Debian 10.2
debian.org
debian.org
"...and adhocratic it its form,..."
I think it should be:
"...and adhocratic in its form,..."
Can't find a way to edit the wiki. Anybody know how to contact the people behind the project?
But I think their tooling and policies have become outdated, which prevents faster progress.
I wish they would switch to some Nix-like alternative, which was discussed in their developer list long ago. The genius of Nix is that packages do not need to depend on the same dependencies. Hence, the whole package tree does not need to be kept in sync.
Another great advantage are declarative package specifications. I maintain several packages for NixOS, and a bot does auto-updates for me. I just check upstream hasn't introduced any malicious code.
Lastly, shipping many "distributions" becomes trivial with Nix. A distribution is just a package channel plus a declarative setup written in a small half-a-page expression. So you can easily create a minimal Debian, a Debian with a GNOME desktop, a Debian with a Xface desktop, a Debian with a KDE desktop, etc.
It's a blessing, and a curse. In order to ensure the quality for all packages, now you have to keep all versions anything depends on in check. A bug fix applied to the most recent version doesn't automatically affect packages depending on it, so all of them need to be updated too now.
This is similar to the reason that Debian doesn't accept packages which vendor any dependencies (similar to Fedora).
> declarative package specifications
I tried making RPM, .deb, and Nix packages, and I found Nix to be by far the nicest to work with.
In other words, Nix’ approach gives you the choice, while the current approach forces you into a certain direction.
This is untrue. Everytime that a package is updated, thanks to NixOS declarative build system, all packages that depend on it are also rebuild/updated. Unless you're pinning your derivations, it works even on custom packages created by you.
When I was referring to pinning, it is mostly done locally. I do sometimes, for example, pinning a specific package to a specific commit of Nixpkgs, so I can either backport a new version or avoid some change that I don't want to deal at the moment.
Spot on. This creates a burden of work impossible to handle for any distribution.
What really happens with the "everything goes" packaging (like throwing stuff in docker) is that nobody does security updates for most libraries.
Or maybe your FPGA programming software depends on some ancient version of QT from 2016, so you pull that Nixpkgs in for that package only.
Um, you do know that Debian does this already, right? man tasksel
Ubuntu Snap does this. You may even be able to install Snap on Debian. Whats worse is the 'snap' package is unrelated so you may want to look it up before installing something unrelated.
When the issue of free software support comes up, too often I see the usual "OUR COMMUNITY IS NOT YOUR FREE TECHNICAL SUPPORT WE OWE YOU NOTHING"... o..okay, fair enough. I can't waltz into your community and demand your time for free... But you _do_ want me to use your system, right? You _do_ think that Free Software is a viable alternative to proprietary software, where the creators literally _owe me_ support for their software because I paid them for it?
That's why it would be nice if they laid out exactly what it is that they are committing themselves to. Not just writing code and putting the thing together, but a certain (of course not unlimited) amount of assistance, so I know I won't be totally left hanging. Maybe some OSes are too much of a hobby or experiment and they don't want to offer that level of support. Totally fine. We should expect that sort of thing in the social contract, so users know what they're getting themselves into, and so that we can all step back and evaluate whether Free Software is a viable alternative to propriety yet.
I appreciate this link, it may be helpful some day.
Have you ever tried asking for this. At best you'll get "you're holding it wrong, get bent", and even that's usually only if you have the expensive enterprise support package.
FWIW I just contacted Google support with help with an issue with their Play Movies on a smart TV. Turns out what I needed to do was in the Smart TV general settings, not even the app per se, and they still helped me with that. The phone support person wasn't able to help but the chat support was.
I go to qubes-os.org. I don't see "A community of hobbyists who put together an operating system. Join in if you'd like, but you're responsible for what happens. Good luck and have fun!". I see "A Reasonably Secure Operating System". I see articles in the press, all the powerful components under the hood. For God's sake I see Edward Snowden endorsing it. It looks like they're selling it.
I go to qubes-os.org/support. I see "They are not your personal, paid support service. No one owes you a reply. No one here is responsible for solving your problems for you.". This sends a mixed message.
Maybe it makes perfect sense to you because you're deep in this world yourself, and it's just "how it works". But then I would argue you're not thinking about the whole goal of Free Software, which is to ultimately replace proprietary software. Free Software was supposed to give you a reasonably replacement of proprietary software. Maybe without all the bells and whistles, but nobody says "and we'll leave you out to dry if nobody feels like helping you".
Imagine, somebody trusted this great, secure operating system. Suddenly something goes wrong. They post on this high volume community support list. Nobody answers. "But I'm in a total jam now. I trusted your operating system." "NOBODY OWES YOU HELP". You're leaving people out to dry with no recourse. I think people are not thinking of this edge case.
Of course you can get paid support, at worst from a third party. That covers my point entirely from a practical standpoint. However this leaves two problems in my mind. 1) Where _is_ the paid technical support option for (for instance) QubesOS? I don't know if it exists. When and if it does, it would be nice for Qubes to at least link to a few options from their support page. 2) The mixed messaging I described above is still a problem in my view. It really sounds like you're telling people "if we find you annoying we will leave you out to dry". You could at least mention the _prospect_ of 3rd party assistance. I think it sends a different message about how this whole ecosystem works.
EDIT: I guess Debian does exactly what I mean: https://www.debian.org/consultants/
cat /etc/debian_version cat /etc/os-releaseThe faq doesn't really answer this in a way that'd let your average user be certain they can install via wifi:
You could also press / and type "download" and it's the first hit.
In fact, there is literally a small white rectangle with light green text that is difficult to read. The rectangle is only filled green if the user happens to mouse over it. Also the box floats well outside the center view of the page-- i.e., the user has to use time and energy to move their eye outside the main text flow to that area. Compare to the Ubuntu front page where the download link is in the flow of the main block of text.
