Live data from Hacker News

What to expect from Debian/Trixie

michael-prokop.at

201–210 of 211 posts

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#201
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

debian or ubuntu? I have had terrible experience in the past with ubuntu breaking randomly, but debian has been fairly stable for a desktop machine

At home with debian testing. At work I usually have to spend 6 hours per day to fix random Ubuntu issues on code which works fine on Fedora. Usually Ubuntu 20 and 22.

It's Debian testing; a rough experience is practically expected. I say this as a person who daily-drives Sid.

That's some hyperbole. If I spent 6 hours a day fixing some distro's issues, that would be my whole job. I would begin questioning whether I'm "holding it wrong" or if it is the wrong tool for the job.

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#202
post #201
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At home with debian testing. At work I usually have to spend 6 hours per day to fix random Ubuntu issues on code which works fine on Fedora. Usually Ubuntu 20 and 22.

It's Debian testing; a rough experience is practically expected. I say this as a person who daily-drives Sid. That's some hyperbole. If I spent 6 hours a day fixing some distro's issues, that would be my whole job. I would begin questioning whether I'm "holding it wrong" or if it is the wrong tool for the job.

Exactly. It's the wrong tool for the job. Europeans love Ubuntu/Debian, but it's shit

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#203
post #202
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Debian testing; a rough experience is practically expected. I say this as a person who daily-drives Sid. That's some hyperbole. If I spent 6 hours a day fixing some distro's issues, that would be my whole job. I would begin questioning whether I'm "holding it wrong" or if it is the wrong tool for the job.

Exactly. It's the wrong tool for the job. Europeans love Ubuntu/Debian, but it's shit

That's an opinion (a wrong one IMO, but you do you). It's hard for me to comment because when I tried using Fedora (maybe 15 years ago, tbh) I couldn't even play MP3s out of the box, so I never revisited it.

I also left Ubuntu because of their shenanigans, but if your code cannot run on Debian, your code is shit.

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#204
post #203
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's the wrong tool for the job. Europeans love Ubuntu/Debian, but it's shit

That's an opinion (a wrong one IMO, but you do you). It's hard for me to comment because when I tried using Fedora (maybe 15 years ago, tbh) I couldn't even play MP3s out of the box, so I never revisited it. I also left Ubuntu because of their shenanigans, but if your code cannot run on Debian, your code is shit.

When the python3.10 package has the SSIZE_CLEAN error enforced, and one of their packages has no SSIZE_CLEAN definition before including Python.h (python3-bluez) that's not my fault. That's just yesterday's shenanigans.

But it happens everyday

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#205
post #189
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

systemd's design choices here were influenced by a lot of bugs Red Hat received where failed hardware was swapped out and interface names changed as a result. Real world enterprise users wanted this, it wasn't an arbitrary design choice.

That's quite the jump. Some real world users asked for a fix. They did not mean they asked specifically for this fix. There were other ways to handle this. With Debian's system, you could wipe the state files, and for example eth0/etc would be reassigned per initialization order. Worked fine. Even if you didn't like that, pre-Systemd udev allowed assigned by a variety of properties, including bus identifiers. It was…

It turns out that people do not love having to log into a machine after a network card swap to get the new network card to have the same name. Initialisation order is explicitly not guaranteed by the kernel and so absolutely does not work every time.

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#206
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

systemd's design choices here were influenced by a lot of bugs Red Hat received where failed hardware was swapped out and interface names changed as a result. Real world enterprise users wanted this, it wasn't an arbitrary design choice.

> systemd's design choices here were influenced by a lot of bugs Red Hat received where failed hardware was swapped out and interface names changed as a result. Under RH-based systems the ifcfg-* files had a HWADDR variable, so if you swapped a card you could get the new MAC address and plug it in there and get the same interface name. There was also udevd rules where you map names to particular hardware, including p…

Great. A tech swaps out a network card, now how do I log in to rewrite the ifcfg file when the interface wasn't brought up with the correct config because it has a different name?

