Social Contract Amendment May Bump Sarge To 2005 525
An anonymous reader submits "Debian's Release Manager Anthony Towns announced that after the Grand Resolution to amend the Social Contract has been successful (it does not only apply to software any more), vital parts to modern Linux systems, such as important documentation, firmware needed for proper hardware support will have to be removed from the distribution before the next release. Moreover, the upcoming installer will need to be changed. He goes on to say that he does not expect this to happen by the end of this year which means that Sarge will not be released in 2004."
Why can't they (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why can't they (Score:5, Insightful)
Or amend the social contract to promise hardware support and then prioritize the goals to hardware support takes a priority until a "free" option is created or becomes available?
It appears as though Debian is going to take a big step backwards if something isn't done. The goals are clearly good, yet the real world has always required a compromise between the ideal and the real. Don't the Debian developers actually work in IT for a living?
I'm really concerned about this, because I was highly considering Debian for the next OS to try since RH is discontinuing free security updates, and I'm not sure at all how Fedora is supposed to address it. The last thing I need, though, is a hardware problem, particularly with a network card.
Re:Why can't they (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody's saying that your proprietary hardware will cease to work in Debian. The packages will still exist; they'll just be in the "non-free" section, separated out so that people who don't want any non-free software can omit that section from their sources.list file. Non-free packages are technically not part of Debian, but if you have a non-free line in your sources.list, there's no difference whatsoever in how you use them.
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps this is only an issue for the next major release, and thus not critical today. I don't know. The reality is, though, that people have to make decisions and don't have all the time in the world to investigate every possible scenario and become Debian gurus befo
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose you're right that if your hardware needs non-free firmware then it won't be usable right away in the installer, but it's not that much of a big deal to provide the necessary driver to the installer. But I think long-run maintainability of a system, especially a server, is much more important than ease of getting it installed in the first place, and that's an area where Debian shines. (That's not to say that installation should be difficult, but someone installing an operating system on a mission
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Informative)
What I was kind of imagining, though, when I said, "people need some assurance that things will run smoothly, today and in the foreseeable future," was that if Debian did install successfully and run well (Java is fast, errata is easy to keep up-to-date, etc,...), it might become the chosen OS for successive hardware purchases, which may have different hardware and may receive a newer version of Debian. You want to know that the installation 6 months f
Re:Why can't they (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like if some of the Debian folk spent as much time fixing their distribution as they do ranting about the philosophy behind their system, it could just about literally jump into my computer, read my mind, and magically do everything I wanted without me touching a keyboard. As it is though, I'm forever saying to myself "now where the hell did they put THAT file, since it's not in its standard location..." and "what version is this package really? It looks like version 3.1 from 2 years ago.... no wait, that's 3.1-15... wtf is the -15? It has features that weren't released until 3.9? Huh?!??" and similar.
I once made the mistake of trying to figure out what flags were being used to compile a Debian package... after jumping around through about 7 different intertwined and slightly obfuscated shell scripts for about an hour, I gave up.
Unfortunately, I'm still stuck using Debian on one server (the owner doesn't want to change OSs), but I've gone to Slackware on all my systems. Much simpler system to deal with overall, IMNSHO.
Re:Why can't they (Score:5, Interesting)
Standard location? In my mind, the "standard" location for a file is where Debian puts it, and I get confused when it's located somewhere else in another distribution. :-)
I get the sense that you're used to installing things via "configure; make; make install". It's good to have a simple method like that available, but when I talk about maintainability of a system, installing non-packaged software is one of the biggest ways to hurt that maintainability. Files created by a "make install" usually don't have any way to cleanly remove or upgrade them; you can upgrade by installing a new version over the old, but if the old version included any files that were removed in the new version, you still have that cruft sitting around. You get the idea.
I like the fact that Debian has lots of infrastructure. I like to know that when I install a package, it will cleanly integrate with other related packages, and when I remove it, it will cleanly go away. I like the fact that when I'm looking for a package that performs a certain function, I can often guess its name, thanks to fairly consistent naming patterns, and that when I'm looking for a file, I can usually guess where it's located due to a consistent and sensible filesystem hierarchy.
I hang out in #debian on IRC, and I read some of the mailing lists, and I see a lot more discussion on practical matters than on philosophy, and philosophical rants are pretty rare. The system works quite well for those who use it; your comment about "fixing their distribution" just doesn't apply. Remember that Debian is run democratically: if you don't like the way something's being done, you can always register as a Debian Developer and vote to do things your way. If you don't want to do that, or if you get outvoted by people who like things the way they are, you can use another distribution and nobody will hold it against you.
Re:Why can't they (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to think of the "standard" location as being where I can find a file on better than 75% of the *nix systems I've used (Several linux distros, BSDs, HP-UX, Irix, Solaris, etc). But whatever makes a person happy I suppose. For a linux distro, I'd say the standard location should be where the LSB says it is, which from what I've s
Re:Why can't they (Score:5, Informative)
And here, I do the following to upgrade or install a package:
dpkg -i foo.deb;
Or:
aptitude update && aptitude upgrade;
Finally, if I need to build and something from source, it's as simple as:
There's nothing magical there at all. The rules file calls make in the build target, and everything else happens automatically. [Now, if you don't know how to modify a make file, perhaps you shouldn't be building stuff from source?]