Again, to be literal:
default: unobtrusive box with small text and an icon that has an arrow outlined in a gray-on-a-white-bg so light I can barely see it on my wide LCD screen.
mouseover: box becomes more prominent and text becomes readable
That's the opposite of the style you described.
> You could also press / and type "download" and it's the first hit.
It's funny because the design you are defending is one of the few that breaks the discoverability of Firefox's wonderful realtime search.
FF search is so helpful because a) the text gets highlighted in realtime as the user types and b) FF will jump to a scroll position that brings the current highlighted text into view. Because Debian's unobtrusive download box is outside the main text flow and at the top of the page, the user is unlikely to notice the realtime selection and they don't get the benefit of a scroll jump.
So yes, FF "/" is awesome, but Debian's website somehow finds the way to make it the least effective at revealing that download link to the user.
So, even if it is there it was invisible to me.
Because despite the rapid dismissal from these other yahoos, finding an image with WiFi firmware from the front page is a nightmare maze of wrong links and secret knowledge.
Didn't know you could do that.
(I can't respond to you person responding to me, but I meant that I think cp being able to write a working image directly to a dev was not always true, and people always used dd for that before)
It works only for hybrid ISOs. Not every ISO supports this, although many do.
Search for "debian non-free iso" and you probably will find what you are looking for.
> ...nightmare maze of wrong links and secret knowledge.
Please, don't exaggerate.
The project is explicitly about free software, so you should not be able to walk in the door and casually/accidentally walk out with non-free software. But more importantly, it should be a fairly straightforward process to identify "how many non-free sources did I need to incorporate in order to make my piece of 2004 hardware boot and run acceptably?" vs "how many ... in 2019?"
One of the ideals of the Debian distro is also reproducibility, for reasons I won't go into since it's not particularly relevant, but for anyone who hasn't seen it before already: https://isdebianreproducibleyet.com/
The non-free parts will (potentially, depending on what kind of non-free I guess...) always keep this number under 100%
I love the Debian that Gotham Needs, I've never seen this, and the big red asterisk on "should" handles this concern neatly ;)
And the result is that 99.99% of people can't get 99.99% freedom because of 0.01% of people doubling down on the 0.01% of freedom. I love Debian, but I consider that gatekeeping a great crime against regular people who could be empowered and informed from minimal freedom to nearly total freedom instead of kept out by arcanity and hardlining.
That's why I like the link I posted. Because it says "this will actually work on your computer" AND also informs you about user freedom and the harm of proprietary device drivers.
> Please, don't exaggerate.
Let's perform an exercise, shall we? Starting from www.debian.org, reading from top left to bottom right as the English language is read, how many words must you pass over, how many links must you pass over, which links do you have to click, and how do you know to click those links and not the other ones in order to find an iso that installs on a market standard laptop over WiFi? The decision tree is much deeper than you acknowledge.
I guess you should start with the first link, the one that says "About Debian". There you can know what Debian is about and align your expectations.
If you think it works for you, then go back to www.debian.org and do a ctrl+f and type "download", there is a big button in the top right corner. It is probably what you need (amd64, netinstall).
I mean, I can (and do) manually apt-get the right firmware packages at some point, either popping a shell during install or after first boot, but it is definitely a maze of some kind, especially if you don't know what package contains the firmware you need.
I am a software developer who uses Linux exclusively since about 2000 and has contributed indirectly to Debian.
Last week I wanted to setup Debian on my new work laptop. Naively and without thinking much I downloaded the default image, so the wifi card didn't work.
I was on holiday, abroad with friends. Even with both the buster and testing non-free images the wifi card didn't work.
After three hours (downloading, installing a cd creator on a mac of a friend etc) I got frustrated, downloaded an Ubuntu image and it just worked.
I wouldn't consider reading to be an arduous process.
All the destinations from that page will lead you to images that do not work over wifi on nearly any laptop.
The actual links for the images are small, without weight, in a place that nobody looks for.
What from that soup of letters is your computer's architecture?
Don't understand me wrong, I'm running Debian on all my servers, but on the desktop I'm in love wit the rolling release model.
Is it just to overcome the initial upgrade inertia?
Fine for the laptop, poor for the server farm.
* Knowing which version of the installer you are using, so you know which versions of what are gonna be installed by default, sometimes the installer itself will contain bugfixes (but not always).
* Knowing what is the minimum patchset applied to a system. You can check the etc release files and get a summary of the updates applied, eg.: if you see release 10.2 you will know that at least all of the patches up until 10.2 were applied. This one is very useful if you are debugging a system and want to get an overall idea of how up-to-date it is, if you are debugging a system that it's behind the latest updates, you should always consider that as a possible cause, knowing which is the point release allows you to reduce the diff/bugs you will be looking at.
If you run it on you servers then you know that Debian supports many rolling releases. Experimental, unstable, testing, stable + backports, stable + updates, stable. The difference is how fast they change, ranging from "in front of the bleeding edge" for Experimental to "for the very patient" for stable (and beyond).
This seems to be how Debian does things. There aren't separate projects like kubuntu, lubuntu and whatever. There is just Debian, plus what seems like every Window manager under the sun packaged as "task-kde-desktop" or whatever. And so there isn't the a Debian rolling project. There is just "Debian testing" or whatever, which is well, Debian, but the snapshot is taken at difference times and frequencies of Debian's life cycle.
I didn't want to use backports for a mail server and after the maintainers decided to not patch the SSL bug in the previous release (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=863520) I was afraid they would do the same.
Will my daily "apt update && apt upgrade" get me this?