Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually looked for a while there (even Ctrl+f'ed) but somehow missed it. My bad. Still it's more of a nuisance to most people and I don't like how the standard URL does not deliver the same page to all.
That's how the web is supposed to work. If you prefer English versions of pages, go into your browser configuration and tell it to prefer English.
Debian 9.2 released
71–80 of 120 posts
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#72Re: Debian 9.2 released
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
sid is said to be unstable but I have experienced the opposite of that. In fact, testing is way more unstable than sid.
That is not true at all, and i can prove to you by showing just one bugreport: An update to network-manager broke dns for everyone, the broken package stayed about 5 hours on unstable repository, if i recall correctly. This broken package never got even close to being on testing. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=784587
Of course, the same two-week wait time also applies to any regular bugfix, unless it's manually migrated to testing. Thus, one bug that affected unstable but not testing is not proof at all. Personally, I'm happier with unstable than testing on my laptop and work desktop.
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#74A curious fact is that Debian name their releases after Toy Story characters. Debian experimental is permanently named "sid" (the kid that breaks toys) and "stretch" (Debian 9) is a rubber octopus from Toy Story 3. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ch-releas... https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#Which_Toy_Story_chara... Other curious fact about Debian, is that there are 2 logos: the open use one,…
I always like to point out the other two logos[1][2] that prefaced the buzz lightyears chin logo[3]. [1] http://ianmurdock.debian.net/index.html%3Fp=1880.html [2]see "old logo" at https://www.debian.org/vote/1999 [3] https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81x4CGvFvNL...
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish most software would switch to this, I really don't like semantic versioning.
Semantic versioning makes sense for libraries, not so much for user-facing applications.
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 know and trust, or in trying out new / cutting edge software.
Semantic:
- a (very) rough idea of how long it's been in development for (number of versions its gone through)
- a (similarly, very) rough idea of how active the development effort is in terms of testing/maintentance/bug-fixes/patches (i.e. major version churn -vs- minor version churn -vs- patch version churn
- the likely relative stability of the current release (e.g. 2.0.0 might be less stable than 2.0.4)
All of the above may be rough and may give false impressions sometimes, but it is still extremely useful as an indicator for any relatively technical user evaluating whether or not to use or upgrade a piece of software.
Less technical users are less likely to be as interested in version numbers full stop.
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
On the server the only upgrade issues I've had are things like apache configs breaking when moving from 2.2 to 2.4, or php (from 5 to 7), which happened when upgrading 14.04->16.04. Not sure how redhat/centos/etc would have prevented that. Likewise a few of our custom system management packages need tweaking when new versions come out, but aside from that no problems with 1200+ servers.
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually prefer English for anything related to development, software engineering, and computers in general. I also run my user interface in English, as it is much easier to search for error messages that way. However, when visiting websites of local places such as restaurants, I prefer the German version and not the one in English meant for tourists. While third-party extensions allow to switch Accept-Language, it…
And it is even worse for expats. There's many sites that force the local language down your throat and it's sooooo annoying...
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#78I wish Debian would adopt Ubuntu-like versioning number: "yy.mm". So easy to understand. Another good example is TeXLive, which simply uses "yyyy". Much better.
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Semantic versioning makes sense for libraries, not so much for user-facing applications.
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…
Re: Debian 9.2 released
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched from CentOS to Debian on servers three years ago. I'd give two reasons: 1) No need for EPEL and similar extra repositories. Debian is extremely comprehensive. 2) Rolling updates. We keep some servers in the stable release, some in the testing release. No hiccups on upgrade, yet. Servers you keep on the stable channel will go through the same kind of upgrades you see on major CentOS versions. I never had a…
> I never had a CentOS upgrade go smoothly; We'd usually just reinstall everything from config management AFAIK CentOS does not support distro-upgrades (eg. upgrading from CentOS 6 to CentOS 7)[1], we always end up making a fresh install whenever we want to upgrade, i've tried to use the UpgradeTool a few times but it didn't work (there was always something blocking the upgrade). I believe this would be a point for D…
However, this also comes with a perk. CentOS releases are generally the "current" release for at least three years, as opposed to two with Debian. Also, major releases are supported with critical security updates for years after they are no longer current. For example, CentOS 6 will still receive patches until November 2020.
Of course, whether this is important to you will vary based upon your needs. For some, the 2 year releases with an easy upgrade path between major releases will be the more important factor.