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not really "the masses" who run Debian... it's Debian Developers. Anyone can be a DD, but you have to get a PGP key signed by another DD and go through an application process, so there's a sort of self-screening that keeps out people who don't really have that much of an interest in the project. There are lots of DDs, and it's true that most probably don't have a deep knowledge of the workings of all the software in the distribution, but they're not exactly "unwashed masses" as you portray. :-)
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of us do. Many do not. Many are students. Debian is very diverse.
Some of us who "actually work in IT" view our Debian work as a way to fix what we view as broken in the "mainstream (MS dominated)" IT world. One of those broken things is the lack of accountability, stability, and reliability in all facets of "mainstream/modern" mass produced IT systems.
I compromise my "idealism" with respect to computing systems at the job I get paid f
Re:Why can't they (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true at all. The developers are motivated to be part of something bigger than themselves. If Debian dwindles and disappears, let's see if your theory holds true.
When developers leave Debian, then what are you going to say? It hurts no one when developers disappear. What about when you are down to one guy working alone 10 years from now on what was once Debian? Was no one hurt?
The developers who like to build something great a
Debian standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Debians own social standards??? (Score:4, Informative)
They are astonishingly rude and confrontational in an entirely unproductive way. Sure it's probably unfair to point the finger at Debian alone (especially on /. - oh the irony) but I can say with some certainty that nothing positive will come from that thread. Conflict resolution amongst egotistical (come on , we can admit it) geeks is damn difficult - especially when programmer opinions take on the form of religious zealotry (free vs. libre).
These are big changes, and many people are expressing that they felt misled with the "editorial changes" description of the vote in question. I am not going to get involved in an internal dispute, except to say that it is in the best interests of the project for the majority not to feel manipulated and/or deceived. Again, I'm not saying they have been, I am saying that is what some are expressing.
Q.
Re:Debians own social standards??? (Score:5, Insightful)
As with any group of over 1000 individuals, your statement is a vast generalisation.
How can you call us "rude and confrontational" when all you are basing that on are some mailing list posts, primarily in a mailing list which is renowned for that behaviour.
Personally, as a Debian Developer, I try to assist people and fix bugs in my packages, as my way of contributing back to a phenomenal set of software. Debian has over 5000 packages in the distribution, and while those are mostly not written by DDs, they are packaged, and made to play together nicely and install, upgrade and uninstall cleanly, and the whole damn thing just works.
Yes, of course Debian Developers are principled people who care passionately about things other than software, and if you stick a thousand of them in a mailing list together there is bound to be fire! And hell, some of us are geeks without social skill. Cry me a river.
Re:Debians own social standards??? (Score:4, Funny)
Every thought of running a presidental campaign?
Re:Debians own social standards??? (Score:3, Informative)
Hardly - I said he's over-generalising, but within any sufficiently large group of individuals there will always be annoying little pricks.
I don't even agree that Debian has more than it's fair share, just that the nature of the beast is that the organisation is comprised of people who actually care. Passionately.
:-)
up to date? (Score:5, Insightful)
if you dont want non-free stuff, fine, release sarge, its almost ready (and long delayed) and make removal of non free packages a goal of the next release.
Rock solid stability (Score:5, Insightful)
We have machines at work that are currently running Redhat 7.2. A couple are RedHat 8, 9, and RHEL 2.1. Why are they not all running the latest and greatest RedHat? Because we either can't afford the downtime (not to mention configuration) to upgrade every time that RedHat comes out with its next release, or the bleeding edge releases break things. Unless a newer release provides some feature/function that we need in production and we can't get any other way, we don't upgrade each time a release comes out. We've even downgraded a couple of machines from RHEL 3.0 to 2.1 because getting some Oracle software installed was near imposible (even with Oracle consultants on-site!)
I'd much have a rock solid server that performs its job all the time than have a bleeding edge server that requires 2 or 3 upgrades a year just to stay bleeding edge.
Re:Rock solid stability (Score:2)
Re:Rock solid stability (Score:2)
Re:Rock solid stability (Score:3, Interesting)
Our older RedHat systems don't run all the default services. In fact, most of them can only be gotten to (from the outside) on port 80 and or 443, which runs the latest and greatest Apache/Java/Tomcat. Sure, inside we also have ssh access, but with a firewall and intrusion detection between it and the Internet, its a good bet that port 80/443 is all thats open. We have m
And there's more! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unstable in no way means it's really unstable. What it means is that while packages have had some basic testing, the distribution as a whole hasn't been religiously tested, and, consequently, isn't years behind the curve as stable is.
Packages in unstable often provide improvements and bugfixes that the versions in stable didn't yet have.* This means that, while stable is guaranteed to be stable, many people will find unstable more usable (especially people using Gaim, as the IM networks change protocols once in a while, breaking older versions).
The message is, if you want guaranteed stability, use Debian stable. If you want to stay current, but still want to have the benefits of Debian (easy software installation, automatic dependency resolution), use Debian unstable. Don't use testing, unless you really intend to test it - it's almost guaranteed to be broken.
* Note that security fixes are backported to stable. This means that you can keep using the version of the package you have always used, and be sure your configuration keeps working, while still getting security updates that are only available through upgrading for other distros.
