Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 released
debian.net
debian.net
Unlike Ubuntu, Debian's release cycle is so sporadic (and long) that I often forget they're working on a new release. Needless to say I was surprised and excited by this announcement. Props to the Debian team!
I used to have the same combo but finally switched my desktops to Lenny.
Lenny feels lighter than Ubuntu and it has been interesting to learn how to tweak it to make it as pleasant as Ubuntu.
Sid has also done some odd things in the past couple weeks, such as removing slocate from the repositories. It took me a few minutes to figure out that I ought to switch to mlocate. The primary drawback before that was the delayed security updates – due to the Lenny release process, the Firefox (well, Iceweasel) 3.0.5 upgrade took perhaps two weeks to enter Sid, leaving me with the vulnerable 3.0.4 for the period. Ubuntu seems to offer swifter updates.
A minimal install of Ubuntu is very nearly as lightweight as Debian. It provides a stable base and a clearer upgrade path than Sid, albeit at the cost of packages that are behind the cutting edge. Security updates for any packages in Ubuntu's main repository seem more timely than for those in Debian Sid; however, a great many lesser-used packages in Ubuntu's universe repository get no security support at all. Overall, given the issues I suffered when mixing bleeding-edge packages from Debian's Experimental with a Sid-based system, I believe Ubuntu is a better fit for my needs.
Regardless of which I settle on, both are a great deal more fun than Gentoo, which I ran for five years before switching to Sid in September. The novelty of being able to upgrade all packages in five minutes instead of fifteen hours still fills me with joy.
Testing is also a rolling release, but you've got one more level of protection in unstable for serious stuff to get worked out before packages get to you. There is also a useful tool called apt-listbugs which will display information about serious bugs during the upgrade process before packages are upgraded and allow you one last chance to abort the upgrade.
It's pretty commonly thought in the Debian community that if you're running Debian on a desktop system (as opposed to a server) then there isn't much reason not to run testing.
I will continue to track the new testing in due time. I'm kind of going to miss Lenny though. :)
But as I got busier on my own development projects I stated to dislike the occasional issues that would pop up here or there and take my attention away from what I was really interesting in. Hence why I am now using testing with as little pulled from unstable as possible (usually that means nothing pulled from unstable).
I still like to contribute in my own little way, filing/helping with bug reports on the testing release. Just recently I was pleased to be able to assist the fglrx-driver maintainer (and myself) with testing a fix for a reported bug.
If I wasn't so busy, I'd probably still be running unstable, it's still more stable than a lot of distros out there. :)
I know, anecdote != data, but that's my experience with it.
Oh! OpenJDK is now included as well. This just gets better and better.
They have different release strategies, Debian focuses on stability and security as a Server orientated distribution. Ubuntu on the other hand has a strong commitment twoards the user desktop segment. Both is fine, I mean Ubuntu is basically just Debian with faster release cycles (and they like to taint their Kernel). (sorry for the oversimplification)
If you prefer more uptodate Software from the Debian side, please try testing, unstable and experimental. For the totally impatient there is e.g. Backports, Sidux and many more. Cross-pinning (mixing of Debian and Ubuntu is possible too.) Don't know how far Ubutnutu (or how ever you write that project name) has come.
"Use unstable" is a bad argument. Sure, it doesn't break most of the time, but it can and does. You can't base a business on that kind of thing.
Also, there is nothing inherently 'server' or 'desktop' about Ubuntu or Debian - the first may put some resources into improving the desktop experience, but the good patches eventually flow back to Debian, as it's all open source. And Ubuntu makes for a fine server, too.
The GPL issues, e.g. firefox->iceweasel naming issue etc. are really nitpicking I concurr, but that happens when you have your own constitution :).
You can base a business on Ubuntu? I actually don't know, it would be very interesting to hear advice from somebody who really knows Ubuntu and Debian very well. I mean have extensive Debian experience but Ubuntu rather little. Could you give me some advice on that?
I mean I have been working with Debian since forever and I know my way around. What do you e.g. mean with "doesn't break most of the time"? I haven't encountered anything even when using experimental which gives me too much headache. At least when I switch from apt-get'ing to aptitude for some rather weird dependency issues.
Than on the other hand your argument is that I want to base my business on that. If I really want to do that, why would I pick so new software anyway? (I read bugtraq, fd etc. that is a bad idea as far as I understand.) That screams for a xen/vserver based solution where I run my host system in a stable (very stable) environment and control my unsecure systems via virtualization. Or is that a bad idea?
Anyway, thanks for your insights.
The "just use unstable/experimental" thing is fine if you have no memory of really big transitions... libc5 -> glibc6, for instance, caused a lot of breakage. There are no guarantees that that kind of thing won't happen again. Using unstable is fine if you're a hacker and don't mind helping out when something goes awry - I'm glad people do that, and did it myself at one time. But if you're not in a position to drop what you're doing to go chase down some obscure bug in a package, then perhaps unstable should be approached with caution.
Ubuntu and Debian really aren't that different - file layouts, tools... pretty much everything is the same. Which is good... it makes Ubuntu Debian + money for usability improvements + a more unified vision + a regular release schedule.
Oh, another thing I like with Ubuntu is that I can run exactly the same code on my laptop and server, which has proved to be quite convenient more than once.
Debian is fantastic though... if Ubuntu ever falters, I will go back without a second thought. They get a ton of things right and do great work.
Indeed. I have used Debian Unstable as my desktop OS forever, and it's wonderful. It does not break nearly as often as you might guess by the name. (Maybe once a year.)
It certainly breaks less than Ubuntu, although I got rid of my last Ubuntu machine about a year ago.
I know many people who run sid (unstable) on their (desk|lap)tops. It has all the power of debian and apt, without the long release cycle.
http://www.debian.net/releases/lenny/i386/release-notes/ch-w...
What makes you say that?
I'm runing production servers which are 64-bit FC10 based systems onder the Xen 3.3 with kernels from CentOS.
Resent Fedora lacks support of 64bit dom0, but CentOS has it. xen-hypervisor I'm using is from FC11.
So, I have fresh developer tools along with latest Xen and very stable and well-tested kernel. It works pretty good.
Linux is like Lego, not like Windows.
When you selecting CentOS you're reusing Fedora's and then RHEL's release circles and time of their gurus.
Fedora is an bleeding edge distro, for rapid integration and testing, while RHEL is Fedora-based commercially supported by RedHat system.
CentOS is a repackaging of the RHEL's sources.
Oracle reusing RHEL for its Unbreakable Linux. Why wouldn't you?