On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:17:18PM +0100, Michael Prokop wrote:
I'm of course aware of 'We have never claimed that sid is ready to be used by end-users' - but I think reality shows something else in common practice.
It's always the same problem during our release cycle: After a release, many people use stable. Stable gets old, while sid goes throught the usual heavy development phase where things sometimes go badly wrong. While stable gets stale, sid's breakages get less and less, while end users migrate from sta(b)le to sid because they want later software (or get misled by media reporting that apt pinning is going to get them the advantages of stable and sid together while in reality they only get the disadvantages of both combined). These migrations are supported by third parties saying "use sid, it's stable!".
Then, some late breakage occurs in sid. And thousands of end-users are unable to fix this breakage. Bad. Do not use Debian sid or even Debian testing if you are not able to fix any system breakage yourself.
Debian/stable is really fine for servers, but sometimes does not fit as Desktop operating system very well.
Why? People often want up2date software. The stuff with all the "hot, rocking, bleeding edge, hot off the press" features.
If they are technically knowledgeable, they can go ahead with Debian sid or Debian testing, helping development by reporting and even fixing bugs. If they are not technically knowledgeable, they are better off with a distribution geared for the Desktop such as Ubuntu or OpenSUSE. I don't know how good a job grml does do as a desktop running off a hard disk installation, since grml is a rescue system for me and I only use it running off CD or USB stick to fix other distributions that are installed on the hard disk.
You get this with Debian unstable quite well nowadays as all of you might know. :)
Yes, but you also get the latest breakage. Which you might not be able to fix if you don't know your way around a broken Linux system very well.
If you have recent/up2date hardware Debian/stable might be quite a problem. Think of Xorg and its drivers and the Linux kernel. 2.6.18 already has knowadays(!) some problems with brand new chipsets and controllers. In about half a year d-i of Etch with its 2.6.18 might encounter serious problems on brand new hardware - especially on laptops.
I have heard that Debian plans to issue (unofficial) stable intaller releases with later kernels.
Oh, and even developers (I do not mean DDs only here!) have the need for recent software: compiler versions, libraries,... - stuff you just might not get with Debian/stable.
I have done development quite successfully in chroots, and developers are usually able to fix breakages (and thus qualify for sid).
facts. ;) For the business market think of for example Open/OS Corporate Linux (open-os.com). Talking about the end-user market think of Canonical and their Ubuntu (trying to reach the server market as well now...). There's a reason why so many people seem to use Ubuntu on their systems, I see this at university at many laptops in reallife. Those people often don't really care what's behind the Patch-Distribution Ubuntu but see the positive aspects: get up2date software with Debian's brilliant package management.
Debian's package management is not _that_ much better than RPM on rpm-based distributions. It's the development model that is better and works better. Which is left behind by Ubuntu.
Finally just think of DD that maintain core software packages and don't even use the Debian kernel. ;)
You mean, like me?
Just think of all the developers that use unstable on their system in all day practice and have just a chroot-system of stable laying around. How many DDs do work in a Debian/stable environment really all day long?
I used to do this until June 2003, where a change of workplace made me install a new workstation. I used unstable there for the first time.
I mainly still see grml as a live CD that is a _very_ good tool during system analysis, debugging, recovery and installation. I doubt, however, that such systems are a good solution to install on a hard disk and actually use.
I wrote grml-debootstrap so it's getting easier to install plain Debian even on up2date hardware. Nowadays it's maybe not that relevant as a new stable release is coming soon (though I install all servers using grml-debootstrap anyway ;)).
I use grml to install a tarball containing a Debian system on my servers. I rarely use the Debian installation methods.
But this probably will become more important as soon as Debian etch is released and 2.6.18 is ancient enough so d-i of Debian etch maybe does not boot at all. Then you might use an up2date grml live-cd for installing a plain Debian using grml-debootstrap.
Which is a rather interesting application.
I'm the one who is running daily updates and report all the problems I can find (including patches if possible) to the Debian BTS. This way Debian gets some quality-assurance (at least for the packages used at grml)
... which Debian certainly appreciates.
and grml-users on the other side don't have to run "daily" updates to be sure to be able to follow the Debian/unstable pool. They can wait ~2-3 month until a new grml release is available and be sure that the upgrade works quite well then.
How are security issues in packages available with grml handled?
Greetings Marc