Re:And there's more! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And there's more! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rock solid stability (Score:3, Informative)
Great. Just great. (Score:5, Interesting)
And the Debian people are rejecting this sort of thing because of their morals. That's really great. It's also, unfortunately, a wonderful way to ensure that Debian only has primitive, reverse-engineered, DMCA-illegal, flaky support for newer hardware.
Let's see. nVidia and ATI both have proprietary binary-only drivers for Linux (which of course ONLY work on Linux/x86, not Linux/PPC or Linux/ARM or Linux/SPARC or whateverthehell), right? DriverLoader is required to use a bunch of WiFi chipsets under Linux, using Windows
I LIKE the Debian project's inherent sense of morality. I DON'T like their ridiculous lack of pragmatism. This sort of antic is only going to drive off more moderate users towards the likes of Fedora (bloatbloatbloat), Lindows^WLinspire (Windows wannabe, bloat), and
Re:Great. Just great. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great. Just great. (Score:3, Interesting)
Debian's Social Contract has always said that it won't depend upon non-free software. Unless you're one of the people who think that software != data, nothing has really changed at all.
In fact, the only possible new class of works that this covers is documentation and things like images, not firmware or anything else. Those have always been (rather non-controversially) covere
Re:Great. Just great. (Score:5, Informative)
Most likely, the non-free stuff will not be completely removed, but rather, moved to the non-free section of the distribution. (Strictly speaking, non-free isn't part of the distribution, so things moved there have been removed from Debian, but the packages are available from the same servers, and interoperate with the free stuff.)
The NVidia drivers, for example, work just fine in Debian. Not only is the nvidia-kernel-source package available via apt-get, but it works with Debian's kernel-package build system to produce .deb packages of the built modules. The fact that the drivers are non-free don't affect me in the least; I use them the same way I use any other third-party module package.
I'm not particularly bothered by this change. I'm slightly bothered by the delay of the Sarge release, but since I run Sid on my desktop, and my servers do fine with Woody plus an occasional backport, it's not that big a deal. And it does pretty much answer the question of whether GNOME 2.6 will make it into Sarge. :-)
Just great? Could be awesome. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Debian is imho big enough to pull this sort of thing. If some micro-league, half-assed distro went this route, it would die in obscurity, but a major product like Debian will survive. Furthermore, by rejecting proprietary firmware and documentation, Debian is raising awareness of some important issues (like Fedora not including mp3 support raises awareness of patent encumbered technologies).
Say you get a shiny new pci card with a little tux on the box, and a proprietary driver on the CD. Cool, huh? No. Not cool. The driver will work with your Linux system provided:
-you use kernel 2.4 or maybe 2.6
-you compiled said kernel with gcc 3.2 or 3.3
-you use glibc 2.somethingorother
-your
Years pass. Linux gains 20% desktop market share. Duke Nukem Forever is released for Mac and Lintel. You fish out an old computer from your closet; you want to install a Linux (kernel 3.0; compiled with gcc 3.5; with glibc 2.somethingelse; and a GNU/Darwin directory layout) to turn into a streaming virtual reality server for your apartment. Guess what's the probability of your closed-source driver still working?
Open source drivers might be a hassle to use in the short term, but C source is still the most portable way to distribute software.
Re:Great. Just great. (Score:3, Insightful)
And the Debian people are rejecting this sort of thing because of their morals. That's
I never buy hardware that isn't supported by free (as in freedom) software. As Linux use grows, there is a good chance that market forces will favor those companies which publish specs for the
Rather than whine, help (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonetheless, instead of complaining about it, why not help a hand. One first project ot look is Debian on the Desktop [debian.org].
Maybe from there desktop users can pull enough weight to a) get the latest desktop packages into sid (or at least, at worst, experimental); b) utilize existing apt-get source framework to allow for rapid from-source installs of bleeding edge apps, to reduce packaging time; c) further tweak app to prevent the already-rare occurences of dependecy hell (or, more appropriately, must-remove-to-upgrade hell).
But please, don't do what I do. Don't whine. Just try and help. I think Debian needs a community of [young] desktop users to sort of provide a voice alongside the old-timers who care more about stable servers than Gnome 2.6 or whatnot.
It's a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously Debian is great, but, this is a ?harsh? reminder that Debian is not developed for users - never has been - it is developed for the developers making Debian.
However, I see a possible bonus here for those commercial distro's using Debian as they will be able to insert the non-free stuff into their own distro's. From what I saw it seems alot of people would start with something like progeny, but end up migrating to Debian proper - maybe this will give those companies a fighting chance to keep their linux users.
Cheers,
Stewart
Re:It's a shame (Score:2, Interesting)
Thats servers sort of covered - gotta fugure out what to do with my desktop now....maybe a boiled carrot and some post it notes
want sarge now? (Score:2, Informative)
vi
apt-get update; apt-get upgrade
In the meantime, I'll stay with woody on my servers. I like the fact that 'stable' really does mean stable when running debian.
-Pat
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the Debian people are right on this one , however the FSF foundation is partly to blame because of the invariant sections in the FDL . (why glibc wont have documentation)
I think the solution, since non-free is being kept, should be to include the non-free repositories in the default "sources.list" file and allow tasksel to use non-free packages for documentation under a "Non-Free documentation" header, no non-free stuff should needed for the bootstrap installation(although binary kernel module won't be available by default). Thats the best comprimise, IMHO.
