Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian 12 “Bookworm”

debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 241 posts

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#181

Post by arcanemachiner »

krylon wrote: post #44

One thing I really appreciate about Debian is that when a new stable release comes around, I can just upgrade and be reasonably sure nothing bad will happen. It's not exciting, but a fair amount of the time, this is what people expect from their operating system. Support my hardware, give me the software I need, and stay out of my way otherwise. And that is what Debian does very well.

I heard when Bullseye came out that I should wait a bit as the initial bugs were found. I'm wondering if that was true then or now.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#182

Post by whatwhaaaaat »

28304283409234 wrote: post #103
pietro72ohboy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#183

Post by bayindirh »

Karellen wrote: post #173
jacquesm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winmodems had plenty of alternatives, for PCs the choice is usually limited to 'what you were given' or 'what you recycled from a dumpster'. Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware (even if brand new plenty of people pay either the MS or the Apple tax). And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice…

> Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware. And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury. But they don't have to choose Debian. If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box simply by picking another distro that did inc…

When you are one of the biggest “root” distributions, and the template of countless big and small time derivatives, you don’t have the luxury to have niche.

When thought with a clear and unbiased mind, Debian did the absolute best they can do.

Add firmware, be open about it, install only when necessary, allow people to opt out when they know what they are doing.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#184

Post by suprjami »

denysonique wrote: post #115

I 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…

I realised this myself recently. I have used Ubuntu LTS for a long time, I don't use the in-between releases. They have about the same release cadence as Debian (2ish years) so I'm usually not losing anything much by moving to Debian.

Ubuntu probably do the HWE kernel better than stable backports kernel, the HWE kernel has a release schedule.

There's been more community support for Ubuntu in the form of PPAs but Flatpak has mostly solved that problem for the things I care about.

As such, I've already switched all my laptops to Debian, and will switch my desktop and work computer when I can be bothered.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#185

Post by suprjami »

Spooky23 wrote: post #104
botanical wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Netplan is garbage. I remove all that and use NetworkManager. It's good and just works.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#186

Post by 28304283409234 »

whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #182
28304283409234 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#187

Post by arp242 »

jasomill wrote: post #178
arp242 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it "firmware" is essentially just the same as an EEPROM, except that using volatile memory is cheaper and easier to upgrade. No one seems to have great issues with EEPROMs (FSF doesn't anyway), but uploading that same code to the device when it starts is a huge problem? I never understood this, and especially given the huge practical trade-offs the entire thing seems fighting windmills. The Linux-libr…

Debian distributes firmware stored in volatile RAM because it is either required to use the hardware, or, as is the case for CPU microcode updates, highly recommended for most users. As far as I know, Debian does not distribute proprietary EEPROM firmware updates at all, as these are generally not required to use the hardware (and, depending on the device and update in question, may or may not be recommended for most…

Organisations like the FSF recommend that you don't use devices that require "non-free firmware" at all. They don't recommend anything like this for devices with "non-free EEPROMs at all". Stallman himself has stated he has no problem with such devices (I can't find a direct quote on this right now, but I'm 100% sure I've seen Stallman write or say this at time point).

My point was that the entire position just doesn't make any sense: either you reject all non-free software no matter how it's loaded (which means there are very few computers you can actually use), or you just use your hardware with "non-free firmware" that would be baked in anyway and stop worrying about the entire thing.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#189

Post by mappu »

suprjami wrote: post #184
denysonique wrote: post #115

I 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…

I realised this myself recently. I have used Ubuntu LTS for a long time, I don't use the in-between releases. They have about the same release cadence as Debian (2ish years) so I'm usually not losing anything much by moving to Debian. Ubuntu probably do the HWE kernel better than stable backports kernel, the HWE kernel has a release schedule. There's been more community support for Ubuntu in the form of PPAs but Flat…

> Ubuntu probably do the HWE kernel better than stable backports kernel, the HWE kernel has a release schedule.

For a while the Debian kernel packages had -ckt suffix (Canonical Kernel Team), although it doesn't seem to be the case any more.

Re: Debian 12 “Bookworm”

#190

Post by teo_zero »

amiga386 wrote: post #166
nvy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Actually working Linux on real hardware is far more important than purity IMO. I agree, but I also think this depends heavily on who you ask. Stallman for example would rather have poorer functionality than compromise his personal (extremist) ethical principles. There are a lot of folks who use laptops without wifi because the blobs are non free, so they're using ancient ThinkPads plugged into Ethernet. Much depends…

> Stallman for example would rather have poorer functionality than compromise his personal (extremist) ethical principles. Stallman is open to pragmatism now and again. For example, on this very topic: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html > We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with transformers, switches…

Please note that in the paragraphs that you quoted Stallman is talking about hardware, not firmware. He tolerates firmware blobs only if they are loaded once to the device and never changed (yes, I know it's more complex than this, read the whole essay for more precise information).
Post reply on HN