Re: [vox-tech] Debian Woody Officially Released
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox-tech] Debian Woody Officially Released
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 08:05:56PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Matt Roper (email@example.com):
> > No, the change of the stable label is *not* an incremental change. I
> > suspect you might be a little confused about how Debian's stable
> > distribution works.
> I suspect, to phrase the matter delicately, that you lack a foundation
> for that opinion. A point we will return to, below.
I don't see how I "lack the foundation" when I actually run Debian's
stable distribution, something which you have already admitted you do
> > Unlike testing, which receives package updates two weeks after they go
> > into unstable (sid)....
> Your information is obsolete. Please see:
Granted, I didn't include all the requirements for packages moving from
sid to testing and the delay for most packages is actually 10 days, not
14, but the fact that testing usually receives a constant stream of
updates is still valid, since stable does not.
> > ...the stable distribution receives absolutely no updates/changes at
> > all *except* for security fixes.
> This is also incorrect. Please see the Debian Developer's Reference
> section 188.8.131.52, specifically the section concerning proposed-updates.
No, this is not incorrect. What the Debian Developer's Reference does
not mention is that almost all of the packages in proposed-updates are
copies of packages that were placed on security.debian.org. Technically
bug fixes for very critical bugs can also go into proposed-updates, but
this almost never happens (since stable almost never has critical bugs
to begin with). Basically, the contents of security.debian.org are
placed into stable's proposed-updates and then are eventually rolled
back into the main stable distribution and the revision number is
bumped up. So the only thing that really happens on these extra
releases of stable is that security fixes become part of the standard
distribution. I realize that the Debian Developer's Reference does not
make this clear, so most people probably don't realize this unless they
actually run stable.
> > You're missing the point. Stable is just a name. The system itself is
> > much different now.
> But it upgraded reliably from Thursday's stable=potato to Friday's
> stable=woody, didn't it? And the result was a stable system, same as
> before. That's _my_ point, sir.
Yes, the system is still stable, but it is now a completely different
system in terms of what packages are available. New features may now be
available in upgraded packages. This is why I originally claimed that
people would be "happy" about the release -- they now gain access to new
features that they might find useful without jeopardizing their
> > It would be like saying that when someone upgrades from Windows 3.1 to
> > Windows XP....
> I'm sorry, but your simile is lost on me: I don't run legacy
> proprietary systems. You are perhaps confusing me with someone else.
I never said you ran such systems. Nor do I run such systems. But
hopefully you don't actually think a version of an operating system
released within the past year is the same as a version released in the
You seemed to be implying that just because two operating systems had
the same name and were equivalent in terms of stability that they were
functionally equivalent as well. This is simply not true. A stable
system is useless if it doesn't provide the functionality required for
the task at hand. Without occasional functionality improvements, even a
rock solid operating system will not be of much.
> >> The obvious installation media would have probably been one of the
> >> woody / 3.0 CD images or boot-floppy sets.
> > Yes, if a Debian user finds one and burns it for them. A non-debian
> > user won't know that these exist or where to look for them.
> You know, *I* was a non-Debian user. I was curious, so I looked in the
> obvious places, pulled down (at the time) about three floppy images,
> wrote them out to disk, and used them.
> So, I call bullshit on your assertion.
The fact is, there are no "obvious places" for a non-Debian user other
than www.debian.org. Until woody began nearing release, there were no
visible links on the Debian website to woody CD images. If people don't
realize something exists, they usually don't go searching for it...
> > As I said earlier, at this moment, stable is actually up to date
> > compared to other distros. As time goes on, it will fall out of date
> > again because of the way Debian handles its releases.
> In as much as sarge and woody are basically exactly the same for a brief
> moment, right now, yes. But you're being tiresome: You knew precisely
> what I meant. I was referring to the general state of the stable branch
> when it does _not_ happen to be at the exact moment of a symlink change.
Yes, and getting back to my original point, this is why Debian users
should be happy about the release of Woody. Since Debian users seem to
make up such a large percentage of LUGOD, I assumed that some of them
use the stable distribution. Those that do are probably glad to receive
some of the new functionality that woody provides and see this as a big
improvement. I realize that you don't use 'stable,' so this release
doesn't make any difference for you, but for some of us it is a nice
enhancement. I was simply pointing out the release for people like Bill
and myself who still use stable. I never intended to start an argument;
I was surprised when you jumped down my throat for simply pointing it out.
* Matt Roper <firstname.lastname@example.org> *
* http://www.mattrope.com *
* PGP Key: http://www.mattrope.com/mattrope.asc *
vox-tech mailing list