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#207
post #132
post #16

Looking forward to the release. I use Debian Stable on almost all the systems I use (one is stuck on 10/Buster due to MoinMoin). I installed Trixie in a container last week, using an LXC container downloaded from linuxcontainers.org [1]. Three things I noted on the basic install : 1) Ping didn't work due to changed security settings (iputils-ping) [2] 2) OpenSSH server was installed as systemd socket activated and so…

I suspect that systemd people are looking at this thread in perplexity, and probably doing their thing (that I've seen over the years) of regarding the world of Debian as being amazingly behind the times in places. The SSH server being a socket unit with systemd doing all of the socket parallelism-limiting and accepting was one of the earliest examples of socket activation ever given in systemd. It was in one of Lenn…

The original SSH server was daemonized by default, but inetd operation was always supported. The INSTALL file said this in 1995:

  The server is not started using inetd, because it needs to generate
  the RSA key before serving the connection, and this can take about a
  minute on slower machines.  On a fast machine, and small (breakable)
  key size (
And, of course, SSH was designed to replace rlogin and rsh - both of which ran from inetd as standard. As you say, socket-activation of sshd is simply following very long-standing Unix practice: it's not at all novel, and there's no reason to believe that it's any more risky than any other method of running it.

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#208
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> systemd's design choices here were influenced by a lot of bugs Red Hat received where failed hardware was swapped out and interface names changed as a result. Under RH-based systems the ifcfg-* files had a HWADDR variable, so if you swapped a card you could get the new MAC address and plug it in there and get the same interface name. There was also udevd rules where you map names to particular hardware, including p…

Great. A tech swaps out a network card, now how do I log in to rewrite the ifcfg file when the interface wasn't brought up with the correct config because it has a different name?

> now how do I log in to rewrite the ifcfg file when the interface wasn't brought up with the correct config because it has a different name?

Unlike most desktops, basically all servers got out-of-band management (e.g. IPMI) and a NIC swap is something that needs a tech physically near the server, so even a simple serial console is easily plugged in. Or how will that new NIC work with the whole network, like any basic networking setup or firewall won't allow traffic from arbitrary MACs, so normally this needs to be coordinated already anyway in an enterprise setting, e.g. through a change management process.

And why would one optimize the whole design for network naming for the edge case and not the much more common one like simple software updates.

And the design is not even being able to guarantee it for the edge case. Plugin that NIC in a different PCI slot, or let the firmware to a blip and report it differently–all things that happened!–and you still got no network with net naming scheme. Worse, you reboot after a systemd update, and you can have no network either. Or the kernel learns that your NIC supports virtual functions, guess what, no network because the (seemingly just-in-time) predictable naming scheme now sees that information changing its previous prediction.

I never will be able to understand how one can argue for breaking the common use case, nobody argues that there isn't a real problem or that there is the One True Way™ to solve it (at least I do not intend so), but arguing for using a certainly not ideal default that optimized for an edge case feels a bit like some sunk cost fallacy to me.

Sorry for my wall of text, I would really like to care less, but at $work I am exposed to this mess directly, not only for our infra but for all users of our projects, can all be done and managed, sure, but the churn and hours I have to put in thanks to this feels unnecessary and could be used for much more useful things.

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#209
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> systemd's design choices here were influenced by a lot of bugs Red Hat received where failed hardware was swapped out and interface names changed as a result. Under RH-based systems the ifcfg-* files had a HWADDR variable, so if you swapped a card you could get the new MAC address and plug it in there and get the same interface name. There was also udevd rules where you map names to particular hardware, including p…

Great. A tech swaps out a network card, now how do I log in to rewrite the ifcfg file when the interface wasn't brought up with the correct config because it has a different name?

> A tech swaps out a network card, now how do I log in to rewrite the ifcfg file when the interface wasn't brought up with the correct config because it has a different name?

IPMI/iDRAC/iLO/XCC/etc.

Re: What to expect from Debian/Trixie

#210
post #205
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite the jump. Some real world users asked for a fix. They did not mean they asked specifically for this fix. There were other ways to handle this. With Debian's system, you could wipe the state files, and for example eth0/etc would be reassigned per initialization order. Worked fine. Even if you didn't like that, pre-Systemd udev allowed assigned by a variety of properties, including bus identifiers. It was…

It turns out that people do not love having to log into a machine after a network card swap to get the new network card to have the same name. Initialisation order is explicitly not guaranteed by the kernel and so absolutely does not work every time.

Even if you didn't like that, pre-Systemd udev allowed assigned by a variety of properties, including bus identifiers.
Post reply on HN