Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On 2015-03-10, Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/10/2015 04:53 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 10 March 2015 03:53:29 Sivaram Neelakantan wrote: all I want is the One True Directive(TM) Ubuntu?? ;-) Sorry, Sivaram. But this is Debian. People don't usually use Debian if they want the One True Directive! We all have different opinions. A lot depends on which version you are using, and how very much it would matter if something went wrong. For Jessie, at present, I just use: # aptitude update # aptitude safe-upgrade # aptitude full-upgrade And that is because Jessie is still Testing and I don't do it often enough, so there are a lot of updates when I do do it. For fewer updates, so always for Wheezy, I just do: # aptitude update # aptitude full-upgrade *So* *far* my systems have not blown up in my face. Only you can know what you will feel comfortable with. I believe in KISS. Some people are only happy with complication. I am only mildly paranoid. Some people are paralytic with paranoia. I'm afraid you have to choose your own degree of paranoia and find out what you are comfortable with. But if you want to be told what to do, and told the same thing by everybody, don't use Debian!! That is the wisest thing I've ever read on the Internet! :) Ric Ha! I agree. And a variation would be: But if you want to be told what to do, and told the same thing by everybody, don't use ask questions on this list! -- Liam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnmfueuh.bd3.liam.p.otoole@dipsy.tubbynet
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Brian wrote: But what do we think about this as a procedure? [1] apt-get update apt-get -y upgrade aptitude -y upgrade apt-get -y dist-upgrade aptitude -y dist-upgrade apt-get -y autoremove I first see that and it shocks me somewhat. I didn't understand why there would be a recommendation to use apt-get and aptitude one after the other. Usually those are alternatives and so it would be one or the other. I go look at the bug you referenced and read the discussion. My comments further down. I wouldn't ever recommend dist-upgrade -y. It just might produce a bad solution and will then want to remove everything. Just recently on 2015-02-28 my Sid system tried for the new perl packages. Due to some issue the upgrade surrounding libcommon-sense-perl wanted to remove everything associated with perl on my system. I needed to wait for the next archive update before it was settled. It just isn't safe for an automated upgrade. It is possible to configure apt specifically with APT::Get::Remove false to avoid this but that would get in the way of normal use of apt. Running upgrade -y with is fine. I don't see a way to get in trouble with it. This illustrates one of the reasons I think 'upgrade' is still very valuable even when also needing to run dist-upgrade. You can fire off upgrade -y without fear or nervousness. Then when running dist-upgrade the problem is simpler and the review of the actions is also much simpler. When asked about it the response was [1]: First apt-get upgrade does the easy upgrades. Then aptitude upgrade does the slightly harder upgrades (new packages). Then apt-get dist-upgrade does the easy dist-upgrades. Then aptitude dist-upgrade does the harder dist-upgrades where manual intervention via the GUI might be needed. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780028 I have these thoughts about it. But I am rushed and didn't spend a huge amount of time with a considered opinion. 1. I don't think it *should* be needed to run aptitude after having run apt-get. The goal of those programs is to be equivalent in end result. They are completely different however and might not actually accomplish the same result. I think if it is then it is simply an accident that exists at this moment in time and won't be necessary in previous or later releases. 2. The only times I have seen the need for running one of aptitude or apt-get instead of the other one was due to bugs and deficiencies in the solution engine. Time goes by. People have improved both since the last round of issues that I remember. In a previous Debian release aptitude had been recommended due to this. Time passed and code changes were implemented all around. Now it is back to being the reverse. In many ways friendly competition here helps both. 3. Having read the bug discussion I see they are concerned about what appears to me to be the accidental solution result of the two to be different in that particular case. (Which I don't want to mention because I don't want to rathole into that topic here and just mentioning it would.) I didn't see it as a general issue either way. 4. My understanding (possibly flawed) is that aptitude's upgrade is a dist-upgrade. And therefore they have undocumented use of aptitude upgrade in order to discourage it. I thought they only documented and recommend aptitude safe-upgrade or aptitude full-upgrade these days. Therefore the above doesn't match best practices for aptitude. In order to get the apt-get upgrade behavior out of aptitude I think it is aptitude --no-new-installs safe-upgrade. Having done aptitude upgrade I think the following apt-get dist-upgrade won't ever have any work to do. Or if it does then it is a deficiency of aptitude. 