Could we stop the Microsoft, Debian, Gentoo and Fedora, and *BSD astroturfing please?
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Debian (and Linux in general) does not exist in a vaccuum. In a discussion on the merits of following the "free" philosophy to an irrational conclusion (seemingly, what Debian has chosen to do with Sarge), you need to mention other Linux distros (Fedora), other 'nix-like OSs (*BSD), and other popular OSs (Windows).
Philosophically, I agree with the idea of Debian. I consider it a truly wonderful goal. In the current I
That is just dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sorry, but that is about as stupid as RMS firing the Lead HURD mantainer because he wanted a more free doc license than RMS.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Informative)
GNU won't endore Debian anyway, as long as non-free is distributed via ftp.debian.org. Removing the question whether the non-free component of the archive should be added to the list of APT sources has been removed because the Debian Project Leader asked the base-config maintainer to do so. It has nothing to do with the relation between the Debian and the GNU project.
Michael
A good push-back (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we need a logo for open-source hardware, so people know what to buy. Preferably one designed by a competent icon designer, like Susan Kare.
Re:A good push-back (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we need the DMCA repealed, so developers within the USA won't be afraid to reverse-engineer some company's hardware. We need companies to release their own source, or to at least provide a high quality binary driver if the development is slow enough (XFree86 as an example) so that people can use Linux on their new cheap machines.
For the longest time there was no decent support for the sound chipset on my motherboard. Fortunately the OEM didn't skimp on the PCI slots, so adding a Sound Blaster with an EMU10K wasn't a big deal, but it would be nice for this stuff to just work. I had an i815 based machine at work that has problems with sound, video, and ethernet. The video stuff came in first, but I had added cards to handle sound and ethernet, and even if they have a solution at this point it's irrevelant to me since I came up with a stable workaround. Most users aren't going to want to do that though, they just want the damn thing to work.
I use Debian on my computers. I like it. It's easy to maintain, stable on the servers, and fairly easy to keep current enough for my tastes with Sid. I install it and I don't think about it anymore, excepting security updates. I have a computer that's been up for the better part of a year (non-public:) and doesn't give me any fits. I could probably automate the apt-get update && apt-get upgrade procedure and still not worry.
Debian is for Slackware admins that got lazy.
Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
(1) Much of what is proposed is about moving pieces of the OS from the "main" archive to the "non-free" archive; "main" is what you get on the Debian CDs, "non-free" is available via ftp. So it is probably less convenient to obtain, but not totally expunged from debian.
Of course, components that affect your initial installation are more sensitive to the method of distribution, but other projects are welcome to build mixed installer tools that combine the default debian installer with the non-free firmware.
(2) This was only announced about 24 hours ago. Things are still in a state of flux, so don't take the "all this is happening and sarge is now year(s) away" too literally.
(3) Don't read into the summary that this solely a personal decision by Anthony Towns, or that he is necessarily in favor of the proposed changes.
Re:Perspective (Score:2)
This is quite right. He believes that the changes to the sarge schedule may be necessary, but when the vote was decided, he was like "oh great, dudes, what the fuck have you guys just voted in favor of?" on IRC.
Note that the vote proposal was poorly worded and that most people would have voted against it if it were clearer as to what was going on in the cha
Do you know why I only drink pure grain alcohol... (Score:2)
Mind you, I'm all in favor of this, but I couldn't help but think:
I can no longer sit back and allow [them] to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
This is actually an advantage. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, if I am interpreting this correctly, this entire issue revolves around Debian remaining 100% free (under a certain definition of "free"), and not requiring the use of any non-free component. This is in stark contrast to, say, the NetBSD project, which is a bit more lax on which "free"/"open" licenses qualify for inclusion in their software. Their idea is that they do not have infinite time to reproduce every single component under the BSD license, so inclusion of other software benefits the community. This would seem to place Debian at a disadvantage.
But upon further reflection, I reminded myself that free software is all about the freedom to choose. In other words, I can choose to use Debian, or not, and further, if I choose to use Debian, nobody said that I can't install components from other distros, specific developers whose software was not included, or even earlier versions of Debian. Therefore, this becomes a great advantage to the community: A 100% "free" distribution, into which you can add whatever components, free or not, that you wish.
Woody's Age (Score:2)
I'm not trying to attack Woody, I used to use it before switching to Sid, but let's face it; the packages are old and deprecated. As I said above, it may still appeal to t
Re:Woody's Age (Score:4, Interesting)
Stable isn't, but with a little care and feeding, Sid is. And the care and feeding is educational -- just doing an upgrade every few days with apt-listchanges installed is a great way to learn by osmosis little tidbits about the system's workings.
You know what this means. (Score:5, Funny)
Will RMS finally recommend Debian? (Score:5, Informative)
(I tell people "Debian is fanatic about this stuff so we don't have to be." If you just use Debian main, you are using nothing but free software. Easy!)
Debian has two areas for software that doesn't meet the DFSG: "contrib" and "non-free". Now that this proposal has passed, not only software but documentation and firmware will be migrated out of main and into contrib or non-free.
