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

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#91

Post by lima »

AnthonBerg wrote: post #59
pcnix wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ubuntu is debian based, and works on .deb packages. Just nitpicking, nothing else to add.

This is true! I wish to add that in my experience (years of use of both), I have found that Ubuntu is significantly lower quality and less stable than Debian. In other words, they squander some of the reliability they could inherit from Debian.

As someone who used Debian, Ubuntu and CentOS in (serious) production I agree 100%.

So many annoying bugs. Debian QA is much better, but Red Hat takes the cake. Their attention to even little details is remarkable.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#92

Post by lima »

cjsuk wrote: post #29
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?

As a regular user of both and a prolific runner of CentOS in production, I would err towards Debian these days. It just feels better to me. Things like hanging updates applying SELinux policies, the whole Python mess and the lag between RHEL and CentOS patches (this has improved I will say) etc just sort of put me off CentOS a bit. It's also a lot lighter.

Python is nicer in CentOS though. Software Collections are great:

https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/scls/?search=python

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#93

Post by tehwalrus »

tormeh wrote: post #83
tehwalrus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

EPEL not being enabled by default I find a little weird, but sure it's not the end of the world.

The thing I find strange is that the people I'm talking about will happily run code from random 3rd party repos (providing PHP 7.0 or similar), and copy/paste repo key fingerprints from the web without blinking, while steadfastly refusing to use an OS with such packages included and tested in the official repos "because security/quality/enterprise".

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#94

Post by lima »

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…

Agreed on the third party repos, but EPEL is fine. Fedora/EPEL, while unsupported, is a Red Hat project. It's basically the upstream release for RHEL, and many Red Hat employees contribute. They have a really good QA process too.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#95

Post by dredmorbius »

gear54rus wrote: post #7
staticelf wrote: post #4

When I run linux on servers, I always choose Debian. It is the best distro IMO. Glad to see that the project is still going as strong as ever!

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?

Debian policy.

Package selection and packaging quality. The Debian aarchive is about 10x the size of CentOS / RHEL: 60k+ packages vs about 7k or so, as of a few years ago. I've not done a recent RHEL count.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#96

Post by samueloph »

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?

Sorry, its not really the logo, i was kidding with the fact that the current logo looks like buzzlightyear's chin.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#97

Post by cjsuk »

lima wrote: post #92
cjsuk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a regular user of both and a prolific runner of CentOS in production, I would err towards Debian these days. It just feels better to me. Things like hanging updates applying SELinux policies, the whole Python mess and the lag between RHEL and CentOS patches (this has improved I will say) etc just sort of put me off CentOS a bit. It's also a lot lighter.

Python is nicer in CentOS though. Software Collections are great: https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/scls/?search=python

We just use distro provided python versions on debian and virtualenvs. Don't touch anything else!

Probably right on the basis of the above however.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#98

Post by smcl »

samueloph wrote: post #96
smcl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, its not really the logo, i was kidding with the fact that the current logo looks like buzzlightyear's chin.

Ahhhhhh I never noticed the swirl on Buzz' chin before!

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#99

Post by rlpb »

sangnoir wrote: post #86
anc84 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you…

> This is a the browser-side problem...

No, it sounds like a protocol problem to me. How do I state in an HTTP request: "I speak English and German; if you can serve both and the article was written in one and translated to the other, then give me the original please".

That was a long sentence, but it wouldn't have been particularly hard to define well and put into the protocol when it was originally drafted. It's a bit late now, obviously.

For example, one could define provenance of a translation much like NTP defines strata. Accept-Language could then have taken this into account.

Re: Debian 9.2 released

#100

Post by rlpb »

vacri wrote: post #78
chj wrote: post #45

I 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.

Ubuntu has made the commitment for 6-month releases, so that makes sense for them. Debian releases "are ready when they're ready", so they can't predict the month (or even the year) ahead of time, and the version number is needed well before the release is made official.

...and the version number is needed well before the release is made official.

Ubuntu developer here. No, the version number is not needed before the release. All our infrastructure only uses the codename until release, since the final version name is not known for certain in advance.

For example, Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake) was released late.

Post reply on HN