5. It looked to me to be more of a cargo cult science rather than real science. I think they were simply trying to cover all possibilities by doing both with the thinking of how could one go wrong if you used both? Bottom line is that I think people that prefer apt-get (like me) would say that only apt-get is necessary and will write the recipe to only use apt-get. People that prefer aptitude will say that only aptitude is necessary and will write the recipe to only use aptitude. I think that is fine. Friendly competition of features between the tools can be a win for the user. For the most part I expect either to be interchangeable with the other. I would like to see a two recipe solution where one uses apt-get and one uses aptitude. I think they would be equivalent to each other. Full disclosure is that I prefer apt-get over aptitude. Speed and performance is one reason since apt-get is a lot faster. However for people who like to manually shape the solution and have spent the time to learn the tool I can see aptitude being very good for them. I have not invested the time to learn aptitude's interactive interface. Using apt-get produces the same result of crafting
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On 03/04/2015 09:33 PM, Ken Heard wrote: In the next month or so I will have to do a clean OS installation in two desktops. Jessie is now frozen (Debian's contribution to retarding global warming?); and there are apparently fewer RC bugs at this point after the freeze than there were at the same point in time after the freezing of previous releases. I see that RC1 of Jessie is now available. I would consequently appreciate opinions as to whether Jessie is now or will be by mid April sufficiently stable for such installations, or should I install Wheezy instead and upgrade to Jessie when it is officially declared stable? I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or less. Perhaps when I get around to those installations there may be a further RC release of Jessie? Regards, Ken I've been using Jessie for about 6 months to a year now (as my main OS). First few months were shaky, getting everything setup and there were some bugs, but lately its been even more stable than my other laptop which runs Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. So *IMO*, yes, Jessie is a good option for an everyday desktop. ~Joris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On 03/10/2015 08:52 AM, Ken Heard wrote: I just want a tidy ship and all I want is the One True Directive(TM). Is such a thing possible it IT? This is not, but there no one true. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fe95be.7000...@rktmb.org
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Tuesday 10 March 2015 03:53:29 Sivaram Neelakantan wrote: all I want is the One True Directive(TM) Ubuntu?? ;-) Sorry, Sivaram. But this is Debian. People don't usually use Debian if they want the One True Directive! We all have different opinions. A lot depends on which version you are using, and how very much it would matter if something went wrong. For Jessie, at present, I just use: # aptitude update # aptitude safe-upgrade # aptitude full-upgrade And that is because Jessie is still Testing and I don't do it often enough, so there are a lot of updates when I do do it. For fewer updates, so always for Wheezy, I just do: # aptitude update # aptitude full-upgrade *So* *far* my systems have not blown up in my face. Only you can know what you will feel comfortable with. I believe in KISS. Some people are only happy with complication. I am only mildly paranoid. Some people are paralytic with paranoia. I'm afraid you have to choose your own degree of paranoia and find out what you are comfortable with. But if you want to be told what to do, and told the same thing by everybody, don't use Debian!! Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503100853.17356.