Debian flamewar (was: OpenOffice doc...)

[Neil Joseph Schelly]

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 12:42 am, Benjamin Scott wrote:
>   Hah!  You didn't expect a calm, reasoned approach to actually stop a good
> flamewar, did you?  :-)
My bad...

> > The single-large repository part is what's important.  It takes a little
> > longer to unify configuration ...
>
>   No, it takes a **LOT** longer.  If the number of components in a
> Configuration Management scenario is N, then the number of potential
> interactions is (N^2)-N.  Think about that for a minute.
I don't buy that.  It takes a LOT longer for it to hit stable, but by that 
time it's ludicrously rock solid.  Usually, the cutting edge stuff can't 
really be that stable upstream, so you use testing anyway if you want the 
latest desktop or something.  It really doesn't take too long for decent 
packages to hit Sarge now (or for the last year really).

>   It would make a *lot* more sense to get some kind of "base system"
> configured, tested, and released first.  Then the people working on the
> base system could move on to hacking on the next release, while the people
> responsible for things like X11 or whatever could get *their* stuff
This assumes they are too slow, but I don't feel too limited by that release 
cycle anyway.  There's an appropriate Debian release for every machine out 
there, 90% of the time.  The exception I see is servers near the end of a 
Stable lifecycle (ie now).  If you're making a server now, it would be 
preferable to have MySQL4, Apache2, Exim4, etc, but those aren't in Stable.  
I don't think Potato had this many new revolutions in primary server packages 
during it's reign as stable, so Woody is getting a little dated I think for 
some server installs.

>   As soon as you switch to a "spin-off", you lose the benefit of the huge
> Debian repository.
Not true.  KnoppMyth does a great job of running my TV.  And they manage their 
own repository (in addition to the Debian testing/unstable ones and a few 
others).  If I really want, I can install anything from there, but then 
again, I don't need that on my TV.  If I needed the full repositories, then a 
spin-off wasn't the right choice I'd say.  

> > Once more, servers don't need the latest greatest KDE and Gnome ...
>
>   No, but it would be nice if they could install.  At this point in time,
> the current stable is so badly out-of-date that I can't even depend on it
> to see most of the mass storage devices I work with.
That's sorta what I said above, but a different kernel, even for the install, 
is rather painless and can fix your storage problems.  I've installed stable 
on a system with only a MegaRaid controller in it.  The install kernel is 2.2 
and typically doesn't support this, but there's an optional 2.4 kernel on the 
install for this kind of stuff.   On that note, I've been through the new 
installer a few times and while I never minded the old one much, the new one 
is really slick.

> >  Sarge will be out soon and magically, those will be available.
>
>   Yah, I get that a lot every time I try Debian.  "The next release will be
> out Real Soon Now."  I believe that like I believe Red Hat claiming their
> QA process eliminates most of the major bugs prior to release.
In this case, it will.  They're down to something like 60 release-critical 
bugs.  Within a few months, I think it'll be released.  But if you want that 
functionality, it's effectively available now.  It's not like you have to 
wait for it's "release" to use it.

> > And as for non-servers, just use Testing.  It's stable enough for any
> > desktop.
>
>   Further evidence that Debian zealots lack any concept of Configuration
> Management.  :-)
I don't really see anyone doing anything better than APT, even on a large 
scale here.
>
>   In the world I work in, "just use testing/unstable/etc." is not an
> acceptable answer.  I like to say that CM is basically taking the aphorism
> "Better the devil you know" and turning it into a science.  When you're
> deploying tens, hundreds, or even thousands of computers, you need to be
> able to keep track of what is where, and when.
Stable/Testing/Unstable are just names.  If you don't like them called that, 
then call them Woody/Sarge/Sid.  If you feel safer that way, go for it.  It's 
just semantics.  As for deploying hundreds of machines, I have no idea how 
that's connected to choice of distro, so I'll leave it alone, though I'm 
curious about this as a potential future topic for discussion.

> > And apt-source is an awesome source management tool.
>
>   Hmmm, I don't think that existed the last time I looked.  Hmmmm, I can't
> seem to find info on it now, in an admittedly very cursory search.  Got a
> link?
tab-completion has ruined my memory.  apt-src is the package.  That should 
yield more interesting searches.

-N