
Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 released - dimm
http://www.debian.net/News/2009/20090214.en.html
======
sant0sk1
Debian is 1/2 of my Linux power combo. Debian servers, Ubuntu desktops. Love
it.

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!

~~~
likpok
If you want a reasonable release cycle, without the drool-proofing of ubuntu,
try Debian sid. It's the unstable branch, and gets rolling updates and the
like. It is also reasonably stable.

~~~
mickt
It's usually reasonably stable, but occasionally there will be severe breakage
when major components are being updated and reach the repo's at different
times. This happens more with X, Gnome, KDE ... but sometimes when major
system libraries are upgraded bad things can happen.

~~~
jonny_noog
For me, testing is the sweet spot. I have run a mixed Lenny/Sid (mostly Lenny,
with the occasional package pulled from unstable, currently it's all Lenny)
for a long time now and not yet had a serious issue that was not my own fault.

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. :)

~~~
mickt
Sometimes it's fun to be on the "bleeding edge", such as when KDE4 first went
from experimental to unstable. Plus, it benefits Debian as they've more users
testing potentially breaking packages and filing bug-reports.

~~~
jonny_noog
I used to run unstable for a while and it was by and large still more than
stable enough for general use, regardless of its name.

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. :)

------
LogicHoleFlaw
I'm glad to see SELinux finally available as standard. This is one thing I've
been missing as part of my security hardening on my Debian servers. It gives
better peace of mind.

Oh! OpenJDK is now included as well. This just gets better and better.

------
jrockway
This is good because it means unstable will be unfrozen again. Hopefully we
will have linux-2.6.28 and ghc-6.10 in unstable soon :)

------
nuclear_eclipse
Wow: another full release cycle of KDE 3.5 in Debian. At this rate KDE 5 will
be out before Debian ships KDE 4 by default...

~~~
Bjoern
Please don't misunderstand or compare Debian with Ubuntu. (at least I have the
feeling that people do this nowadays because Ubuntu is so popular).

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.

~~~
davidw
Ubuntu's "strategy" is that they release every 6 months, and do a long term
support release every few years. I am not sure those are the ideal numbers to
use (6 months is short), but on the whole, I think I prefer that approach to
Debian's "we'll release...sometime... if we're not debating how many GPL's fit
on the head of a pin". Debian is excellent, and I started maintaining a few
packages for it in 1997, but my involvement has waned to pretty much nothing,
and these days I'm a mostly happy Ubuntu user.

"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.

~~~
Bjoern
Defining a good release strategy for everybody is difficult I suppose. You
can't make everybody happy, because the intersection of interests from
Server/Desktop people is just different I think. Of course Debian's rather
slow release strategy is not so great either, which if I understand correctly
was one of the factors why Ubuntu could grow in the first place?

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.

~~~
davidw
Debian is not just slow, but slow and irregular with their releases. There's
nothing that says "about every 2 years" or "let's try for once every 18
months" or something like that. It happens when it happens. That can be kind
of maddening. With Ubuntu you have the choice to either grab on to the every-
six-months version, or use the long term support version.

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.

------
raamdev
Official release announcement: <http://debian.org/News/2009/20090214>

------
alnayyir
Does anyone know of any major changes in this version?

~~~
reitzensteinm
There's a link to release notes on the page, a few clicks in is probably what
you're looking for:

[http://www.debian.net/releases/lenny/i386/release-
notes/ch-w...](http://www.debian.net/releases/lenny/i386/release-notes/ch-
whats-new.en.html)

------
c00p3r
It if for hobbyists, I think. It cannot compete with ubuntu as desktop,
because of money, and it is ridiculous as server compared to CentOS.

~~~
critic
> it is ridiculous as server compared to CentOS.

What makes you say that?

~~~
psadauskas
I'd like to know, too. We use CentOS 5 for servers, and I hate it because
anytime I want to do anything interesting, we have to compile stuff from
source to get anything recent enough. (Ruby, Git, etc...)

~~~
c00p3r
Ruby, git, etc - is a very portable userland packages. It means they almost
independed from an OS. It means you can focus on the quality of the OS, while
fresh user tools can be _easily_ backported from bleeding edge distros like
Fedora.

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.