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On 03/10/2015 04:53 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 10 March 2015 03:53:29 Sivaram Neelakantan wrote: all I want is the One True Directive(TM) Ubuntu?? ;-) Sorry, Sivaram. But this is Debian. People don't usually use Debian if they want the One True Directive! We all have different opinions. A lot depends on which version you are using, and how very much it would matter if something went wrong. For Jessie, at present, I just use: # aptitude update # aptitude safe-upgrade # aptitude full-upgrade And that is because Jessie is still Testing and I don't do it often enough, so there are a lot of updates when I do do it. For fewer updates, so always for Wheezy, I just do: # aptitude update # aptitude full-upgrade *So* *far* my systems have not blown up in my face. Only you can know what you will feel comfortable with. I believe in KISS. Some people are only happy with complication. I am only mildly paranoid. Some people are paralytic with paranoia. I'm afraid you have to choose your own degree of paranoia and find out what you are comfortable with. But if you want to be told what to do, and told the same thing by everybody, don't use Debian!! That is the wisest thing I've ever read on the Internet! :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54feb2b1.8030...@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Sun 08 Mar 2015 at 00:58:29 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: Brian wrote: The Wheezy point releases have no BIND9 updates so, without searching further, I am unable to check that new libraries were installed. Even if they were they would be from stable, which is ok. This was a recent BIND9 upgrade in Wheezy on 18 Feb 2015. https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3162 The BIND package is actually a combined set of libraries plus executables. They don't have a stable API. Therefore the entire bundle always needs to be updated. The libraries have the version number encoded in the name. Therefore it requires dist-upgrade in order to handle installing bind security releases. Thank you for the explanation. It requires very little effort to extend separate upgrade and dist-upgrade steps to stable so I for one will strongly consider moving in that direction. But what do we think about this as a procedure? [1] apt-get update apt-get -y upgrade aptitude -y upgrade apt-get -y dist-upgrade aptitude -y dist-upgrade apt-get -y autoremove When asked about it the response was [1]: First apt-get upgrade does the easy upgrades. Then aptitude upgrade does the slightly harder upgrades (new packages). Then apt-get dist-upgrade does the easy dist-upgrades. Then aptitude dist-upgrade does the harder dist-upgrades where manual intervention via the GUI might be needed. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780028 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/09032015231100.51cf187da...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2015-03-10 10:53, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote: As someone who is a deb newbie following these posts, can the gurus make up their collective minds and let forth the mantra invocation that I need to invoke? ;) I just want a tidy ship and all I want is the One True Directive(TM). Is such a thing possible it IT? Regards, Ken -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlT+hqYACgkQlNlJzOkJmTdHrQCdGK0XWtWALIXnVhopScM+5L97 Nk8AniaPxj90nWuGMqGy49f3+T0YTi0j =3/b2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fe86a6.60...@teksavvy.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Mon, Mar 09 2015,Brian wrote: On Sun 08 Mar 2015 at 00:58:29 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: [snipped 20 lines] But what do we think about this as a procedure? [1] apt-get update apt-get -y upgrade aptitude -y upgrade apt-get -y dist-upgrade aptitude -y dist-upgrade apt-get -y autoremove When asked about it the response was [1]: First apt-get upgrade does the easy upgrades. Then aptitude upgrade does the slightly harder upgrades (new packages). Then apt-get dist-upgrade does the easy dist-upgrades. Then aptitude dist-upgrade does the harder dist-upgrades where manual intervention via the GUI might be needed. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780028 As someone who is a deb newbie following these posts, can the gurus make up their collective minds and let forth the mantra invocation that I need to invoke? ;) I just want a tidy ship and all I want is the One True Directive(TM). sivaram -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87h9ttcxty@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Brian wrote:
The Wheezy point releases have no BIND9 updates so, without searching
further, I am unable to check that new libraries were installed. Even
if they were they would be from stable, which is ok.
This was a recent BIND9 upgrade in Wheezy on 18 Feb 2015.
https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3162
The BIND package is actually a combined set of libraries plus
executables. They don't have a stable API. Therefore the entire
bundle always needs to be updated. The libraries have the version
number encoded in the name. Therefore it requires dist-upgrade in
order to handle installing bind security releases.
