in existing distributions. I still think that's what Debian should be striving for. I don't see any point in catering to bleeding-edge-itis in Debian. If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides, the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of backports or even /usr/local. Debian has proven itself robust enough to support the creation of dependent distributions like Libranet and Knoppix. If the user demands bleeding edge, that's where they should be looking. No change is necessary. If the user thinks stable is obsolete, it should be up to them to deal with that, and that means they should learn to add what they want onto stable, or go elsewhere. testing and unstable are for those who know what they're doing and are willing and able to understand the consequences, in the spirit of wanting to help Debian produce a future stable distribution. Debian should not be bothering to cater to bleeding-edge-itis in a misguided attempt to open up Debian to more users. Leave that to the Libranets and Knoppixes. Agreed. Produce a stabel distro, let us deal with it. -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:28:26 -0600 s. keeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incoming from Chris Metzler: But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to I was around when Ian Murdock first introduced Debian. Back then, we had SLS and Slackware, the latter having been produced because the same un-fixed problems tended to be reproduced in subsequent issues of SLS. Debian's raison d'etre was stability in response to the lack of it in existing distributions. I still think that's what Debian should be striving for. I don't see any point in catering to bleeding-edge-itis in Debian. [ snip ] No change is necessary. If the user thinks stable is obsolete, it should be up to them to deal with that, and that means they should learn to add what they want onto stable, or go elsewhere. testing and unstable are for those who know what they're doing and are willing and able to understand the consequences, in the spirit of wanting to help Debian produce a future stable distribution. Debian should not be bothering to cater to bleeding-edge-itis in a misguided attempt to open up Debian to more users. Leave that to the Libranets and Knoppixes. Hi. You picked my post to reply to when you said this. It may just have been a choice of many and wasn't directly in response to me. But just in case not, let me say that I agree completely with you, that I thought the point of view I was expressing was absolutely congruent to what you just said, and that I hope I didn't communicate otherwise (since that would be the exact opposite of what I wanted to say). -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: branding debian releases
On (16/04/04 10:28), s. keeling wrote: Incoming from Chris Metzler: But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to I was around when Ian Murdock first introduced Debian. Back then, we had SLS and Slackware, the latter having been produced because the same un-fixed problems tended to be reproduced in subsequent issues of SLS. Debian's raison d'etre was stability in response to the lack of it in existing distributions. I still think that's what Debian should be striving for. I don't see any point in catering to bleeding-edge-itis in Debian. If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides, the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of backports or even /usr/local. Debian has proven itself robust enough to support the creation of dependent distributions like Libranet and Knoppix. If the user demands bleeding edge, that's where they should be looking. No change is necessary. If the user thinks stable is obsolete, it should be up to them to deal with that, and that means they should learn to add what they want onto stable, or go elsewhere. testing and unstable are for those who know what they're doing and are willing and able to understand the consequences, in the spirit of wanting to help Debian produce a future stable distribution. Debian should not be bothering to cater to bleeding-edge-itis in a misguided attempt to open up Debian to more users. Leave that to the Libranets and Knoppixes. As a relative newbie, this makes eminently good sense to me. After 10 months of woody (on a workstation) I recently upgraded to unstable, with my eyes open having absorbed a lot of information from d-u. I won't say that it has been painless but a valuable learning experience, certainly. And I now have a first class desktop system albeit with some functionality yet to configure. The thought of anyone installing unstable without understanding the consequences makes me wince. I bypassed testing for reasons that have been well rehearsed in this thread. FWIW I think the Debian community has plenty to do without this proposed diversion of renaming or worse, fundamentally changing the way that the distribution is developing. I suspect that when sarge becomes stable, much of this criticism will go away until the next stable release is imminent. Woody was a significant improvement over potato and I suspect that sarge (with the new installer) will assuage many of the current concerns. I run woody on Mac and PC servers (my first networking experience) and they are a doddle to maintain. I have never used other distros, so I can't make any comparissons but I remain convinced that Debian is the distro for me and anyone who values quality and OSS. In short it rocks Regards Clive -- http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
Incoming from Chris Metzler: Hi. You picked my post to reply to when you said this. It may just have been a choice of many and wasn't directly in response to me. But just in case not, let me say that I agree completely with you, that I thought the point of view I was expressing was absolutely congruent to what you just said, and that I hope I didn't communicate otherwise (since that would be the exact opposite of what I wanted I was partly replying to the thread, partly replying to bolster your opinion with historical context, and partly replying just to not remain silent. I think this whole renaming of Debian releases thing is asinine, ignores what Debian's really about, and ignores better solutions to whatever perceived problems people think exist. Anyone who doesn't like the installer, go with Libranet; that's their main selling point. They also support a more up to date mix of packages. Don't want to pay for free software? Learn to love stock Debian then, and shut up about the installer! The same can be said for advanced hardware detection and Knoppix (among others). -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling - - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On 2004-04-16, Chris Metzler penned: [snip] But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to track unstable or testing (and many of us do); but the existence of those distros is to help the developers do what needs to be done to get packages into good shape and get releases out. Period. I agree, with one caveat: And thus, the most important thing is that the descriptions of these distros be clear to developers, and that their functions be useful for developers. If that's the most important thing, the very next most important thing is that the descriptions make clear to non-developer users that testing and unstable are not intended for them. I see no such advisory in the current descriptions. Re-branding the distros, and changing their descriptions, isn't sensible: testing and unstable don't cleanly fall into categories that are sensible for users, and trying to label them that way is (as Monique said) trying to assign characteristics that don't exist. But that's not a bug; that's a feature. It's intentional. Their purpose is to facilitate the job of the developers. [snip] -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:18:58 -0600 Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that's the most important thing, the very next most important thing is that the descriptions make clear to non-developer users that testing and unstable are not intended for them. I see no such advisory in the current descriptions. I would put it a *little* differently -- that they're not intended for non-developer users *unless* those non-developer users are interested in helping with the development of the next release/future releases (by filing bug reports etc.), so much so that they're willing to run the risk of a borked system, which both unstable and testing will sometimes give them. You don't want to dissuade *everyone* from tracking them. You just want to make sure that nobody tracks them who doesn't fully understand what they're getting themselves into. But I agree with your point, regardless -- the mere fact that testing is not intended to be a good choice for users who wanna split the difference between stable and unstable comes up here so often would suggest that any way to make this more clear to the user community would be good. --c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: branding debian releases
If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides, the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of backports or even /usr/local. That's something i personally don't understand. I'm not sure if i get this right but isn't the point of running stable on servers that the software has been thoroughly tested and that the code is compiled against a stable version of libc6? So if you install backports, you introduce new releases of packages and maybe libraries on your system which might contain serious bugs. Compiling the source of some apps (to install to /usr/local) might even fail because they need a newer libc6 or am i wrong in assuming this? Also with backports or locally compiled source packages, wouldn't you have to keep up with the security of the packages yourself? I mean checking if a serious bug (securitywise) has been found against the package that you have installed or compiled? Anyway, on making backports: it seems backports should totally avoid introducing a new libc6 and try to keep the number of new libs it needs to have installed to a minimum. It might be a daunting task i guess for some applications. Regards, Benedict -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
Incoming from Benedict Verheyen: If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides, the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of backports or even /usr/local. That's something i personally don't understand. I'm not sure if i get this right but isn't the point of running stable on servers that the software has been thoroughly tested and that the code is compiled against a stable version of libc6? Yes. So if you install backports, you introduce new releases of packages and maybe libraries on your system which might contain serious bugs. Compiling the source of some apps (to install to /usr/local) might even fail because they need a newer libc6? Perhaps, yes. But consider something as release sensitive as chkrootkit. You do want to be as up to date as you can on something like that, no? That's why I always get the tarball from chkrootkit.org (currently 0.43b?) instead of settling for stable's version (currently 0.35-1). Considering this is Debian, perhaps stable's 0.35-1 has been patched with the latest fixes; I don't know. I just know I'm running the latest chkrootkit. Also with backports or locally compiled source packages, wouldn't you have to keep up with the security of the packages yourself? I mean checking if a serious bug (securitywise) has been found against the package that you have installed or compiled? Yes. See lists.debian.org and debian-security and debian-security-announce Anyway, on making backports: it seems backports should totally avoid introducing a new libc6 and try to keep the number of new libs it needs to have installed to a minimum. It might be a daunting task i guess for some applications. Backports being backports, they are not official Debian packages; they're ports of software currently in testing or unstable, neither of which is Debian stable. If you determine you must have them, it's up to you take responsibility for them. Talk to the backport maintainers if you want to see what's going on with them. There's nothing Debian could, or should do about this. They're already testing to hell and back in order to release stable. Expecting them to sign off on backports as well, with no idea of what else may be running on the same system at that time, is unrealistic at best. Welcome to Debian, Linux, Free/Open Source Software, etc., etc. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling - - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 06:47:42PM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote: This thread got started because people were frustrated about having to explain stable vs. testing vs. unstable to new users trying Debian. But it appears to me that a lot of people with strong ideas on how to fix that don't understand the differences themselves. this is good evidence that there must be a better approach than the one we're currently using. john doe will read stable and might think it means that it's got all the current upstream bug fixes when what we mean by it is we stopped adding new stuff to this one a long time ago, and haven't found any serious conflicts in quite a long time. john doe will read unstable and may think it means not stable, whereas what we mean is probably stable, and we're working on making it more stable. john doe will read testing and may think it means experimental when we intend it to mean whatever isn't stable here will be really soon, and it'll be the new stable version. there's a discrepancy between what a newbie it likely to infer, and what the old hands have learned to interpret. The web page http://www.debian.org/devel/testing explains what testing is. It isn't what many people in this thread seem to be suggesting. exactly this confusion could be alleviated by a better naming scheme. but perhaps we should examine AVOIDING descriptive names altogether... as Tom Massey