The first thing I thought when I read this was: I wonder if Richard Stallman will finally be satisfied?
Last August, RMS was asked in an interview [ofb.biz], which distribution of GNU/Linux he would recommend. He said he would recommend GNU/LinEx [linex.org], because it contains no non-free software. As it turns out, he was mistaken about that; GNU/LinEx still has traces of non-free software in it, just as Debian has. He withdrew the recommendation of GNU/LinEx (without, to my knowledge, offering any recommendation to replace it).
RMS has said that he cannot recommend any distro that offers up free and non-free software from the same servers, or contains references to any servers that offer non-free software. (Keep in mind that his definition of non-free is not identical to the "non-free" of the Debian project.) So Debian, the most free distro I know, is still not recommended by RMS.
You can read a somewhat acrimonious discussion thread about this here if you like:
linux.debian.legal discussion archived by groups.google.com [google.com]
Note that Debian is so committed to free software that they are booting FSF documentation from main, because of the newest version of the "Free Documentation License" that allows invariant sections. Invariant sections are clearly free according to the FSF, but they are not in compliance with the DFSG, and thus do not go in main anymore. Discussion here:
another linux.debian.legal discussion archived by groups.google.com [google.com]
I will close with a final quote from RMS [google.com], on the possibility that Debian might one day strip out the non-free software to his satisfaction:
P.S. If you asked me for a recommendation for a truly free distro, I'd suggest Debian main. If you don't put contrib and non-free in your sources.list file, you will never get any contrib or non-free software and yours system will be fully free software. That's good enough for me, even though it's not good enough for RMS.
steveha
Re:Will RMS finally recommend Debian? (Score:3, Insightful)
Slow release cycle? It is not that slow (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want stuff up to date, but want to have something that would be considered "stable" by other distros, you run Sarge (or testing).
The Woody distribution is for cases when you want to run a bunch of applications predictably. This means that your production application will run the same on day one as it does on day 100. An update will not break your application. An update will not change the way the application works. That is the point of stable - stable operation for a long period of time.
And yes, you can install 2.4.26 in Woody (from kernel.org). Woody actually has 2.4.x kernels no matter what the trolls are talking about.
Re:Slow release cycle? It is not that slow (Score:3, Informative)
This is wrong, see the discussions on Debianplanet [debianplanet.org] (post by Chris Metzer) and the mailing list [debian.org]. To summarize: Testing exists for the development of the next Stable release. It is not intended to provide people with a more recent Stable. Debian does have a problem getting timely Stable releases, but the solution is not to point end-users to Testing.
Re:Slow release cycle? It is not that slow (Score:3, Interesting)
How is this wrong? It is what would be considered stable by other distributions. If you don't mind having feature updates for software and packages added to the tree, you might as well use Sarge. What, then, is the difference between that and releases by other distributions?
Yeah, that's not its "official" purpose, but that doesn't negate the reality of the situation.
Re:Slow release cycle? It is not that slow (Score:3, Informative)
Ah jeez... (Score:3, Funny)
I wish I had known to go vote on that one. I've been a bit of a Debian snob ever since I switched from Slackware but they seem to get further behind all the time. Am trying Gentoo on one box now, and it's much better about that. Nowadays it's better for bragging about too... don't need no steenkin' unoptimized binaries, and all that jazz.
Yeah I like the stability, and I like that it's 100% free software but this is ridiculous. Maybe do it in the next version? Plan ahead a little, rather than stop the whole train?
Eric Raymond a few years ago was preaching that while Open Source software doesn't permit you to make money by selling software, at least you can sell documentation, and consulting services, and t-shirts, and still put the beans on the table. Well I guess they don't even believe in non-free documentation. Next they'll be insisting that all Debian t-shirts be made only from wild open-range hemp, harvested and woven by young virgin volunteers, stone-washed in the Rocky Mountain heights, and given away freely to anyone who knows how to sing the Free Software Song properly.
I don't know the history of the libc documentation but I don't think anybody was suing them for compensation, were they? If not, maybe it's free enough, regardless of some poorly chosen words in a preamble somewhere?
Debian's Identity Crisis (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wish they would make up their minds. Are they trying to provide the most stable distro out there, or are they trying to be an unofficial organ of the FSF? Both perhaps? If this last is the case, then they ought to have been more balanced about this decision. Why push back the release cycle by a whole year just to make the GNU zealots happy? Why not wait until the next release for these change and bring Sarge out on time? At least the message there would have been that "we agree with FSF/GNU ideals in principal, but we have other goals which are as important as far as this release goes."
Instead, the message they are sending is that "Debian is for GNU zealots only. We don't give a damn about anyone else. If you have a need for any closed-source program or proprietary hardware, you are evil." I am sick of this attitude, frankly.
Don't get me wrong, I respect what RMS and FSF/GNU have done for the cause of free/OSS software, but I simply can't agree with the notion that closed-source is evil. I prefer Linus' approach which is essentially to say that we think free/OSS is a better idea, but that authors have a right to go closed-source if they want. Personally, I tend to think that the BSD license is often, maybe even generally, superior to the GPL. I use Linux because it ofers more choices than BSD, not because I dislike BSD or its license. I had thought that Debian was distancing itself from GNU, but I guess they've done a 180.