root@despair:/tmp# debdiff bind9_9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3_i386.deb
bind9_9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4_i386.deb
File lists identical (after any substitutions)
Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
Depends: libbind9-80 (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-]
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} libc6 (= 2.4), libcap2 (= 2.10), libdns88
(= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+}
libgssapi-krb5-2 (= 1.6.dfsg.2), libisc84 (=
[-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+}
libisccc80 (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-]
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} libisccfg82 (=
[-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+}
liblwres80 (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-]
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} libssl1.0.0 (= 1.0.0), libxml2 (= 2.7.4),
debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, netbase, adduser, lsb-base (= 3.2-14),
bind9utils (= [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3),-]
{+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4),+} net-tools
Installed-Size: [-811-] {+936+}
Version: [-1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u3-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg.P1-6+nmu2+deb7u4+}
Sometimes other things sneak in too. At one time a jpeg library
release linked against another newer library than it had originally
been released with and therefore required a new library that it really
shouldn't have needed. I recall submitting a bug and it was simply
closed.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Sat 07 Mar 2015 at 09:14:31 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: Well, yes and no. -- Yes: Typical desktop operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS), and applications, call home periodically to check for updates, Debian doesn't work like that unless it is configured to do so. but, -- No: --- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis --- this is particularly true in server and system environments, that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to break application software (as it quite often does) Breakage in Debian in this regard does not appear to be common. Do you have an example? Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you that stable is a pretty well understood concept. It's the point at which: -- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed -- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been relatively well hardened Sounds like Debian stable. There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary. Sounds like Debian stable. I hope we are not going to quibble about how many months there are in months at a time. To me, a stable system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at a time, if at all; except in the cases of: -- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s featurea Sounds like Debian stable. -- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability Sounds like Debian stable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/07032015194311.969134aaa...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 18:26:46 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: Brian wrote: Patrick Bartek wrote: FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. It isn't one or the other. You need both. They do different things and for different reasons. A normal daily cycle for me on any sytem is usually this sequence. Note that I am using both 'etckeeper' and have backups and thefore have no fear of purging an /etc configuration that I might want to refer to again later. Therefore I always purge instead of remove to keep the system clean. 1. apt-get update 2. apt-get upgrade 3. apt-get dist-upgrade 4. apt-get autoremove --purge 5. apt-get clean 6. reportbug --ui=text brokenpackage [Snip] On a Stable sytem 99.44% of the time only 1 and 2 are needed and I stop there and jump to clean and then stop. But every BIND9 security upgrade for example always pulls in new libraries and can't be upgraded in place. Therefore after the upgrade if there are packages still pending then I proceed through dist-upgrade and the rest. I strongly recommend using upgrade first followed by dist-upgrade. Hopefully reportbug is only rarely needed on Stable. I agree with the general principal expressed in 1, 2 and 3. However, it was stable which was the focus of my remark and we could have something to learn from this as to how upgrades on it work. The Wheezy point releases have no BIND9 updates so, without searching further, I am unable to check that new libraries were installed. Even if they were they would be from stable, which is ok. (I hope there are no shenanagins with backports. which is not part of a stable release). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/07032015192747.bd4101762...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote: Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote: Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. As far a Debian is concerned, you have the incorrect definition of stable. With Debin Stable means unchanging, without serious bugs, not less prone to crash. It's confusing, I agree. I wish a different term had been chosen. I think the question was quite clear as to meaning - the OP asked is Jessie (i.e., Debian stable), stable (in the plain English use of the word) enough for general use. Not confusing at all. In my reply to the OP (not the one above to you), I said that Jessie, even as an RC1, was suitable for general use. But that daily update/dist-upgrades were necessary to keep it so as it made its way toward Stable. FWIW, the Jessie Beta1 I installed (terminal only) in a VM months ago has had no problems. And I've dist-upgraded it only twice. I've even converted it to sysvinit. Not even a hiccup. My intent was to ultimately convert to runit and runitinit for testing, but only installed runit. No problems. As far as runitinit, that conversion's been on the backburner for weeks. [snip] B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150307095123.02f36...