also has a point: On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:14:05AM +1000, Tom Massey wrote: I vaguely suspect that renaming the releases won't actually solve the problem that it's meant to - reducing confusion among new Debian users. You're likely to just end up with a new set of labels to explain. Any name you come up with is going to be too short to fully explain the situation: call stable 'server', testing 'desktop' for example, and you still have to explain that the server release is good for desktops if you prefer stability over new stuff, and the desktop release might be good for a server if you need more recent packages and don't want to search for backports. You can't fit all that info into a short name. I run unstable on my desktop machine, stable on my mail server because I know what the names mean. Education as to what goes in to the various Debian releases is the key, and changing the release names doesn't do much for that. perhaps instead of trying for descriptive-but-too-short a name for each layer (stable/testing/unstable) of release, we should stick to ONLY the colorful code names which will give the newbie NOTHING to assume about current-vs-stable, and then they're more likely to traipse over to the description page to learn what's what. i.e. instead of stable / server / rocksolid testing / workstation / almost unstable / cuttingedge / future maybe we should avoid the descriptive names and use only ...slink ...potato woody sarge sid ? -- I use Debian/GNU Linux version 3.0; Linux boss 2.4.18-bf2.4 #1 Son Apr 14 09:53:28 CEST 2002 i586 unknown DEBIAN NEWBIE TIP #101 from Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Looking for a way to CREATE A PAGE OF LINKS to all the */index.html that already exist in your /usr/share/doc tree? apt-get install dwww then point your browser to: http://localhost/dwww Also see http://newbieDoc.sourceForge.net/ ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
I think that will only add to the confusion. Operating systems aren't supposed to be esoteric. Pick a good name for each (your future, etc sound good), and then write an easy to understand one-sentence explanation at the download site. --- Will Trillich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 06:47:42PM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote: This thread got started because people were frustrated about having to explain stable vs. testing vs. unstable to new users trying Debian. But it appears to me that a lot of people with strong ideas on how to fix that don't understand the differences themselves. this is good evidence that there must be a better approach than the one we're currently using. john doe will read stable and might think it means that it's got all the current upstream bug fixes when what we mean by it is we stopped adding new stuff to this one a long time ago, and haven't found any serious conflicts in quite a long time. john doe will read unstable and may think it means not stable, whereas what we mean is probably stable, and we're working on making it more stable. john doe will read testing and may think it means experimental when we intend it to mean whatever isn't stable here will be really soon, and it'll be the new stable version. there's a discrepancy between what a newbie it likely to infer, and what the old hands have learned to interpret. The web page http://www.debian.org/devel/testing explains what testing is. It isn't what many people in this thread seem to be suggesting. exactly this confusion could be alleviated by a better naming scheme. but perhaps we should examine AVOIDING descriptive names altogether... as Tom Massey also has a point: On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:14:05AM +1000, Tom Massey wrote: I vaguely suspect that renaming the releases won't actually solve the problem that it's meant to - reducing confusion among new Debian users. You're likely to just end up with a new set of labels to explain. Any name you come up with is going to be too short to fully explain the situation: call stable 'server', testing 'desktop' for example, and you still have to explain that the server release is good for desktops if you prefer stability over new stuff, and the desktop release might be good for a server if you need more recent packages and don't want to search for backports. You can't fit all that info into a short name. I run unstable on my desktop machine, stable on my mail server because I know what the names mean. Education as to what goes in to the various Debian releases is the key, and changing the release names doesn't do much for that. perhaps instead of trying for descriptive-but-too-short a name for each layer (stable/testing/unstable) of release, we should stick to ONLY the colorful code names which will give the newbie NOTHING to assume about current-vs-stable, and then they're more likely to traipse over to the description page to learn what's what. i.e. instead of stable / server / rocksolid testing / workstation / almost unstable / cuttingedge / future maybe we should avoid the descriptive names and use only ...slink ...potato woody sarge sid ? -- I use Debian/GNU Linux version 3.0; Linux boss 2.4.18-bf2.4 #1 Son Apr 14 09:53:28 CEST 2002 i586 unknown DEBIAN NEWBIE TIP #101 from Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Looking for a way to CREATE A PAGE OF LINKS to all the */index.html that already exist in your /usr/share/doc tree? apt-get install dwww then point your browser to: http://localhost/dwww Also see http://newbieDoc.sourceForge.net/ ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On 2004-04-15, Will Trillich penned: john doe will read stable and might think it means that it's got all the current upstream bug fixes when what we mean by it is we stopped adding new stuff to this one a long time ago, and haven't found any serious conflicts in quite a long time. Let's not forget the security fixes. That new stuff does get added. john doe will read unstable and may think it means not stable, whereas what we mean is probably stable, and we're working on making it more stable. Um. I think what we mean is try this stuff and see if it breaks. john doe will read testing and may think it means experimental when we intend it to mean whatever isn't stable here will be really soon, and it'll be the new stable version. But whatever isn't stable will be stable in unstable before it's stable in testing ... (Say that five times fast!) I don't think one can assert anything about the stability of the 'testing' distro. If anything, one can assert that its stability will shift over time. there's a discrepancy between what a newbie it likely to infer, and what the old hands have learned to interpret. And apparently, the old hands don't necessarily get it right or agree, either. maybe we should avoid the descriptive names and use only ...slink ...potato woody sarge sid ? I'd say no. If you're tracking sarge/testing, what happens when sarge is promoted to stable? If you specify sarge, your machine tracks what is now the stable distro; if you specify testing, your machine tracks the new testing distro. This is an important distinction. The whole problem here is that we're trying to assign characteristics that just don't exist. The only definitions that exist are here: http://www.debian.org/releases/ Unstable is where active development of Debian occurs. Testing contains packages that haven't been accepted into a stable release yet, but they are in the queue for that. Stable contains the latest officially released distribution of Debian. Experienced users can predict the qualities of these distributions to varying degrees, but the fact is, the above three statements are the only defining characteristics. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
