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

Debian 13 “Trixie”

debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 428 posts

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#91

Post by ACS_Solver »

zvmaz wrote: post #44
ACS_Solver wrote: post #25

Writing this from my Debian system, it's a great distro that has been excellent to me as a daily driver. I switched to Debian 6 after Ubuntu went way downhill and haven't had cause to regret it. I like Debian's measured pragmatism with ideology, how it's a distro of free software by default but it also makes it easy to install non-free software or firmware blobs. I like Debian's package guidelines, I like dpkg, I lik…

> after Ubuntu went way downhill and haven't had cause to regret it. In what way Ubuntu went downhill?

For me, it was a combination of Ubuntu breaking upstream and introducing its own unnecessary systems.

I had a few issues caused by Ubuntu that weren't upstream. One was Tracker somehow eating up lots of CPU power and slowing the system down. Another was with input methods, I need to type in a pretty rare language and that was just broken on Ubuntu one day. Not upstream.

The bigger problem was Ubuntu adding stuff before it was ready. The Unity desktop, which is now fine, was initially missing lots of basic features and wasn't a good experience. Then there was the short-lived but pretty disastrous attempt to replace Xorg with Mir.

My non-tech parents are still on Ubuntu, have been for some twenty years, and it's mostly fine there. I wouldn't recommend it if you know your way around a Linux system but for non-tech, Ubuntu works well. Still, just a few months ago I was astonished by another Ubuntu change. My mom's most important program is Thunderbird, with her long-running email archive. The Thunderbird profile has effortlessly moved across several PCs as it's just a copy of the folder. Suddenly, Ubuntu migrated to the snap version of Thunderbird, so after a software update she found herself with a new version and an empty profile. Because of course the new profile is somewhere under ~/snap and the update didn't in any way try to link to the old profile.

Then there were stupid things like Amazon search results in the Unity dash search when looking for your files or programs. Nah. Ubuntu isn't terrible by any means but for a number of years now, I'd recommend Linux Mint as the friendly Debian derivative.

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#92

Post by duskwuff »

master_crab wrote: post #29

Debian 13 trixie includes numerous updated software packages (over 63% of all packages from the previous release) I’m not familiar with the metric definition they use, but I’d be worried if close to 100% of the packages they included in bookworm hadn’t been updated in the roughly 2 years between releases. I use Debian for most of my servers, so I’m sure there is a valid explanation of that phrase.

It's not uncommon for small software packages to go years between updates - either because they're a simple utility that's feature-complete and rarely needs bug fixes, or because they're data files (e.g. packages of icons or fonts) which might not need to change at all.

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#93

Post by madars »

ACS_Solver wrote: post #25

Writing this from my Debian system, it's a great distro that has been excellent to me as a daily driver. I switched to Debian 6 after Ubuntu went way downhill and haven't had cause to regret it. I like Debian's measured pragmatism with ideology, how it's a distro of free software by default but it also makes it easy to install non-free software or firmware blobs. I like Debian's package guidelines, I like dpkg, I lik…

>I've never had a Debian system break without it being my fault in some way.

Debian is great but I can't say this is a shared experience. In particular, I've been bitten by Debian's heavy patching of kernel in Debian stable (specifically, backport regressions in the fast-moving DRM subsystem leading to hard-to-debug crashes), despite Debian releases technically having the "same" kernel for a duration of a release. In contrast, Ubuntu just uses newer kernels and -hwe avoids a lot of patch friction. So I still use Debian VMs but Ubuntu on bare metal. I haven't tried kernel from debian-backports repos though.

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#94

Post by baobun »

binwiederhier wrote: post #30

Thank you to all the Debian volunteers that make Debian and all its derivatives possible. It's remarkable how many people and businesses have been enabled by your work. Thank you! On a personal note, Trixie is very exciting for me because my side project, ntfy [1], was packaged [2] and is now included in Trixie. I only learned about the fact that it was included very late in cycle when the package maintainer asked fo…

On the web part:

Debian sources need to be sufficient to build. So for npm projects, you usually have a debian-specific package.json where each npm dependency (transitively, including devDependencies needed for build) needs to either be replaced with its equivalent debian package (which may also need to be ported), vendored (usually less ideal, especially for third-party code), or removed. Oh, and enjoy aligning versions for all of that. That's doable but non-trivial work with such a sizable lockfile. If I would guess the maintainer couldn't justify the extra effort and taking on combing through all those packages.

I also think in either case the Debian way would probably be to split it out as a complementary ntfy-web package.

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#95

Post by egorfine »

b112 wrote: post #14

You can still use sysvinit, I've already tested servers and desktop builds. From my build box: chroot $MOUNTPOINT/ /bin/bash -c "http_proxy=$aptproxy apt-get -y --purge --allow remove-essential install sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils systemd-sysv- systemd-" There is a weird depends you cannot get around without simultaneously removing and installing in parallel. A Debian bug highlighted the above, with a "-" for systemd…

Wait, sysvinit on debian 13 truly practically works?? as in, one can remove systemd and have a working server OS with sysv init??

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#96

Post by esaym »

accrual wrote: post #17

> i386 is no longer supported as a regular architecture: there is no official kernel and no Debian installer for i386 systems. The i386 architecture is now only intended to be used on a 64-bit (amd64) CPU. Users running i386 systems should not upgrade to trixie. Instead, Debian recommends either reinstalling them as amd64, where possible, or retiring the hardware. Impressive that i386 support made it all the way to A…

Are you confusing "386" with 32bit? 686 is the normal 32bit arch. 386 is something from the 1980's right?

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#97

Post by synack »

duskwuff wrote: post #70
Pet_Ant wrote: post #62

It can be a little hard to navigate to so the .torrent links for x86-64 are Minimal: https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/bt-cd/deb... Full: https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/bt-dvd/de...

Note that you probably don't need the DVD ("full") image. Most users should use the "minimal" netinstall CD and download packages at install time.

Agreed, but for laptops it’s nice to keep a copy of the DVD iso on disk and in your apt sources so that you can install stuff offline.

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#98

Post by NewJazz »

esaym wrote: post #96
accrual wrote: post #17

> i386 is no longer supported as a regular architecture: there is no official kernel and no Debian installer for i386 systems. The i386 architecture is now only intended to be used on a 64-bit (amd64) CPU. Users running i386 systems should not upgrade to trixie. Instead, Debian recommends either reinstalling them as amd64, where possible, or retiring the hardware. Impressive that i386 support made it all the way to A…

Are you confusing "386" with 32bit? 686 is the normal 32bit arch. 386 is something from the 1980's right?

AIUI Debian kept the i386 name for the arch even as their 32 bit requirements evolved.

Re: Debian 13 “Trixie”

#99

Post by michaelt »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #56
zozbot234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully i386 (or perhaps a new i386-like port with added support for 64-bit time values) can move to the unofficial Debian Ports infrastructure for Debian 14 (forky) or Debian 15 (duke). Debian Ports has a m68k port, so supporting one for i386 shouldn't be a huge problem.

To what end? Outside of sheer nostalgia if you are running ancient hardware, you probably have a bespoke application which requires that environment. Either you cannot change for hard technical, compliance, or just fear of the unknown. Firewall it from the internet and continue to run whatever release last worked. I am not happy about unnecessary ewaste, but an i386 almost certainly has and order of magnitude less ho…

My Linux machine is very modern, but I still need i386 architecture support installed, because Steam requires 32-bit support. And Steam requires 32-bit support so people can play 15-year-old games.

(Admittedly, the 32-bit support Ubuntu ships is less than a full OS and you can't install Ubuntu on a 32-bit machine these days)

Post reply on HN