Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was involved in the discussion, and I'm also torn on that issue, but at least you can disable installation of non-free firmware and install Debian without any non-free software. On the other hand, firmware is a convoluted issue. It was always present, but became increasingly visible over the years. While I'm a strong Free Software supporter, firmware is one of the hardest parts to convert, because of the IP it enta…
While I'm glad to see proprietary firmware both included and segregated in its own repo, I'm wondering why RISC-V wasn't added as a supported architecture in Debian 12? It seems like that supporting at least an open ISA would move closer to the possibility of what Debian wants to see happen... so why isn't it as a distro helping to make it happen?
Debian 12 “Bookworm”
121–130 of 241 posts
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened?
- Tried 23.04 and found too many bugs (I guess this doesn't count) - Some day 22.04 randomly started without GUI and I couldn't get it back either with ubuntu-desktop and startx - I installed a Python package without a virtual environment and it somehow interfered with system Python, bootloader broke It's possible that those errors were recoverable but I'm not a linux expert and I couldn't repair it after ~2h of stac…
Never go through odd versions (19.xy, 21.xy, 23.xy,…).
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half the Linux distris? I've once counted on Distrowatch. When you go by number of distris there it's more like 80% are Debian based. If you go also by how much those distris are used it's even like 9x% of the stuff running out there is Debian based. There are almost no independent distris. You have Arch, you have SUSE, you have RedHat and a few clones, you have Gentoo. But more or less everything else is Debian base…
Do I get it right that you mean > 90 percent of distro use is Debian-based? Because that can hardly be the case
Ubuntu and its derivatives are included.
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'm glad to see proprietary firmware both included and segregated in its own repo, I'm wondering why RISC-V wasn't added as a supported architecture in Debian 12? It seems like that supporting at least an open ISA would move closer to the possibility of what Debian wants to see happen... so why isn't it as a distro helping to make it happen?
https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V
That doesn't answer the question. It's still 'unofficial' per https://wiki.debian.org/SupportedArchitectures
If you want the maintain the status quo you support the hardware that has the most users, if you want to change it you also support the hardware you want them to use.
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#125Wow, and it even comes with the very latest KDE Plasma 5.27.5. Quite rare for a stable Debian and makes it more up to date than PopOS. Awesome.
Having used Ubuntu and then Pop!_OS, I have been thinking of going back to the roots and just sticking with Debian. But I also like to get the new stuff (not bleeding edge because I don't want things breaking all the time) and I have heard that stable is, well, old stuff (hence stable). Which makes me wonder how unstable is "unstable" in reality? I have a very strong preference for sticking to .deb packages due to th…
"Unstable" is actually unstable. What you want is "Testing," or if you're a little more conservative, you want Stable + backports: https://backports.debian.org/
> You are running Debian stable, because you prefer the Debian stable tree. It runs great, there is just one problem: the software is a little bit outdated compared to other distributions. This is where backports come in.
> Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable. Because the package is also present in the next Debian release, you can easily upgrade your stable+backports system once the next Debian release comes out. (In a few cases, usually for security updates, backports are also created from the Debian unstable distribution.)
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#126Finally with init system alternatives or do they still shove systemd down our throat (if so I'll stick to devuan gnu/linux instead)?
You have it backwards: Devuan shoves sysvinit down your throat, whereas Debian is the one that supports alternatives
Devuan does exactly what it says on the tin. If that suits you, use it, otherwise you are free to not use it. It follows that since nobody forces anyone to use Devuan, nothing is being shoved down throats.
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were you trying out Sid, or stable/testing? Stable tends to contain ancient software, but sid should be recent enough.
I suspect that a lot of people who are saying that Debian is behind don't understand Debian. for them: Whatever you download is going to be "Debian Stable." Debian Stable is as fresh and up-to-date as it's ever going to be at this moment, but it will not change significantly in the future, because its goal is stability. You throw it on something you want to run for years and not crash. If you don't mind your system c…
Just to add - I think the backports repositories don't get enough attention when this occasionally comes up.
Trying to run a mix of stable and testing packages can be a pain as occasionally a package you want to bring in from testing will try to bring with it new system libraries, which in turn often conflict with the "stable" versions of packages (so you are forced to move a lot more of your system to "testing" packages than you originally wanted to fix this).
The key advantage (at least for me) of using the "backports" repositories is that it avoids this - packages are compiled against the "[yourrelease]" system libraries.
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#128> The overall disk usage for "bookworm" is 365,016,420 kB (365 GB)
Time to flex new SSD drive and install ALL the packages. Of course, I'll do it a bit later, when downloads will get back to normal levels.
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#129I see this old-package argument over and over again and I think it is inaccurate, considering that an estimated 95% of Ubuntu users use the LTS version, the below table demonstrates that Debian 12 (stable) packages are newer than those of of Ubuntu 22.04. Both Debian 12 and Ubuntu 22.04 are LTS versions with 5 years of support. Ubuntu 22.04 Kernel 5.19 (new installs only, existing installs 5.15) systemd 249 KDE Plasm…
Whilst I'm no longer an Ubuntu user due to their snap debacle, I don't think this is all that fair, they released over a year apart and LTS is LTS for a reason :)
Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”
#130What 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…
[deleted]