branding debian releases
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 05:58:57PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned: Monique Y. Mudama wrote: Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P What about current, then? This would encourage people to use the unstable distribution, which by definition isn't considered ready for prime time. The truth is that there are tradeoffs; a one-word name just isn't going to capture those tradeoffs. If anything, the right term for unstable might be head or tip -- or would that be experimental? or breach? :) just kidding. it's important to note that the present branding scheme (unstable / testing / stable) is certainly ACCURATE from the point-of-view of the programmers and script-writers -- but for the public-at-large, those terms seem MYSTERIOUS and engender frequent explanations and lectures on this very list (enough to warrant a FAQ, which a debian-newbie is unlikely to locate or to read). often it seems like we have to dip into DAMAGE CONTROL MODE simply because a newbie didn't grok the release naming scheme. so maybe a public-oriented name scheme is worthy of consideration. that is, we could cautiously and considerately select appropriate names for the releases that make sense to the public at large, and: 1) not have to answer this question again! 2) improve dissemination of debian as folks are more likely to get the release they really want 3) watch the ranks grow and grow and grow... here i brainstorm to conjure up some naming scheme possibilities (referring to current status as of 13 apr 2004): sid -- alternatives to UNSTABLE: - UNKNOWN - DANGEROUS - CAVORT - UNCERTAIN - BEWARE sarge -- alternatives to TESTING: - SOON - NEARLY - UPCOMING - ALMOST - NOT YET woody -- alternatives to STABLE: - SOLID - DEPENDABLE - READY - SERIOUS - STABLE (heck, what could be more precise? :) think of names that might help the debian-uninitiated grok a tad more quickly the functionality and dependability of the release. - wanna go play with the latest ready-to-break stuff? try the DANGEROUS release (ooh, sounds sexy, doesn't it?) and take your chances. - want reasonably current stuff that hasn't been thoroughly proven? install the ALMOST release. - can't stand the thought of downtime? stick with STABLE and expect it to deliver 700+ days uptime without breaking a sweat. the idea would be to pick names that will make (appropriate) sense to people who are NOT intimately invovled in the project. by all means, keep the fun code names (slink, potato, woody, sarge, sid...) behind-the-scenes, of course. :) after brainstorming, of course, consideration of multilingual translations would be important; also, beware of terms easily warped into derogatory forms by enemy camps (think marketing and spin). but first, we need to gather all ideas, even ones that may seem silly. comments welcome. = at serensoft part of our service -- after implementing a reporting solution, typically -- is that we offer branded documentation where we provide the clientele with three layers of printed help/manual: beginnings -- gentle step-by-step for simple newbie tasks foundation -- reference-like, showing 80% of all they'll need horizons -- show off advanced features, pique their interest the naming system for debian releases could be like this. when we finalized our documentation name branding scheme (after much trepidation) both the doc writers and the clients registered better understanding of what was expected to be in each layer. proper branding can really line up the perception with the reality when your terms are cleverly chosen. and you have a lot less explaining to do when first-timers quickly get it at first glance. = okay, i admit it, i've got an ulterior motive: i'd love to see a debian box in every basement and on every office desk. (i've got two of each in my own house, of course.) and i think the best way to see that happen is to make it easier for joe average to 1) find out about the advantages of debian by 2) trying it out and having it work. a friendly installer, a naming scheme that gets him to download the appropriate (i.e. less likely to be disappointing) release, readable howtos that are germaine to what he's interested in accomplishing with it, and so forth. this means departing from we created it, and we understand it, so becky had better learn to think the way we do and moving toward what does becky expect, and how can we communicate to her that she can do all that and more using debian? debian is a great implementation
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote: Stable -- CURRENT_STABLE Testing -- ALMOST_STABLE Unstable -- NEW_NOT_PROVEN http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unstable 1. a) Tending strongly to change: unstable weather. b) Not constant; fluctuating: unstable vital signs. 2. a) Fickle. b) Lacking control of one's emotions; marked by unpredictable behavior. 3.Not firmly placed; unsteady: an unstable ladder. Unstable seems like an accurate name to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote: Stable -- CURRENT_STABLE Testing -- ALMOST_STABLE Unstable -- NEW_NOT_PROVEN http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unstable 1. a) Tending strongly to change: unstable weather. b) Not constant; fluctuating: unstable vital signs. 2. a) Fickle. b) Lacking control of one's emotions; marked by unpredictable behavior. 