I have used Debian for over three years, because I like the package system. I am not a GNU zealot. Over the last two years, I have become increasingly annoyed with holdups in the release cycle, but promises of a quick Sarge release went a long way to apease me. This is the last straw. There are other distros (Gentoo for one) with as good or better package/ports systems, and that at least pretend to care about real-world users. Goodbye Debian.
P.S. Before anyone flames me, keep in mind that in part I am blowing off steam out of utter frustration. If I spoke overly harshly, I apologize to anyone I offended.
Re:Debian's Identity Crisis (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't use the Stable release, outside of sysadmins, I don't think I know anyone else who does.
They have an obligation to release free stuff that has only become stricter in the last few years. What they are saying about proprietary hardware is not, 'Fuck you, you are evil,' but rather, 'We're sorry, but we have no control nor proper information over the hardware you're using and can't really help you, because if we did have that information, we would be constrained by the makers of your hardware not to divulge it to you.'
To take a completely trivial example, the computer I'm typing this on has an NVidia video card, and I run Debian testing on it. I knew I'd have a hard time using Debian-only software on it, so off I went to Google. Within an hour I had everything downloaded and installed.
OK, perhaps not as easy as grabbing Fedora. But I know as a result of this what I have, what Debian can provide, and what they can't. In other words, I've learned something, and I didn't have it done for me.
A lot of times people forget or get confused as to what the Debian project is about. But they tell you this upfront: they aim to make a free computer operating system. Not to make the easiest, or most convenient -- though it would be nice -- or to make the most secure or most complete. Simply to make it free, so that when a new user, a business, an organisation or a government picks it up, they won't have to --ever-- worry about licensing costs or any other shit.
Limiting the GNU stuff to exclude FDL documentation is, I agree, a total pain in the ass. Granted, disk space is no problem for users these days. But what would be the alternative be? Gloss over the very real difference in opinion as to the modification of texts as just a side issue? It creates problems because the GNU project says 'You have to accept this part and parcel of the original package even if you don't agree with any of it nor does it have any real use'.
And no, this is not a flame, it's an honest question -- if this is really a problem, why aren't you using a FreeBSD system instead? They have ports. They have lots of free stuff. They have a large userbase, they have lots of online support and are pragmatic. What's the holdup?
For fuck's sake... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sad, because the idea of a community driven project is noble, and I hate to see it fail. But this is failure -- they have abandoned their release goals and further postponed an already rediculously overdue rlease. They just aren't serious about maintaining a stable release, and thus I'm not going to take them seriously.
Not that they owe me anything -- I appreciate all the hard work that the Debian Developers do. But this is just the last straw...
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Does that mean the installer will still suck? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean the installer will still suck? (Score:3, Informative)
Seems like splitting hairs to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Now maybe if people were going to an 100% Free system in which every single piece of their computer was Free, then I'd see the point,
No. (Score:3, Informative)
>Why doesn't Debian just borrow their installer or something?
Historically the problem has been that these "smooth installers" are i386-only. Debian supports many different architectures, and they're not about to make i386 a "special case".
Hope this answers your question.
too far (Score:4, Insightful)
I was reading on this email post and it's really discouraging.
The single biggest problem that I've seen in getting people to adopt Linux, and Debian in particular, is the function of hardware connected to the computer. If my widget doesn't work with Linux then what's the point of using Linux?I've grown accustomed to the practice of due diligence on researching any hardware support for a product X before I buy it. But if I have to start doing this, and then perform another search just for Debian, it's making Debian very unattractive.
I am really doubtful that this is a smart move on their part. I am a HUGE fan of Debian and very supportive of their work. But the implications of this are not good from where I sit. Their ideologies are making their product non-useful to the community which they attempt to serve.
They are creating an overly complex architecture at a time when Linux does not have the support necessary from the commercial entities controlling the market (hardware and software). This will tend to isolate Debian from the rest of the Linux community and may give them the label of "Oh... Those guys over there in the orange sheets."
I hope I'm wrong, but I think Debian really screwed this up in a big way. The fact that they have just incurred an entire year of delays to their release cycle at a time when they were months away and years behind the rest really doesn't help them in the least.
I really don't understand their motives with this one.
Re:too far (Score:3, Informative)
"the Debian system itself" is the key phrase, here.
When Debian refers to its own release, it does not refer to packages in contrib and non-free. They're there, they're updated, they're maintained by Debian Developers, they've got mailing lists, they've got bug reporting pages, and they're available through apt. However, they're not an official part of the Debian distribution.
Support for this hardware will still be there--you'll just need to add a single word to your apt configuration: "non-free".
Debian can't just "push" Sarge out (Score:3, Informative)
I see a lot of people are asking Debian to just throw Sarge out the door, and then worry about complying with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Social Contract.
This is not possible. What was recently voted on is a new social contract which forbids releasing any software, documentation or other product that isn't free. It's not just a decision that was made, or simply that a large number of people wanted it so that it's done. It's an actual contract upheld to its users by the entire Debian team. Doing a quick release of Sarge would not only be a violation of that contract, but it would be a violation of the entire spirit of Debian.
