Live data from Hacker News

Debian 12 “Bookworm”

debian.org

101–110 of 241 posts

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you actually know the answer here? The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying that aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a copyright context judges talk about a computer loading software into RAM being copying. Intel microcode comes with a license: https://bugs.gentoo.org/664134

> Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you actually know the answer here? IANAL, but this is a general concept of exhaustion of IP rights when the IP is sold as a part of physical medium, see (28) and article 4 of EU copyright directive 2001/29. > The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying that aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a copyright context judges talk about a computer loading s…

The term you're looking for regarding the numbers you have in parentheses is _recital_.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#102
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also considering this, but I'm a little afraid of being stuck in the slow lane when it comes to software updates. I'm aware of Backports, but I'm led to believe it has a somewhat limited selection. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to try a combination of Debian, for general system stability, and Nix, for specific tools where I need newer releases? Has anyone tried this combination before? If so, how did you fin…

I run a mix of Debian and Arch/Manjaro. Debian is fine right up until you have to build something and find that the dep you need is too old so you have to build that from source, and that dep has a dep that's too old so you have to... basically build hell. Arch seems to not have these problems but is a hair buggier on occasion.

backports?

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they were referring to the fact that everything has something "wrong" with it, but that those things don't invalidate the value of the greater whole.

Seems to be an extremely charitable interpretation of the parent comment. I also read it as -- "Despite the plethora of issues with Debian, it manages to surprise". Like the second-level commenter, I'm also curious to hear more about these "issues".

You poor person, reading malice where none was intended.

marpstar was correct.

I am a Debian fanboi since Slink. Since it was drilled into me by rvdm, ssmeenk, miquels, jdassen and dth.

And have seen Debian survive and thrive a lot of critisism. "Too slow release cycle, not Free(Dom) enough, Too free, systemd, too much politics, too many architectures, etc....etc....etc.."

Yes, any large community will be flawed and deliver flawed solutions. And I for one celebrate those flaws and features, and appreciate the sheer magnitude and accomplishment of this enormous, complex, great project.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#104
post #15

Had to reinstall ubuntu 3 times already since the beginning of this year and thus switched to debian, hopefully I'll be able to settle in for a while

For me Ubuntu has been the most stable distro. I probably won't move, since I want an up-to-date system that stays out of my way

Lol. Enjoy relearning the hot new way to configure DNS every release.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#105

What a weird announcement. It says " To install Debian 12 bookworm ... you can choose from a variety of installation media types to Download... " and " If you simply want to try Debian 12 bookworm... you can use one of the available live images " as if it were all available, but in fact the Debian 12 images are not ready. It feels like the blog post was written before images were created, but they forgot to add a com…

The CD images should be downloadable towards the end of the day if previous releases are anything to go by.

This HN post jumped the gun a little with the Debian Wiki page: the final official release happens when https://debian.org/ gets updated to point to the new installation media.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#106

Do you recommend switching from Ubuntu TLS to this one? Even to a heavy LXC and multipass user? What had kept me on Ubuntu so far has been their out of box laptop support (I.e. WiFi drivers).

Moved back to Debian because of lxc on Ubuntu requiring snaps. Turns out same problem on Debian. Snapd consumes 100% cpu. All. The. Time. Hoping Bookworm will solve it. Else I will be moving to Archlinux, which has lxc without snapd.

Bookworm now has lxd as natively packaged deb's in the main repository. It's very nice to setup.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#107
post #5

Congratulations to the Debian team! An important change appears to be the inclusion of non-free firmware by default in the official install image for the first time, as a result of this vote: https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 Intriguing. I feel a little torn on this. One the one hand, I appreciate being able to install Debian from an official image onto a bothersome device. On the other, I can't help but feel…

While I don't like proprietary firmware, I'm not sure if the line is drawn at a useful place.

If you have firmware/software/whatever in a device, which is updateable (as opposed to mask-rom or hard logic), I'd much rather have it transparently managed by an OS I can control, than some EEPROM with often proprietary, inscrutable, I-ask-you-nicely-please-update-your-firmware update mechanism.