3.Not firmly placed; unsteady: an unstable ladder. Unstable seems like an accurate name to me. Since your dictonairy is not aware of the term unstable in the computer-world, it is not of much use in my humble opinion. Every profession has his own jargon or language, and gives common words a slightly different meaning sometimes. In computer-world unstable means: is known to crash too often, or something similar. It sounds like it is flaky, buggy crap :). LOL, this reminds of the this UserFriendly strip some years ago with Greg on top of a NT server, to reach some upper shelf in a cupboard, saying: hmm, this server is actually pretty stable! I am running a production server on unstable for over a year now with only some really minor issues (4 or 5 things took me more than 10 minutes to fix but were no major showstoppers). This machine needs hardly any attention at all, and is running a postfix mailserver, courier-imap, apache, subversion, squirrelmail, phpcollab, several zope/plone websites, phpgroupware, mailman mailinglists, squid proxy server for my LAN, Samba for fileserving and PDC for my LAN etcetera. For me and my users it has proven more than stable. However, I am going to move some of the above services to a rack-mounted machine at an ISP soon. I *will* run stable there (with some backports) because this machines needs to *absolutely* as stable as possible. (The reason I am moving is of bandwith concerns and has nothing to do with Debian). Pim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 04:29:57AM -0500, Will Trillich wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 05:58:57PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned: Monique Y. Mudama wrote: Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P What about current, then? This would encourage people to use the unstable distribution, which by definition isn't considered ready for prime time. The truth is that there are tradeoffs; a one-word name just isn't going to capture those tradeoffs. If anything, the right term for unstable might be head or tip -- or would that be experimental? or breach? :) just kidding. it's important to note that the present branding scheme (unstable / testing / stable) is certainly ACCURATE from the point-of-view of the programmers and script-writers -- but for the public-at-large, those terms seem MYSTERIOUS and engender frequent explanations and lectures on this very list (enough to warrant a FAQ, which a debian-newbie is unlikely to locate or to read). often it seems like we have to dip into DAMAGE CONTROL MODE simply because a newbie didn't grok the release naming scheme. so maybe a public-oriented name scheme is worthy of consideration. that is, we could cautiously and considerately select appropriate names for the releases that make sense to the public at large, and: 1) not have to answer this question again! 2) improve dissemination of debian as folks are more likely to get the release they really want 3) watch the ranks grow and grow and grow... here i brainstorm to conjure up some naming scheme possibilities (referring to current status as of 13 apr 2004): I would go more with: sid -- alternatives to UNSTABLE: - just out - untested - UNKNOWN - DANGEROUS - CAVORT - UNCERTAIN - BEWARE sarge -- alternatives to TESTING: - desktop - user - mostly stable - freezing - SOON - NEARLY - UPCOMING - ALMOST - NOT YET woody -- alternatives to STABLE: - server - frozen - SOLID - DEPENDABLE - READY - SERIOUS - STABLE (heck, what could be more precise? :) think of names that might help the debian-uninitiated grok a tad more quickly the functionality and dependability of the release. - wanna go play with the latest ready-to-break stuff? try the DANGEROUS release (ooh, sounds sexy, doesn't it?) and take your chances. - want reasonably current stuff that hasn't been thoroughly proven? install the ALMOST release. - can't stand the thought of downtime? stick with STABLE and expect it to deliver 700+ days uptime without breaking a sweat. the idea would be to pick names that will make (appropriate) sense to people who are NOT intimately invovled in the project. by all means, keep the fun code names (slink, potato, woody, sarge, sid...) behind-the-scenes, of course. :) after brainstorming, of course, consideration of multilingual translations would be important; also, beware of terms easily warped into derogatory forms by enemy camps (think marketing and spin). but first, we need to gather all ideas, even ones that may seem silly. comments welcome. = at serensoft part of our service -- after implementing a reporting solution, typically -- is that we offer branded documentation where we provide the clientele with three layers of printed help/manual: beginnings -- gentle step-by-step for simple newbie tasks foundation -- reference-like, showing 80% of all they'll need horizons -- show off advanced features, pique their interest the naming system for debian releases could be like this. when we finalized our documentation name branding scheme (after much trepidation) both the doc writers and the clients registered better understanding of what was expected to be in each layer. proper branding can really line up the perception with the reality when your terms are cleverly chosen. and you have a lot less explaining to do when first-timers quickly get it at first glance. = okay, i admit it, i've got an ulterior motive: i'd love to see a debian box in every basement and on every office desk. (i've got two of each in my own house, of course.) and i think the best way to see that happen is to make it easier for joe average to 1) find out about the advantages of debian by 2) trying it out and having it work. a friendly installer, a naming scheme that gets him to download the appropriate (i.e. less likely to be disappointing) release, readable howtos that are germaine to what he's interested in
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote: [...] } I think the first question is of which user you want to attract. A good } system admin knows what stable/testing/unstable means, but if you want to } atract John Doe to run Debian as a desktop, we need to think a different } way. If you need to attract sysadmins, the stable/testing/unstable naming } schema is sufficient. The idea of renaming the releases is coming up not because of marketing, or attracting people. It is coming up because the current naming scheme is causing misunderstanding among people who are trying Debian out. You can argue that Debian is intended for sysadmins or experienced users (I don't think Pim is arguing that, actually, but I expect that there are those who would), but that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the mailing lists and IRC channels see the same misunderstandings leading to the same questions (and sometimes tirades) over and over. It is in the best interests of those of us who want to provide the kind of community of tech support for which Debian is famous to eliminate these misunderstandings so that our time can be dedicated to solving other problems. [...] } Nowadays, if a John Doe comes up to me and asks me what distro to use, I } must honestly say I will not tell him to go the Debian-way. Too } complicated, and the stable distro is way too much out of date. I would } suggest Knoppix instead for instance. Unstable is a no-go although it has } proven stable to me, it does sometimes haves its quircks when upgrading } and is thereby not suitable for John Doe. } } So in my opinion, Debian is not really ready for John Doe, except for when } he has a nice cousin who knows Debian and can install a good unstable box } for him (and maintain it) :). This approach works well for businesses, } where they have sysadmins installing the systems for the John Does in the } company. But for a home user, I will not suggest Debian. I recently recommended Xandros to someone. Honestly, if a user is looking for a computing environment that Just Works, I'll recommend a commercial distribution (with tech support) every time. This has little to do with the Debian naming scheme, however. } Anyway, I think changing the naming scheme is not of real use at this } moment. It will not help John Doe, and the sysadmins do not need it. But remember, we aren't trying to help John Doe, exactly. We're trying to help ourselves by making John Doe less confused. } However, I can imagine you want to attract sysadmins coming from a } different background (Windows f.i.!) willing to try the Linux-way. Would } be sure nice if they give Debian a proper try. If you want these people to } understand stable/testing/unstable you *could* think of different naming. } However, I think a prominent FAQ document on the same pages as INSTALL } docs and download locations on the Debian sites would be more helpfull. People don't read FAQs, no matter how much we would like them to. It is far better to avoid confusion in the first place. } My suggestions for new names: } } Stable -- CURRENT_STABLE } Testing -- ALMOST_STABLE } Unstable -- NEW_NOT_PROVEN [...] Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing something that long in IRC. I'd say we want pithy but clear. How about: stable --- lowrisk testing -- current unstable - earlyaccess I can see an argument that testing should not be called current, since CURRENT means something different in the BSD world. At the same time, consider how the releases are actually used. The stable distribution is most suitable for a) installation, and b) stable, high-security, low-risk servers. The testing distribution is used for desktop machines because it has current software, but is unlikely to break randomly (yes, it still happens occasionally). The unstable distribution is used package-by-package on many testing-based machines, and is also used by savvy sysadmins who consider access to the latest software versions worth the risk of broken packages. That said, I think testing could be equally well named either workstation or nearcurrent and achieve the same goals. Just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I consider this a usability/documentation issue, not a marketing issue. The intended result of any name change is a reduction in (repetitive) questions to the mailing lists and IRC channels. } Pim Bliek --Greg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
Gregory Seidman wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote: } My suggestions for new names: } } Stable -- CURRENT_STABLE } Testing -- ALMOST_STABLE } Unstable -- NEW_NOT_PROVEN [...] Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing something that long in IRC. I'd say we want pithy but clear. How about: stable --- lowrisk testing -- current unstable - earlyaccess Greg's is more pithy, but Pim's is more clear. stable --- current testing -- next_version unstable - in_development or stable --- current testing -- beta unstable - alpha or stable --- no_pain testing -- pinprick unstable - broken_finger_or_three or stable --- lowrisk testing -- somerisk unstable - morerisk or stable --- lowrisk testing -- somerisk unstable - morerisk_but_better_than_any_other_distro_so_use_this_for_desktop_workstations None of which I particularly like, but I had fun doing it . . . . -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
Hi All, The idea of renaming the releases is coming up not because of marketing, or attracting people. It is coming up because the current naming scheme Hmm. You are right about that. However, I always like to make an analisys on the 'bigger picture' before I start digging :). I think it is important to keep in the back of your mind: who are our users? what do they want?. After alle, people make software for users (and for themselves off course :)). is causing misunderstanding among people who are trying Debian out. You can argue that Debian is intended for sysadmins or experienced users (I don't think Pim is arguing that, actually, but I expect that there are those who would), but that's irrelevant. Indeed. I was not aware there were so many miscommunications going on. This happens when you work in a certain field for too long: you cannot imagine people not understanding wat stable/testing/unstable means :). Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing something that long in IRC. I'd say we want pithy but clear. How about: stable --- lowrisk testing -- current unstable - earlyaccess Hmmm. If I read more down your post I come to another scheme which is a good combination of what I was trying to say and what your point is: stable -- server testing -- desktop unstable -- unstable / early / testing (!) / newstuff / fire / reddeb :) What about this one? :). 'earlyaccess' is a bit too long too... I came up with the above inspired by this part of your reply: consider how the releases are actually used. The stable distribution is most suitable for a) installation, and b) stable, high-security, low-risk servers. The testing distribution is used for desktop machines because it has current software, but is unlikely to break randomly (yes, Just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I consider this a usability/documentation issue, not a marketing issue. The intended result of any name change is a reduction in (repetitive) questions to the mailing lists and IRC channels. Correct, but.. it is also a marketing issue! People trying out unstable who get dissapointments by broken packages are probably going away from Debian. Marketing is all about expectations. What do people expect and what do they get? If we continue on the server / desktop / edgy route, the Debian Project might consider a different releasing schedule as well... server (stable) -- same as now. not often released. done when it is done. once a year or so desktop (testing) -- bring out 'releases', probably quarterly, with the newest stuff, but properly tested. Properly enough for a desktop. The change here is that you are going to announce 'official desktop releases'... So you probably need some code-freezing etc too here, just like we are doing now for stable. Big difference is focus on usability, less on absolute stability like we do for Stable. Probably involves some release management to be put in place for testing, but not as severe as for stable. edgy (unstable) -- just like it is now. Good idea or absolute rubbish? Pim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On 2004-04-14, Gregory Seidman penned: Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing something that long in IRC. I'd say we want pithy but clear. How about: stable --- lowrisk testing -- current unstable - earlyaccess I can see an argument that testing should not be called current, since CURRENT means something different in the BSD world. At the same time, consider how the releases are actually used. The stable distribution is most suitable for a) installation, and b) stable, high-security, low-risk servers. The testing distribution is used for desktop machines because it has current software, but is unlikely to break randomly (yes, it still happens occasionally). The unstable distribution is used package-by-package on many testing-based machines, and is also used by savvy sysadmins who consider access to the latest software versions worth the risk of broken packages. That said, I think testing could be equally well named either workstation or nearcurrent and achieve the same goals. My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstable. I see it more as a developer sandbox than a live distribution. Am I wrong? Just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I consider this a usability/documentation issue, not a marketing issue. The intended result of any name change is a reduction in (repetitive) questions to the mailing lists and IRC channels. I think it will be difficult/impossible to come up with a short name for each of these that also communicates their characteristics. At the very least, though, the versions list on the debian website should take a stab at explaining the tradeoffs. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