Re:Debian can't just "push" Sarge out (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps what might have been a
More Free than GNU? (Score:4, Interesting)
The amazing thing here is this: In reaffiming their commitment to freedom, they are finding that they have to exclude some GNU documentation because it is considered non-free. In other words, Debian now seems to value free software more than the Free Software Foundation.
Thats disappointing, but at least Debian is sticking to their ideals without compromise. Too bad the FSF can't say the same.
stable=woody, sarge=testing, sid=unstable (Score:3, Informative)
Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
A brief review of history. (Score:5, Informative)
Debian has a document called the DFSG, or Debian Free Software Guidelines. These guidelines are used to determine whether software included in Debian is free: they require that the software be freely distributable, freely modifiable, etc. Stuff that doesn't meet these guidelines doesn't go on the CD images and is segregated into the "non-free" section of the archive; this policy is enshrined in Debian's Social Contract. More contextual information on the DFSG and its application is available here [debian.org].
Now, historically, these guidelines have been applied to everything distributed by Debian. For instance, the Doom shareware
Despite its name, the "GNU Free Documentation License" turned out not to meet the DFSG (you can read some unofficial explanations [URL redacted because I believe the author wishes to keep it private for the time being; I will post it later if he tells me it's ok; I'll badly summarize it by saying that Invariant Sections are the major issue but not the only problem]). Because this license was applied to documentation of large packages, such as libc and Emacs, because it claimed to be "Free", and because it was published by the FSF, some people felt that Debian should find a way to distribute software under this license in "main" even though it was clearly non-free according to the DFSG. The typical argument advanced to support this position was that "documentation is not software, so it doesn't need to meet the DFSG". This argument relied on an ambiguity in the meaning of the word "software": it can mean either "anything that's not hardware", or "sequences of instructions to be executed on the host microprocessor".
The firmware issue is somewhat different; there were some recent arguments on the debian-devel mailing list over whether binary firmware that is uploaded by an otherwise free driver should be moved to non-free. I haven't followed this as closely, and it only came up in the last month or two. (well, it has been discussed in the past, but the first serious discussion I'm aware of is in the last month or two)
The amendment that was recently passed changes the text of the Social Contract to make it clear that everything in the Debian archives (not just executable programs) should meet the DFSG. This was intended to settle the GFDL question once and for all.
The message referenced by this
Discussion is ongoing on several Debian lists, and I don't think it's appropriate to make assumptions about the final outcome until things have settled down again.
Daniel
Re:A brief review of history. (Score:4, Informative)
Daniel
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:2, Informative)
2.6 is marked stable, because its stable.
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:4, Informative)
In that respect I do think distros such as Debian and Gentoo will fade away to a large extent. They will always be around, but not widely used.
Of course thats just my opinion.
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Woody is relevant because it has no upgrades to packages (meaning, no scripts/sql/... break because of version upgrades), it has almost instant security updates (in the form of *backports* to released software - very important!), and it's a "known good distro".
Sarge has almost daily upgrades (not updates, but upgrades - version numbers (and therefore feature-set) change!) - I am sure this is fine for the hobb
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:3, Interesting)
I look at the landscape and wonder when a distribution that takes a pragmatic look at Linux stability like Debian does without the associated religious zealotry will come into being.
It is an amazing thing to see the focus on stability and completeness in Debian. I deride the distro in jest, but it is a sign of good thinking that they don't declare a stable release every other weekend like some other distros.
However, the zeal to make Debian a "Free" distro is hampering it, causing
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:5, Informative)
They are approaching the Debian GNU/Linux as a Free Software project, not a feature rich distribution project. Once you yourself can understand what the philosophy of the Debian project, you might understand that they are being incredibly pragmatic.
Regardless of how long Copyright is extended for (eg: Disney's current goal of forever - 1 day), no matter how tight the DMCA becomes, you will always be allowed to run the complete Debian GNU/Linux operating system.
Licencing and legal restrictions on your hardware may prevent you running Debian on your specific hardware (thanks to "Trustworthy Computing" taking over from "binary only"), but there will be no licence or legal restrictions to your using Debian on any hardware that it does work on.
You have to be a special type of person to be a Debian developer - these are people who want to dedicate their time to having an operating system they can safely give to their friends and family without risking a gaol term. People who aren't Debian developers (or fanatical users) are the ones who'd hand over their soul for the next cool gimmick ("yes, I'll accept the condition of only running the software you let me, if you'll let me pay $200 for Halo 4! That game's so cool I don't need freedom!").
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:2)
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses use Redhat because they offer commerical support, something I don't believe Debian offers, as Debian is not a commercial enterprise.
If you can do better... (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I very much approve of the stability of Debian Stable for environments where I get up-to-date security patches, but no frivolous cutsie upgrades that break stuff. I don't believe there's a more stable Linux distro out there.
(do doubt everyone else'll point out you can use Testing or Unstable if you enjoy that kind of
Re:Debian is fading into irrelevence? (Score:3, Informative)
Sometimes I wonder if all the distro zealots have stopped to realize this one simple fact:
Every distro is using OSS. Yes, it may be tweaked and patched here and there..but beneath all the branding and logos...it's STILL the same software.
[Of course, I'll throw in my 2 cents as well. I've used both Debian and Gentoo. Honestly, Gentoo is my path to take...I now run it on 3 servers [1 is production] and a firewall and once they're set up..they just run. Not to mention extremely easy to update. ]
Re:"Grand Resolution" ? (Score:5, Informative)
See http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution [debian.org], in particular sections #4 and A.