IMO, the difference is:

- with OS provided firmware (and preferably no writable storage), I can be sure my device is running the same SW as the rest of the world

- with dozens of EEPROMs in my device, I can never be sure what is running on it.

Firmware that is legally not redistributable is a non-trivial, though perhaps less bothersome issue. Firmware that requires manufaturer's signature is bothersome but I would still prefer it over inscrutable hidden firmware.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#108
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a desktop/laptop? You can always run unstable if you think stable is too old (I run unstable on my dev systems, and stable on servers/anything I want to setup and let run). FYI, if you use a Ubuntu LTS release, then unless you always run the latest LTS, the majority of the packages (being in universe) will actually be older than Debian stable (and will always be older then Debian unstable).

I’d suggest testing over unstable as very occasionally broken packages get pushed to unstable. Testing has a week or two delay, which usually catches such problems.

If you decide to run testing, be aware that while testing does get updates that address security issues after those updates work their way into testing from unstable, it does not explicitly get security updates.

Pinning some security sensitive packages to stable or unstable might be worth considering. E.g., if running testing on a client, pin firefox and extensions to stable + stable-security (note, globbing works too):

  /etc/apt/preferences.d/firefox:
  Package: firefox-esr
  Pin: release a=stable
  Pin-Priority: 999
  Package: firefox-esr
  Pin: release a=stable-security
  Pin-Priority: 999

  Package:  webext-ublock-origin-firefox
  Pin: release a=stable
  Pin-Priority: 999
  Package:  webext-ublock-origin-firefox
  Pin: release a=stable-security
  Pin-Priority: 999
The above priorities will not downgrade to stable from testing if the packages are already installed. To downgrade priority needs to be >= 1000. See 'man 5 apt_preferences'. If priority >= 1000, probably best to only do that temporarily, then adjust to lower to prevent setting a landmine for your future-self.

If there are only a couple things you want to update to newer versions that are not in backports, you can just run stable, and pin those packages to versions in testing or unstable (but only if those packages pull in no / only a few dependencies not used by other packages). If you add e.g., testing/unstable sources to a stable system, add a catchall pin to force those packages to a low priority by default to prevent accidentally updating your entire system e.g., for sid:

  /etc/apt/preferences.d/sid:
  Package: *
  Pin: release a=unstable
  Pin-Priority: 10
Pinning without thinking can result in a broken system. But, I'm typing this on a box running testing (I guess stable, as of today) with packages pinned from Bullseye, Sid, and experimental and I've never had worse issues than an update being blocked due to dependency version conflict which was easily worked-around by pinning another package/removing or downgrading a pinned package; I run unattended-upgrades on all my boxes too. But, my hard rule is no scary deps e.g., a diff version of libc being pulled in, no deps shared with other packages that I would not want to have to pin to the same release (e.g., shared with any package with tons of deps itself), and no package that wants to pull in a lot of deps regardless of how benign they appear.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#109
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moved back to Debian because of lxc on Ubuntu requiring snaps. Turns out same problem on Debian. Snapd consumes 100% cpu. All. The. Time. Hoping Bookworm will solve it. Else I will be moving to Archlinux, which has lxc without snapd.

I don't think lxc on Debian has ever needed snapd? https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/lxc

lxd (not just lxc) is now also available as a deb package in debian:

https://wiki.debian.org/LXD

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768073

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work. So this is very much an individual choice, if you don't have such hardware you are fine but shouldn't be voting on whether or not someone who does have hardware that won't work without proprietary blobs has to go out to buy new gear. There are all kinds of considerations that go in to this decision (for instance: environmental impact…

> the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work How is that different from the "if you want to run linux don't buy a winmodem" that we said convincingly twenty years ago ? Would you have approved that linux 2.0 added binary blobs to the kernel in order to correctly work with the hardware that you had invested in (some random winmodem) ?

We’re on the laptop age, most people can’t pick and choose the components of their computers.
Post reply on HN