Live data from Hacker News

Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

debian.org

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#71
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use Debian testing for the desktop. Desktop users don't use stable, or at least use it with backports. And what's so unbearable for the server? As others pointed out, RHEL ships even an earlier version of the kernel.

My mum is quite happy with Debian stable on her desktop, and I don’t plan to switch from Wheezy to Jessie on my laptop for a while either. What’s wrong with stable on desktops?

Software is updated too slowly, which is not the best option.

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#72
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mum is quite happy with Debian stable on her desktop, and I don’t plan to switch from Wheezy to Jessie on my laptop for a while either. What’s wrong with stable on desktops?

Software is updated too slowly, which is not the best option.

On the other hand, software is updated slowly and you don’t have to relearn stuff every six months.

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#73
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use Debian testing for the desktop. Desktop users don't use stable, or at least use it with backports. And what's so unbearable for the server? As others pointed out, RHEL ships even an earlier version of the kernel.

My mum is quite happy with Debian stable on her desktop, and I don’t plan to switch from Wheezy to Jessie on my laptop for a while either. What’s wrong with stable on desktops?

Nothing if the software versions available are adequate for your use. Enjoy.

I've been using CentOS 5.9 on a desktop quite happily, I just compiled R from source to get a more recent version. Worth mentioning that Iceweasel (aka Firefox) was on the ESR channel so getting updates fairly regularly.

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#74
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, maybe, but only maybe, there might be software that is not split up into lib, bin, doc directories and that doesn't log into /var/log?! There actually is quite some software like that and sometimes it even has a technical reason. Especially some commercial and proprietary software that runs on Windows, HP-UX, SCO, AIX, Solaris and Linux tends to go the "easy way" of packaging and just put stuff in one place…

And how does your point lead to the conclusion that installing such third-party software to /usr/local/whatever is a bad idea? I can just run 'ls /usr/local' to see a list of non-conforming software.

/usr/local is the tertiary hierarchy per the FHS, by this naming, there should be no whatever there other than bin/lib/shared/... just like on the primary and secondary hierarchies, whereas /opt is the wild wild west, often organised by software package (/opt/android-sdk), even with side by side versions (/opt/ree-2012.02), or by vendor (e.g /opt/oracle/java-7-sdk).

This is merely a convention, not set into the 2.3 standard apart from the naming 'tertiary hierarchy' otherwise implying this, but it's nonetheless a widespread enough convention — notably in use by every single configure/make/make install (and more) source distribution out there, whose default PREFIX is /usr/local — that we can expect it to be standard behavior.

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#75
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and with upstart &co

I'm unable to determine if you mean upstart to be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing, or anything in between. To me, switching back from Ubuntu to Debian was a blessing. And I simply cannot understand this need to decrease boottimes. My laptop boots into Debian under 12 seconds. That is pretty fast. Under Ubuntu, I timed it at 10 seconds. 2 seconds boottime? Is that what this upstart/systemd hastle is all about? I just do…

""Well, let's say you can shave 10 seconds off of the boot time. Multiply that by five million users and thats 50 million seconds, every single day. Over a year, that's probably dozens of lifetimes. So if you make it boot ten seconds faster, you've saved a dozen lives. That's really worth it, don't you think?" "

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Saving_Lives.txt

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#77

My sources.list has the word "testing" all this while. Should I change it to "wheezy" now? I'm asking because I guess new packages (in large numbers!) will start trickling down to testing/jessie and the possibility of breakage is high. What is a reasonable time to expect this "rush" to slowdown or come back to the pace of "normal" testing? I can probably live with my existing "testing" for say 1-2 months, after which…

FWIW, I've been running Debian "testing" on my machine since 2001-ish and I've never done anything special near releases. Except maybe rejoice at all the old packages finally getting upgraded. :-)

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#78
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says the original developers stopped supporting it? Head on over to http://www.kernel.org and you'll see that 3.2 has longterm support (ie the kernel developers backport relevant fixes and patches). There are more details at https://www.kernel.org/releases.html including end of life dates. Given the time span between Debian releases, 3.2 is an excellent choice, if not the only one.

Right, this may be true for the kernel, but it can't be and it is not true for all of Debian's packages. Case in point Django: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/internals/security/ Since the release of Django 1.4, version 1.2 stopped receiving security fixes by the Django development team. What that means is that a Debian maintainer (which probably is not a Django developer) would have to hack any new security fi…

For the record, debian also packages up pip and you can install an up-to-date django using that. You essentially get the best of both worlds here.

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#79

My sources.list has the word "testing" all this while. Should I change it to "wheezy" now? I'm asking because I guess new packages (in large numbers!) will start trickling down to testing/jessie and the possibility of breakage is high. What is a reasonable time to expect this "rush" to slowdown or come back to the pace of "normal" testing? I can probably live with my existing "testing" for say 1-2 months, after which…

FWIW, I've been running Debian "testing" on my machine since 2001-ish and I've never done anything special near releases. Except maybe rejoice at all the old packages finally getting upgraded. :-)

Didn't you run into any breakage of packages? I mean there's this mad rush into testing right after a new release. I'm thinking of running wheezy for a couple of months until the storm calms down.

Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I've been running Debian "testing" on my machine since 2001-ish and I've never done anything special near releases. Except maybe rejoice at all the old packages finally getting upgraded. :-)

Didn't you run into any breakage of packages? I mean there's this mad rush into testing right after a new release. I'm thinking of running wheezy for a couple of months until the storm calms down.

I've found the Debian package maintainers to be quite careful, even when there's a large amount of rapid change to testing. I think they put a lot of effort and thought into avoiding breakage, even in scenarios like this. Any time I've encountered broken packages, the problem has been resolved quite quickly, especially if more important and widely-used packages are involved.
Post reply on HN