Morning, I vaguely suspect that renaming the releases won't actually solve the problem that it's meant to - reducing confusion among new Debian users. You're likely to just end up with a new set of labels to explain. Any name you come up with is going to be too short to fully explain the situation: call stable 'server', testing 'desktop' for example, and you still have to explain that the server release is good for desktops if you prefer stability over new stuff, and the desktop release might be good for a server if you need more recent packages and don't want to search for backports. You can't fit all that info into a short name. I run unstable on my desktop machine, stable on my mail server because I know what the names mean. Education as to what goes in to the various Debian releases is the key, and changing the release names doesn't do much for that. The current names for releases are pretty good, I think. The confusion comes from not knowing what the names apply to, not the names themselves. What's needed is not new names, but a rethink of the descriptions of releases as at http://www.debian.org/releases/. Instead of calling stable the one which we primarily recommend using., perhaps call it the one which we primarily recommend using when stablity is your main need. Testing then might be the one which we primarily recommend using when up to date software is your main need., and unstable the one which we primarily recommend using when you want the very latest and are willing to sacrifice stability. Or something like that. Explain what the release names mean more accurately, rather than use new names that will still need explanation. Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On 14 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: [snip] My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstable. I see it more as a developer sandbox than a live distribution. Am I wrong? I don't know, but I hope so! :) I have to admit to keeping up to date with testing for well over a year, but lacking the courage to make more than occasional forays into unstable. But if you are right, perhaps I ought to change my policy. Anthony -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| http://www.acampbell.org.uk using Linux GNU/Debian || for book reviews, electronic Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:39 +0300 Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sarge -- alternatives to TESTING: - desktop - user - mostly stable - freezing Some of these would actually be dangerous, as they communicate something about testing which is *not true*. The descriptors you chose for each of the three distributions give the impression that the stability (in the bugginess sense, not in the unchanging-with-time sense) and usability of the three form a spectrum with sid the worst, stable the best, and testing in-between. That's wrong. It may be correct, or close to correct, right now, when the main thing holding up the release is the installer. But it's not the general case -- sometimes, testing can be more broken than sid (because of packages missing from testing that are present in sid, security updates that haven't made it to testing that are present in sid, etc.). Running testing takes work; and if you don't have to deal with things like a broken glibc or something like that, you *do* have to deal with things like a nonfunctioning GNOME or KDE, or a security update to perl that's four weeks behind sid, etc. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:59:49 -0600 Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstable. I see it more as a developer sandbox than a live distribution. Am I wrong? No, you're quite correct; and it's a point that's missing from most of this discussion. Testing is a box into which the components of the next release are being collected; at any given time, some of the components -- even ones which will be vital to the release -- may not be present at all, or may not be useful because of problems (security bugs) where the fixed component is still being tested (is still in unstable and hasn't made it down to testing yet). This is less true as we get close to release; but in the middle of the release cycle, it's quite common. All one has to do is search the archives of this list to find many many posts asking why GNOME in testing doesn't work right, why KDE in testing is completely unusable at all, etc.; followed by the usual explanations of what testing is. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote: In computer-world unstable means: is known to crash too often, or something similar. It sounds like it is flaky, buggy crap :). I worked at Microsoft for 3 years. They build NT Daily. They have: * Daily Builds * IDW Builds * IDS Builds * PDC Builds * Beta Builds * RC Builds * Gold Builds * QFE Builds * Service Pack Builds Daily Builds are expected to fail. IDW Builds are about the equivalent of Debian's Experimental. IDS Builds are about the equivalent of Debian's Unstable: they are shipped to ISVs, most people are expected to run them, they mostly work, Microsoft ran www.microsoft.com off them for about 1 year before Windows 2003 shipped, at first in a very limited way, then in a big way. IDS builds are built about every 4-6 weeks, sometimes more often. An IDS Build is occasionally forked into a PDC, Beta, or RC Build. For a period of about 2 months effort is made to stabilize the fork while Daily Builds proceed, usually starting to break significantly as new things are added. Eventually an RC is selected to go Gold, however usually about 15-20 Daily's have happened, which becomes the basis for the next release. The point of all this is, all types of builds except Dailies are mostly usuable, however all except Gold are unstable. (And Even Then... Har har har) Unstable doesn't mean expected to fail instantly. Unstable means expected to fail at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:32:40AM -0700, William Ballard wrote: Daily Builds are expected to fail. IDW Builds are about the equivalent of Debian's Experimental. IDS Builds are about the equivalent of Debian's Unstable: they are shipped to ISVs, most people are expected to run them, they mostly work, Microsoft ran www.microsoft.com off them for IDW = Developer's Workstation, IDS = Deployment Server I can't remember the exact meaning of the acronyms. An IDW build is one that all Devs are expected to have running on their Primary build machines. It's stable enough for experts to run. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
