Debian flamewar (was: OpenOffice doc...)

[Neil Joseph Schelly]

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 11:24 pm, Benjamin Scott wrote:
>   If I have 3 packages, A, B, and C, I need to test A with B, A with C, and
> B with C -- 3 interactions.  If I have 4 packages -- A, B, C, and D -- I
> need to test A with each of B, C, and D, and B with each of C and D, and C
> with D: 6 interactions.  Here's a table:
Similarly, most packages don't rely on more packages.  So another maintainer 
responsible for another package means he or she will do what is necessary to 
keep track of its dependencies and that will be the same number of 
dependencies as most apps, namely just one or two.  Your example assumes that 
all packages interfere or interact with all others and that's unnecssary 
complexity.  Anyway, I'm not a math guy and this is a null argument here 
anyway.  

> > It really doesn't take too long for decent packages to hit Sarge now (or
> > for the last year really).
>
>   Exactly my point.  testing and unstable are moving targets.  It's in
> flux. To test something, it needs to be *unchanging*.  Once it's tested,
> you can't change it again, or you have to test again.  Since packages build
> on one another, you have a real hard time getting a release out.  That's
> why woody is two-and-a-half years old at this point.  While Red Hat's
> offerings are definitely of a lower quality then Debian, is woody *three
> years worth of testing* better?  Hell no.  You're way past the point of
> diminishing returns.
Testing doesn't change significantly that fast.  And by the time stable is 
outdated, testing is good enough that it can be safely used instead.  For 
servers, you can still stick to stable unless there's something you need in 
testing, but so close to the next stable release (as Debian is now), I would 
feel fine with Testing running in production.  And when Testing is 
unreliable, that means a new Stable has just been released that will be 
modern enough for at least a year for all intents and purposes... especially 
in a business environment where the latest/greatest toys aren't necessary.

>   Right, but now I just can't type "apt-get install foo" and magically have
> everything work.  And one will quite quickly get into the "dependency hell"
> that people are all too quick to blame on RPM.
I do this all the time for this or that package on my KnoppMyth install and 
haven't run into a problem yet.  And it pulls from lots of different 
locations.  Sure, I have to reboot every couple of weeks or so, but that's 
more or less because MythTV is only at version 0.16 (or I think 0.17 was just 
released).  It's not because of conflicts and I haven't had any trouble with 
conflicts when I've installed new things with APT.

>   And I get this kernel how...?  :)
>
>   Cool.  Wanna tell me how I use it?  I've got Debian 3.0r2 images on my
> hard disk.  (I see 3.0r4 is out now, but they keep telling me not much has
> changed...)  I've attempted installs of this Debian before, but my HD is
When you get to the bootup, there's a choice of kernels and you choose the 
bf24 one for a 2.4 kernel rather than a 2.2 kernel.  I'll admit the old 
installer wasn't pretty for reasons like this, but the new one kicks ass.  If 
you're installing to play, you may want to consider Sarge CDs. For Woody 
though, if you wait long enough for the installation to start it will, but if 
you look at the boot options, you'll see that just typing bf24 will start 
with a newer kernel.

>   The Debian zealots I know have been telling me the installer is going to
> get much better Real Soon Now for over five years.  You'll pardon me if I
> don't hold my breath.  :)
It is.  It's not coming soon - it's here.  Download a Sarge ISO and see for 
yourself.  If you're looking for a GUI, then you'll still be disappointed, 
but I don't care about eye candy for something I see so rarely.  It's quick 
and very straightforward and very simple now though.  The advanced 
functionality of the old one still seems to be there, but you just don't need 
it anymore.

>
>   Sure.  How do I install it?  In the past, I've been told the way to
> install it is to install stable and then "apt-get dist-upgrade" (I think
> that was the command).  See above.  :)
You could... I'd just download a Sarge ISO.

> > I don't really see anyone doing anything better than APT, even on a large
> > scale here.
>
>   Read my keystokes: It's not the frelling package manager.  :-)
>
>   Configuration management is completely hopeless if one's configuration
> varies depending on when you happened to pull your package set from
> testing/unstable/sarge/sid/pixar/whatever.
Why does it depend on that?  Configuration is very reliable in all releases of 
Debian I've found over the years.  It doesn't change and often makes a lot 
more sense than other distros I've used.  Although that is likely as much a 
"what you're used to" thing than anything else.

> > As for deploying hundreds of machines, I have no idea how that's
> > connected to choice of distro ...                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   Exactly my point.  :-)
Well, I'm lost then.  What was your point?  You brought up this idea of Debian 
being inappropriate for large installations, presumably because something 
else does that kind of thing better?  I don't imagine there's a better 
solution than maintaining a local repository and letting everyone 
(non-mission-critical anyway, which I would never do automatic) auto-update 
from it.  That's very trivial to do with Debian or Red Hat or centOS or I'd 
assume any modern distro.  Hence my question about how this has to do with 
choice of distro?

-N