Live data from Hacker News

Today is Debian 8 release day

release.debian.org

81–90 of 152 posts

Re: Today is Debian 8 release day

#82
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to blame RH for that. Last time I checked, 2.5 was just released a few months before the first release of RHEL 5. Now they have software collections ( https://www.softwarecollections.org ) as a workaround, providing optional newer components.

I agree Red Hat is hardly the guilty one. I mean, RHEL based distros have a lot of plumbing and utilities written in Python, so it is unacceptable to upgrade system Python. Now, notice it's the system Python, the main reason of Python's existence in RHEL is the system utilities written in Python, providing Python language to customers is secondary to that. So there's no wonder nobody wants to touch it for reasons oth…

Yes, the problem is mostly with the users. The last time I was using CentOS 5 there were alternate repositories (e.g. IUS) providing non-conflicting newer versions of stuff. Alternatively, there's always pkgsrc.

Re: Today is Debian 8 release day

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were your last problems stem from the upgrade procedure or were they because of new versions? I can't remember all of the different problems now, but one I do remember is that if you had a typical set-up with mirrored (RAID1) drives but the boot-related partitions cloned rather than mirrored, one of the bootloaders got upgraded but not the other. That is, the drives were left out of sync and booting from one of the d…

Am I understanding this correctly: instead of having the boot partitions configured as a (MD?) RAID set, you had somehow manually cloned them between two disks? A mirrored boot partition works just fine if you're legacy booting... With EFI I guess you have to do manual cloning (which is fragile) or rely on hardware RAID. Did you use some tool to do that? How do you expect the upgrade process to even be able to take t…

Did you use some tool to do that?

I've long forgotten exactly why these systems were first set up that way. Presumably it was because at the time someone was leaving their options open about the RAID set-up for the main drives/partitions and bootloaders of that generation didn't support MD well so keeping boot as a non-RAID set-up was not uncommon. Whatever the history, the fact is that before the automated part of the 6-to-7 upgrade there was a fully working system, and after it there wasn't.

How do you expect the upgrade process to even be able to take that kind of thing into account?

I don't think it's rocket science to suggest that if you're migrating to a new bootloader, and you've got a system with multiple drives in it (RAIDed or otherwise), and you're installing an OS that is widely used in server or multiple-OS environments, just assuming that you should upgrade the bootloader on one specific drive and ignore anything else is not a great idea. What if the sysadmin installing the update wasn't the person who installed the original and simply hadn't realised how the /boot was set up?

Without knowing any details it's hard to say if it was an actual bug or just plain old human error, but it sounds like the latter.

There was no "error". The situation before the upgrade was what it was, and after the upgrade the problem was quickly detected and fixed. But it took time and effort to do that, instead of having a smooth, fully automated upgrade process. Again, the fact is that before the automated part of the 6-to-7 upgrade there was a fully working system, and after it there wasn't.

Will the 7-to-8 update now expect everyone performing it to be intimately familiar with the implications of things like systemd? Because I'm betting plenty of people will encounter it for the first time as part of this upgrade cycle.

What about package compatibility? Some packages have been entirely removed in Jessie; see the political debates about FFmpeg vs. Libav for a relatively high-profile example. That is inevitably going to break some people's install scripts/tool recipes/etc.

My point here is that there are significant changes as part of the upgrade, and upgrades always carry a degree of risk, and my personal experience (based on several different projects) of the 6-to-7 upgrade process was that the risk was real and the fully automated part of the process was not able to do everything necessary itself. Consequently I would not recommend that anyone assume a 7-to-8 upgrade will necessary go completely smoothly and be fully automated either.

[Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't do it or something awful will happen. Nor am I criticising Debian for not anticipating every possible scenario and handling everything completely automatically. I'm just saying my experience last time around was different to kasabali's experience, and as one data point, projects I work on where the experience was not as smooth last time but the desire is to move to 8 quite quickly are generally favouring a clean install and application migration strategy rather than an in-place upgrade. The expectation of those teams is that this will incur less risk and might be faster anyway once you take all implementation and testing effort into account.]

Re: Today is Debian 8 release day

#84
post #7

dont wont to criticize any of the great & mainly voluntary work of the debian folks, but not quite sure how to interpret these statistics [1] looks like jessie is going to be the first debian stable to be released with rc-critical issues and not "when it's done" some of the bugs referred [2] seem quite critical indeed, maybe someone with more insight could comment on this? [1] http://richardhartmann.de/blog/posts/201…

Thats interesting. One thing that is said about Debian is "most stable GNU/Linux". Now it seems, it is a thing of the past. https://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ Any idea why they have gone with this?

Wouldn't that only be true if there is a more stable distro? What would that be?

Re: Today is Debian 8 release day

#85
post #9

I have some legacy linux servers that need an update to a new OS. Is Debian 8 a good choice? All I care about is that stuff just works for as many years as possible, gets security updates and does not break.

Debian 8 brings with it a new "userspace", systemd.

As such, upgrades may be painful if you have anything esoteric in your configurations.

Re: Today is Debian 8 release day

#86
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why, following their new "openness" motto, Microsoft is still not: 1) porting Visual Studio to Linux. 2) porting Office to Linux, or 3) contributing to Wine, with the goal of solving long-standing issues with their (above) software - but hey they could contribute in other areas too, since Wine is far from complete (a USB driver/stack is much needed IMHO). I won't believe in Microsoft "openness" until I see o…

MS is only open in so far that it aligns with their business plans. They have a long term plan for Azure and need more .Net developers for it. Hence making .Net more attractive by opening it up. Does not mean they will open up other things.

This seems to be their strategy but it could backfire. Once Windows developers and enterprises start using Linux and other clouds instead of Windows Server and Azure, we might see the old MS again.

Re: Today is Debian 8 release day

#88
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Took a quick look at some of the bugs that would affect me... It's systemd, systemd and systemd. Oh, yeah, that's Debian's systemd release.

People who dislike systemd can take a look at http://without-systemd.org .

Any idea how long Debian wheezy will continue to receive security bug fixes?

Re: Today is Debian 8 release day

#90
post #53

As an AWS user, I switched from Amazon Linux to Ubuntu 14.04 because it's easy to replicate the development environment. No performance/stability issues so far however I'm curious if Debian 8 has an edge over Ubuntu 14.04 for a medium sized website on AWS. My only gripe with Ubuntu is that apt-get doesn't have the latest stables packages (like Amazon Linux does). I'm guessing it would be the same with Debian.

It probably depends what packages you're specifically looking for newer versions of. For "common" web server setups (i.e. LAMP or similar), using Debian stable plus the Percona and Dotdeb repos will give you a rock solid OS with more recent versions of things like PHP, Redis, and MySQL/Percona Server.

If you can identify the specific packages (i.e. php? nodejs? mysql? redis? etc) that you found outdated in Ubuntu it will be much easier to make a suggestion about how appropriate Debian stable will be for you.

Post reply on HN