Live data from Hacker News

Debian 9.2 released

debian.org

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#101
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to agree with the point about year-based versioning, but I've changed my tune and I don't think this point about libraries is completely true either. If you look at what semantic -vs- date-based versioning communicates to end-users of normal user-facing apps: Date-based: - how recently it's been released - not much else The above is useful if you are interested in being up-to-date on a piece of software you kn…

If a project actually follows semver, then you know that unless the first number changes, there won't be any (significant) backwards-incompatible changes - eg, your config files will still work as expected.

This is the major obstacle with semver. People aren't terribly psyched to increase the major version whenever incompatibilities happen, because other people have different expectations of major version numbers.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#102
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think gp was being descriptive and not prescriptive - one preferred language is how the web works today (and I speak as a someone who is multilingual). > It feels weird saying this, but it reeks of a very anglo-american worldview to have a single language preference. This is a the browser-side problem[1], so perhaps the browsers authors have an anglo-american worldview? You could file a bug/feature request with you…

> This is a the browser-side problem... No, it sounds like a protocol problem to me. How do I state in an HTTP request: "I speak English and German; if you can serve both and the article was written in one and translated to the other, then give me the original please". That was a long sentence, but it wouldn't have been particularly hard to define well and put into the protocol when it was originally drafted. It's a…

> No, it sounds like a protocol problem to me. How do I state in an HTTP request: "I speak English and German; if you can serve both and the article was written in one and translated to the other, then give me the original please".

That is a problem with the quality of the translation/translators - not the protocol. The protocol is neutral on languages and considers all versions as equivalent, it only expects that you would pick one. The specific behaviour you are expecting can be trivially built into the server side without modifying the current protocol.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#103
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You might be surprised about the number of non-english speakers; I know I was when visiting Italy and Portugal this summer (especially Italy)." As an Italian I have to agree with you; for us old timers it wasn't easy as English didn't become the official 2nd language over here until some decades ago. Both my parents and most relatives as an example knew some French but next to no English, so I had to learn it for my…

English is an official language in Italy?

Ha, sorry, that was a stretched interpretation of the term official from me, I meant it's the second modern language kids study at most schools.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#104

When I run linux on servers, I always choose Debian. It is the best distro IMO. Glad to see that the project is still going as strong as ever!

As someone who has been choosing CentOS for the same purpose, what would be some reasons for me to switch off the top of your head?

1) One reason would be that increasingly often, when you search for some rhel/centos problem, the solution is behind a paywall at access.redhat.com. Not that I blame RH, they are a commercial company and need to make money somehow. Or similarly, you get a search hit for bugzilla.redhat.com, but it turns out that the bug has been marked customers only, so you can't access it unless you have a RHEL subscription.

2) For major and minor releases, they are months behind RH. That may or may not be a problem for you, though.

3) Debian is less beholden to the interests of any one corporate entity (for better or worse), if that kind of thing appeals to you.

4) Debian has a huge number of packages, much more than CentOS + EPEL.

5) On the fly upgrade to the next release. Though in a professional setting where you have automated provisioning, reinstall isn't that much of a burden anyway.

That being said, both CentOS and Debian are very solid distros, you're not going wrong if you choose one of them.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#105
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ubuntu is debian based, and works on .deb packages. Just nitpicking, nothing else to add.

Yeah, if it didn't get wrecked every other upgrade, I'd probably still be on Ubuntu. But talking to the Ubuntu Washington people this past weekend, its still an ongoing problem. Comparatively, here I am running Stretch when I started with Wheezy years ago!

Yea, on my desktop and laptops, I've completely switched over from Ubuntu to plain vanilla Debian and have been extremely pleased.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#106

When I run linux on servers, I always choose Debian. It is the best distro IMO. Glad to see that the project is still going as strong as ever!

As someone who has been choosing CentOS for the same purpose, what would be some reasons for me to switch off the top of your head?

* Debian pushes security fixes really fast (I remember a local root exploit being patch in less than a day in debian while I waited a few more days on CentOS)

* The general tooling is far better, lately, for example, I played with the tools used to build packages in clean chroots of each distributions: mock for CentOS, cowbuilder for Debian, cowbuilder is a lot more powerful, copy on right support, ability to build several packages in parallel, more switches in the cli arguments... mock is far more limited even if it does the job. Also I love reportbug, even if it seems antiquated at first (bug tracker based on emails, wtf!?), it's really really really convenient as it automatically grabs the information regarding the buggy package (logs, version, dependencies version...) and let you simply review it.

* Debian as more packages available, even compared to CentOS+Epel

* Debian as backports if you really need newer versions of a package

* If you want/need to be on the bleeding edge, sid (or unstable) is a great rolling release.

* Debian does a better job at maintaining stable version of a given software (I remember a few years ago, CentOS/RHEL updated OpenLDAP server to the latest version, which broke my directory on my (dev, fortunately) infrastructure due to a change in configuration format, this never happened to me on Debian).

* If you have relatively clean upstream, packaging is nearly automatic on Debian thanks to all the dh_

* at least until CentOS 6, yum was a slow and fragile beast IMHO, apt being more robust and less susceptible to corrupt its DB in case of crash or interruptions. It seems to have gotten better with CentOS 7 however and I never played with dnf.

On the minus side compared to CentOS:

* kickstart is a dream to use compared to preseed which is quite horrible, specially if you are trying to template it.

* The life span of a CentOS/RHEL is really long, +10 years for latest releases, which can be great for long, complex and slow projects, Debian in contrast is more on an EOL after ~5 years policy.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has been choosing CentOS for the same purpose, what would be some reasons for me to switch off the top of your head?

I have a debian install that I've installed in 2001. It's clean, fully up to date and has never been reinstalled. It's not necessary. It had apache1 before, it had the old exim before, it had all kind of old packages and was gradually updated over the years. True, something like 'etckeeper' is a great boon these days. Still, that's what I call a server distro ;-)

That's impressive.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#108

On a tangential note, I don't like how I get served the German version of the site with no obvious way to get the "canonical" one. And then I hate realizing how hard it is to combine support of multiple languages and still making everything transparent and accessible. And also, what a huge effort it is to translate pages to different languages while (I think) almost everyone wants to read the English version.

It is actually so frustrating that I decided to go with fedora in my latest trial. It changes every time you click a link, so even if you manage to find the correct link, one click and it is back to whatever language you have at top of browser setting.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#110
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's how the web is supposed to work. Citation needed. I'm pretty certain there are many proponents for a rather tight mapping from URL to content. Just imagine how hard it is for a search engine to index websites that deliver content based on unpredictable (anything else than URL) input variables.

Eh, it really is how http is intended to work: https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html It's no different (arguably a lot better) than cookies.

Sure, I know Accept-Language, as should be pretty clear from the discussion. Are you implying that the web is supposed to provide a shitty user experience?

In my opinion, there is very limited applicability of Accept-Language. Just because this header exists does not mean you need to make use of it at the slightest perceived opportunity (If all you have is a hammer...).

Post reply on HN