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

Debian 9.2 released

debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#81

Post by ethagnawl »

buserror wrote: post #11
gear54rus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has been choosing CentOS for the same purpose, what would be some reasons for me to switch off the top of your head?

I have a debian install that I've installed in 2001. It's clean, fully up to date and has never been reinstalled. It's not necessary. It had apache1 before, it had the old exim before, it had all kind of old packages and was gradually updated over the years. True, something like 'etckeeper' is a great boon these days. Still, that's what I call a server distro ;-)

I hadn't heard of etckeeper[0] before, thanks for the tip!

0 - https://etckeeper.branchable.com/

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#82

Post by samueloph »

lorenzhs wrote: post #73
samueloph wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

On the other hand, if a serious issue is detected after a specific version has already migrated to testing, the package will never (automatically) migrate to testing as long as new blocking issues keep being found. This can make testing rather unpleasant. 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 te…

> On the other hand, if a serious issue is detected after a specific version has already migrated to testing, the package will never (automatically) migrate to testing as long as new blocking issues keep being found. This can make testing rather unpleasant.

That is a valid example on what can make testing unpleasant, but still holds my point as this is a lot more uncommon than sid breakages, and also the package is removed from testing automatically a few days after any RC bug is filled, which prevent new testing installations of this broken package.

> 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.

The default wait time is 5 days (medium urgency), high urgency fixes (which fixes RC bugs on testing) waits 2 days before being migrated to testing. But you don't need to believe me, see for yourself:

Release critical bugs affecting sid (excluding packages that are already removed from testing, so we don't see any obsolete package that is to be removed from unstable too)[1]: 539

Release critical bugs affecting testing[2]: 453

[1]https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=sid&notbuster=ign&merge...

[2]https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=buster&notbuster=ign&me...

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#83

Post by tormeh »

tehwalrus wrote: post #26
marindez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who hasn't used CentOS much, when I've had to use it I've found the package selection (packages/versions) to be lacking, requiring me to use one of the countless 3rd party repos that may or may not contain what I need

I've known people in authority positions who have insisted on CentOS because "red hat certification", "tested for enterprise" etc, whose first setup step is to enable EPEL and a bunch of 3rd party repos. They don't seem to see how this negates the advantage of using a "well tested, enterprise grade" distro! I much prefer Debian (for servers and development machines) as a good intersection between "up to date" and "st…

Well, epel has extra packages. They are by definition not essential to the functioning of the OS. Why you wouldn't want those from a rapidly updating or rolling-release repo is something I don't understand.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#84

Post by e12e »

jstimpfle wrote: post #38
chungy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That's how the web is supposed to work. Citation needed. I'm pretty certain there are many proponents for a rather tight mapping from URL to content. Just imagine how hard it is for a search engine to index websites that deliver content based on unpredictable (anything else than URL) input variables.

Eh, it really is how http is intended to work:

https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html

It's no different (arguably a lot better) than cookies.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#85

Post by isostatic »

__s wrote: post #60
isostatic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prevents PHP upgrade issues by not forcing that alongside the distro upgrade. Have php5 & php7 packages

True, but it needed to happen (and I think apache 2.4 was forced).

Generally it takes us about 12-18 months to get round to moving things on, and an OS upgrade is a great opportunity to kick us into a 'do it now' state.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#86

Post by sangnoir »

anc84 wrote: post #44
chungy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a bit more complicated but I can get if people whose first language is English and who are rarely exposed to other languages cannot understand the struggle. If I prefer to read English texts in their original form (because I understand it perfectly clear) but read texts in my native language in that original language, there is no single setting. It feels weird saying this, but it reeks of a very anglo-american…

I think gp was being descriptive and not prescriptive - one preferred language is how the web works today (and I speak as a someone who is multilingual).

> It feels weird saying this, but it reeks of a very anglo-american worldview to have a single language preference.

This is a the browser-side problem[1], so perhaps the browsers authors have an anglo-american worldview? You could file a bug/feature request with your favourite open-source browser. Alternatively, an extension that selectively sends per-website "Accept-Language" headers would work - I haven't checked if one exists but it can be written in a weekend (not sure if Firefox new extension framework will allows messing with the headers).

1. Some sites work around this by allowing you to have a choose a language that overrides the one requested by the browser and persist this in a cookie or your profile. Defaulting to the language requested by the browser is a sane default compared the other alternatives (like Geo-IP look-ups: "Oh, I see you are visiting Germany. I will assume your browser requested English in error and will serve you the German version of the article instead")

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#87

Post by xemdetia »

samueloph wrote: post #66
sergiosgc wrote: post #54

Earlier 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…

Having dealt with in the past RHEL 6 to 7 is supported but only for the server edition: https://access.redhat.com/solutions/637583. At a certain point I'm not sure what Debian does so much better, but that's just because I have not really needed to investigate it to the same depth as RHEL.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#88

Post by lima »

sergiosgc wrote: post #54
gear54rus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has been choosing CentOS for the same purpose, what would be some reasons for me to switch off the top of your head?

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…

> Debian is extremely comprehensive

Yes, Debian is comprehensive, but it comes at a price. Red Hat/CentOS are much better at maintaining the (fewer) packages they support and providing timely patches.

Bugs in less critical Debian packages sometimes linger for years.

That being said, Debian is a great server OS and the only one except CentOS that I'd recommend to anyone.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#89

Post by lima »

samueloph wrote: post #66
sergiosgc wrote: post #54

Earlier 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…

It will probably work for 7 -> 8, the upgrade tool is a recent addition. It already worked in RHEL for 6 -> 7.

That being said, for RHEL 6 -> 7 I did a clean reinstall due to the large architectural changes and it was the right decision.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#90

Post by antsar »

smcl wrote: post #74
samueloph wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I get an error for image 3 - what is the logo?

Fixed URL: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81x4CGvFvNL...
Post reply on HN