[Grml] Re: Debian Etch and grml

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Michael Prokop:
> * Marc Haber <mh+grml at zugschlus.de> [20070106 11:15]:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 06:34:12PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> 
> > > I look at things like grml as terrific features on top of Debian and
> > > free software.  grml's on the frontlines in the war on bugs.  They're
> > > just a little bit more careful than Sid people about when they stick
> > > their heads up.  They're also confident that even "unstable"
> > > Debian/Linux/FS is way usable, and can perform some pretty awesome
> > > tricks.  I think that's pretty cool.
> > 
> > We have never claimed that sid is ready to be used by end-users. sid
> > is a development platform and might be dangerous. We expect people
> > running sid to be able to fix major issues that might be present
> > themselves, there is no support. There are times (usually shortly
> > after a release) where even I don't dare updating my sid systems.
> 
> I'd like to add some more words. All of the following is definitely
> "just IMHO" and I hope that I could find the right wording. Feel
> free to correct me if you think I'm writing non-sense. :)

Great post Mika.

> I do not agree with:
> 
> > stable       --> ancient and full of bugs, but patched
> > testing      --> less ancient, less bugs
> > unstable     --> current and basically stable* (grml)

Nor do I.  The Debian model is to produce stable with as few extant
bugs possible.  This is for the server market.  Testing is just the
next candidate for stable, once the release team signs off on it.
That's also the best place for a newbie to be.  Helping to test
testing helps Debian produce sable.

For those more adventurous or less sensitive to potential bugs,
unstable is available.  Unstable is expected to be buggy; that's where
new features and fixes are implemented.  That said, Debian's unstable
is more stable than many distros' stable release.

> > 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

>From a user's point of view, grml presents *the* best Linux packaging
system managing *the* best Linux software.  Users don't care whether
anyone thinks it's wise whether they use it.  Users just want
everything to work.  Grml makes Sid usable for newbies (within reason :-).

> Some words to grml on harddisk: first of all it's just very easy to
> get a working Linux installation using grml2hd - just press a few
> times "OK" and a few minutes later you have a working system. ;)
> 
> When using grml on harddisk you get the features of Debian/unstable
> I meantioned above *plus* a system adjusted and pre-configured for
> texttool-friends *plus* all the nice and useful helper-scripts
> (grml-scripts, grml-vpn, grml-crypt, grml-network,...) *plus*
> "point-releases". grml provides an upgrade-path with each of its
> releases:
> 
>   http://wiki.grml.org/doku.php?id=upgrading

That just *so* rocks!  Even grml-small can be booting into X Window in
a couple of minutes, regardless of where the root fs is.

Grml might have started out a text tool distro for experienced
admins.  Now, however, it's a Swiss Army Toolbox making potentially
anything possible.

Oh yeah, and it's running up to date software too, with all the latest
bugs no one's managed to find yet.  Have fun!  :-)


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)    http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling      Please don't Cc: me.
- -