This just in... (Score:3, Informative)
That means they could care less about market-share.
It also means doing whatever it takes to produce a damn fine distro.
There is a reason so many distros are based on Debian.
Re:This will help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, no on both counts. Debian's goal is not to be widely used. And neither is it Debian's goal to be the distro of the uber-geek.
Debian's goal is to assemble the best operating system it can that you can freely redistribute to your friends and family. Debian's goal is to assemble the best operating system it can that you can sell to others for profit. Debian
Re:yeah but (Score:2)
Re:Debian has shot itself in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
However, even just looking at the practical (rather that philosophical) side, apt is not the best part of Debian.
The best part of Debian is a set of packaging conventions (the Debian Policy Manual), and a set of tools and a QA system to support that system, with the result that the software you use from Debian is consistently well-integrated, even though it is crafted by a distributed group of volunteers.
The social norms and continual build-up and exposition of best practices, expressed in part by the Debian Policy Manual, is really the best practical characteristic of Debian.
The freedom thing (and corresponding attention to software licensing) is nice, too.
Re:Debian has shot itself in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say the release schedule is quite reliable. "Never" is about as reliable as you can get. Joking aside, I don't see what the big problem is. Does your company actually *need* bleeding edge features provided by many packages? The truth is usually no, and that the unmatched stability and reliability of having older packages with fewer features is a better investment. If the answer is yes, it's very rarely for anything but a few packages, which can be upgraded easily through apt pinning.
The only updates that are absolutely critical are security patches. And thankfully, unlike some Operating Systems and distributions, Debian only provides the security fix for its stable branch, and doesn't require you to update the package to a newer version. This means that less bugs have a chance of being introduced in a security patch, which in turn allows companies to install patches with less worrying about whether or not it will break a current installation. It's still possible, but massively less likely.
In fact, when you get down to it, Sarge is pretty much completely usable as it is. The servers I administer which *do* happen to need those newer features are all running Sarge problem-free.
Really, for all the complaining about Debian, almost none of it is founded on anything rational. Think it's outdated? Run sarge or sid--you lose nothing. Think they're being too pedantic about code and documentation released under non-free licenses? Point apt at the contrib and non-free branches. They're even included into the Debian architecture, including bug reports, mailing lists, and apt entries, so you don't have to go out of your way to do anything special. It's literally no more than changing one word in a configuration file to fix both of these "problems".
Re:Debian has shot itself in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system.
It's a question of defining your goals. You're criticising Debian because their project isn't achieving what *you* see as the ideal goal of a Linux distro.
Debian is not accountable to you. Debian is accountable to its developers -- and as the vote shows, they overwhelmingly support freedom over world domination.
As you point out, there are other distributions which settle on a different compromise between freedom and ease of use. You are, of course, welcome to use these. But frankly I think it's a little cheeky to lambast Debian for not conforming to YOUR idea of what THEIR goals should be. Why do you unleash such bitterness against something you profess not to care about? If you're right, Debian will die quietly and it won't make any difference to you.
Debian is quickly becoming the dinosaur of Linux distributions and is pulling an RMS and hurting the cause of Free Software by marginalizing itself with extremism such that no serious users or organisations will want to be associated with it.
Oddly enough, eweek [eweek.com] doesn't agree:
According to a Netcraft Ltd. report covering July 2003 to January 2004, Debian was the fastest-growing distribution among Linux Web servers, and Debian trailed only Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux in the number of Web sites it serves.
But hey, I'm happy with Debian, you're happy with Fedora. No need to make a flamefest of it.
Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG (Score:3, Insightful)
switching to gcc 3 is also just an apt-get and a soft link switch away.
Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG (Score:3, Informative)
If you want a desktop distro, get the current Sarge installer and go to town - you can even go to Sid with good results. To me, the Debian development model was heavily borrowed by the Fedora project, and it shows. Fedora seems to be closing in on Debians package count and ease of use
Re:AGGGGAAAGGGG (Score:3, Informative)
Is this second box of yours a server which needs stability above all else? Or is it, as I suspect, a desktop system?
If it's a desktop system, just run Sid. Despite the "unstable" label, it's quite usable -- I've been running it on my desktop for 3.5 years and it's still running smoothly; I've never needed to reinstall, or do major recovery of any sort (aside from some filesystem corruption at one point, but that was my own fault and not Debian's). Packages break on infrequent occasions, but rarely seve
Re:Debian is wrong about documentation (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, with you so far...
Writing software is its own reward for a lot of people. Writing docs is a vital chore which nobody likes and which gets little recognition.
Sorry, but this is completely bogus. We went through this argument a few years ago: "people won't write nice GUIs for fun", "people won't write open-source databases", "people won't release open source kernels for big iron". Now it may well be that there is not enough good open documentation on some particular topics at the moment, but that is no reason to assume that it is not worth trying to get free documentation.
The FSF docs are free enough for all practical purposes.
They are free enough for many purposes, but the licence is buggy and needs to be fixed. Some projects such as Arch have gone back to the GPL for documentation, which is the sensible choice at the moment. Both FSF and Debian need to stop fucking around.