it's important to note that the present branding scheme (unstable / testing / stable) is certainly ACCURATE from the point-of-view of the programmers and script-writers -- but for the public-at-large, those terms seem MYSTERIOUS and engender frequent explanations and lectures on this very list (enough to warrant a FAQ, which a debian-newbie is unlikely to locate or to read). often it seems like we have to dip into DAMAGE CONTROL MODE simply because a newbie didn't grok the release naming scheme. so maybe a public-oriented name scheme is worthy of consideration. that is, we could cautiously and considerately select appropriate names for the releases that make sense to the public at large, and: 1) not have to answer this question again! 2) improve dissemination of debian as folks are more likely to get the release they really want 3) watch the ranks grow and grow and grow... the idea would be to pick names that will make (appropriate) sense to people who are NOT intimately invovled in the project. by all means, keep the fun code names (slink, potato, woody, sarge, sid...) behind-the-scenes, of course. :) after brainstorming, of course, consideration of multilingual translations would be important; also, beware of terms easily warped into derogatory forms by enemy camps (think marketing and spin). but first, we need to gather all ideas, even ones that may seem silly. comments welcome. I think the names are just fine. The code names are great and the debian Names (Stable, Testing, Unstable) are as they should be. If they are changed, I think we would have more questions asking about the naming scheme. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:13:41AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:39 +0300 Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sarge -- alternatives to TESTING: - desktop - user - mostly stable - freezing In that case it should be: Unstable - Workstation active latest user testing - testing testbed stable - server frozen Some of these would actually be dangerous, as they communicate something about testing which is *not true*. The descriptors you chose for each of the three distributions give the impression that the stability (in the bugginess sense, not in the unchanging-with-time sense) and usability of the three form a spectrum with sid the worst, stable the best, and testing in-between. That's wrong. It may be correct, or close to correct, right now, when the main thing holding up the release is the installer. But it's not the general case -- sometimes, testing can be more broken than sid (because of packages missing from testing that are present in sid, security updates that haven't made it to testing that are present in sid, etc.). Running testing takes work; and if you don't have to deal with things like a broken glibc or something like that, you *do* have to deal with things like a nonfunctioning GNOME or KDE, or a security update to perl that's four weeks behind sid, etc. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 03:18 pm, mike wrote: I think the names are just fine. The code names are great and the debian Names (Stable, Testing, Unstable) are as they should be. If they are changed, I think we would have more questions asking about the naming scheme. Mike I agree with some that the current names don't really reflect reality, but Colin Watson has indicated the effort involved in changing them (hardcoded everywhere) would be better directed toward installer development. Can you say moot? Jeff (happily running sid 2x years, thanks to this list) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 4:29 am, Will Trillich wrote: here i brainstorm to conjure up some naming scheme possibilities (referring to current status as of 13 apr 2004): sid -- alternatives to UNSTABLE: - UNKNOWN - DANGEROUS - CAVORT - UNCERTAIN - BEWARE sarge -- alternatives to TESTING: - SOON - NEARLY - UPCOMING - ALMOST - NOT YET woody -- alternatives to STABLE: - SOLID - DEPENDABLE - READY - SERIOUS - STABLE (heck, what could be more precise? :) think of names that might help the debian-uninitiated grok a tad more quickly the functionality and dependability of the release. I use the following names on IRC: Debian Broken (unstable) Debian Old (Testing) Debian Stale (Stable) tongue firmly in cheek -- You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a horse. 01 July 2003, talk.origins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once. Unstable is less stable than testing. But it's the only way to go, in my humble opinion. --- Anthony Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: [snip] My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstable. I see it more as a developer sandbox than a live distribution. Am I wrong? I don't know, but I hope so! :) I have to admit to keeping up to date with testing for well over a year, but lacking the courage to make more than occasional forays into unstable. But if you are right, perhaps I ought to change my policy. Anthony -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| http://www.acampbell.org.uk using Linux GNU/Debian || for book reviews, electronic Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Thomas Pomber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once. Unstable is less stable than testing. If by less stable, you mean less changing in its contents in time, then that's true. But if by less stable, you mean less likely to have problems that could cause you to pull your hair out . . .right now that's true, because sarge is close to release. In general, it ain't necessarily so. KDE was uninstallable out of testing for *months* this past year. And a simple archive search will find you lots of people last year making frustrated posts to debian-user because an apt-get upgrade had broken GNOME (a new version was coming down into testing, and it wasn't yet complete there); the breakage didn't get fixed for quite a while. http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200307/msg00531.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200307/msg00615.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200307/msg00693.html And it's very well documented that testing is the last distro to receive security updates. This thread got started because people were frustrated about having to explain stable vs. testing vs. unstable to new users trying Debian. But it appears to me that a lot of people with strong ideas on how to fix that don't understand the differences themselves. The web page http://www.debian.org/devel/testing explains what testing is. It isn't what many people in this thread seem to be suggesting. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