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote: Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. As far a Debian is concerned, you have the incorrect definition of stable. With Debin Stable means unchanging, without serious bugs, not less prone to crash. It's confusing, I agree. I wish a different term had been chosen. I think the question was quite clear as to meaning - the OP asked is Jessie (i.e., Debian stable), stable (in the plain English use of the word) enough for general use. Not confusing at all. Security and bug fixes are a part of every OS and app. I update my system database daily, that is I check daily for any fixes. Some do so weekly. In any case, this may require upgrading, i.e. something new is installed replacing something old that needs the fix, about every week or two. Sometimes, it can be one tiny library; other times it can be a dozen system files, including the kernel. Well, yes and no. -- Yes: Typical desktop operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS), and applications, call home periodically to check for updates, but, -- No: --- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis --- this is particularly true in server and system environments, that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to break application software (as it quite often does) Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you that stable is a pretty well understood concept. It's the point at which: -- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed -- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been relatively well hardened There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary. To me, a stable system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at a time, if at all; except in the cases of: -- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s feature -- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fb07c7.1070...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:26:46 -0700 Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com wrote: On a Sid Unstable system there are a lot of transitions. Running dist-upgrade only mostly works but sometimes the transitions and other noise confuse APT and it wants to take a different path than we want it to take. Such as to remove everything. Running upgrade first upgrades everything that can be upgraded without removing anything or adding anything. Then the subsequent dist-upgrade has a simpler solution to find and will usually do the right thing. I would add here that a Sid system which is only occasionally upgraded can present aptitude with a serious problem, which can hang it for hours (I lost patience, but it might have succeeded in the end) so I'd recommend apt-get in this situation. -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150307094818.0c4f6...@jresid.jretrading.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Brian wrote: On Sat 07 Mar 2015 at 09:14:31 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: Well, yes and no. -- Yes: Typical desktop operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS), and applications, call home periodically to check for updates, Debian doesn't work like that unless it is configured to do so. Duh The recommendation made here is, however, to do daily update. but, -- No: --- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis --- this is particularly true in server and system environments, that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to break application software (as it quite often does) Breakage in Debian in this regard does not appear to be common. Do you have an example? Can't think of a specific example, but it's fairly common to install a package, and find that it pulls in lots of dependencies. Perl applications come to mind as particularly finicky about requires version xxx or higher of package yyy. Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you that stable is a pretty well understood concept. It's the point at which: -- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed -- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been relatively well hardened Sounds like Debian stable. Does, doesn't it. Though... I've yet to find a stable version of anything (Debian included) that's really wrung out in its initial release. And, I'll repeat, if folks are recommending daily updates to Jessie, then it doesn't sound all that stable to me. There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary. Sounds like Debian stable. I hope we are not going to quibble about how many months there are in months at a time. I'll repeat - not if folks are saying it needs daily updates. To me, a stable system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at a time, if at all; except in the cases of: -- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s featurea Sounds like Debian stable. Same again. -- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability Sounds like Debian stable. Same again. Which brings us back to the OP's original question, paraphrased slightly: Is Jessie stable? (In either the plain English, or the Debian sense of the word.) To me, I'd answer that two ways: - by the Debian definition, Jessie is testing - hence explicitly NOT stable - by the plain English definition - if it needs daily updating, then it's NOT stable enough for general use Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fb6b4f.3050...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net) in a previous posting: I think the question was quite clear as to meaning - the OP asked is Jessie (i.e., Debian stable), stable (in the plain English use of the word) enough for general use. Not confusing at all. Jessie is not Debian stable. Wheezy is Debian stable. Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net): Brian wrote: On Sat 07 Mar 2015 at 09:14:31 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: --- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis --- this is particularly true in server and system environments, that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to break application software (as it quite often does) Breakage in Debian in this regard does not appear to be common. Do you have an example? Can't think of a specific example, but it's fairly common to install a package, and find that it pulls in lots of dependencies. Perl applications come to mind as particularly finicky about requires version xxx or higher of package yyy. That's why Debian stable and Debian oldstable have such old versions of software, and the exceptions (like browsers, see 5.2 in https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-information.html ) have no role on servers. Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you that stable is a pretty well understood concept. It's the point at which: -- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed -- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been relatively well hardened Sounds like Debian stable. Does, doesn't it. Though... I've yet to find a stable version of anything (Debian included) that's really wrung out in its initial release. And, I'll repeat, if folks are recommending daily updates to Jessie, then it doesn't sound all that stable to me. Jessie is Debian testing and is frozen. Maintainers should be releasing bugfixes thick and fast. Unless you update regularly, you won't know about them and unless you upgrade regularly, you won't get the benefits. Because new versions of software are excluded and bugfixes are being made, then the distribution should only improve with time. So if the OP is running non-servers (he said desktops), and he's happy with the comments from satisfied users of jessie, then I would suggest that sufficiently stable for such installations has little to do with your meaning of stable, and nothing to do with Debian's. There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary. Sounds like Debian stable. I hope we are not going to quibble about how many months there are in months at a time. I'll repeat - not if folks are saying it needs daily updates. To me, a stable system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at a time, if at all; except in the cases of: -- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s featurea Sounds like Debian stable. Same again. -- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability Sounds like Debian stable. Same again. Which brings us back to the OP's original question, paraphrased slightly: Is Jessie stable? (In either the plain English, or the Debian sense of the word.) To me, I'd answer that two ways: - by the Debian definition, Jessie is testing - hence explicitly NOT stable - by the plain English definition - if it needs daily updating, then it's NOT stable enough for general use I think that if you going to debate the meanings of words, then you should be precise about which meaning you are using. https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/03/msg00212.html gives a summary of the terms update and upgrade in the Debian sense, as does man apt-get. https://www.debian.org/releases/ gives a summary of the terms stable etc. If you read these, you may perceive that a daily (at least) update is a perfectly sensible course of action for any Debian version. The package lists are updated in a highly efficient manner. You'll see Hit in place of Get when a file is unchanged, and any transfers are made efficient with diffs. If you're tracking Debian stable on a non-server, then an upgrade on a similar schedule is sensible too. For days/weeks at a time the result will be Nothing happens. If you're running a server, just add -d and any new packages will be downloaded and not installed. You can then examine the changes log. If you don't update and upgrade (in the Debian sense) frequently, then you're wasting the timely efforts of the Debian Security Team, see https://www.debian.org/security/ Here's my cron command for running update and upgrade -d regularly. The find
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Friday 06 March 2015 15:22:21 Miles Fidelman wrote: Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. Miles Fidelman Poor choice of thinking IMO Miles. Debian has zero control over what the black hat might do yet today, requiring a package or 2 to be updated in order to block the jerks. That is not a Debian (or use name of favorite os here) problem, its a black hat problem. Me, I'm in favor of the old west's Wanted, $25,000 reward for so and so, D.O.A. posters, bring him in, in any condition to collect your reward. But who funds the reward? Good question that... OTOH, those jerks keep pushing us to ever more secure software, so they are in some sense improving the breed too. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503061815.12346.ghesk...@wdtv.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Brian wrote: Patrick Bartek wrote: FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. It isn't one or the other. You need both. They do different things and for different reasons. A normal daily cycle for me on any sytem is usually this sequence. Note that I am using both 'etckeeper' and have backups and thefore have no fear of purging an /etc configuration that I might want to refer to again later. Therefore I always purge instead of remove to keep the system clean. 1. apt-get update 2. apt-get upgrade 3. apt-get dist-upgrade 4. apt-get autoremove --purge 5. apt-get clean 6. reportbug --ui=text brokenpackage On a Sid Unstable system there are a lot of transitions. Running dist-upgrade only mostly works but sometimes the transitions and other noise confuse APT and it wants to take a different path than we want it to take. Such as to remove everything. Running upgrade first upgrades everything that can be upgraded without removing anything or adding anything. Then the subsequent dist-upgrade has a simpler solution to find and will usually do the right thing. Even during our current freeze in Sid there are always a lot of daily thrash of package churn. And this time is the quiet time. Immediately after release when Sid unfreezes the floodgates will be open and there will be a lot of daily breakage. In that case step 6 is reportbug. When the thrash is high is when Unstable also needs to have Testing set in the sources.list. Sometimes that is required to step across transitions. On Testing it is again the same. It isn't quite as crazy as Unstable. Thank the people running Unstable and reporting bugs preventing those bugs from flowing into Testing. Again running upgrade followed by dist-upgrade leads APT more gently through and avoids a lot of problems. On a Stable sytem 99.44% of the time only 1 and 2 are needed and I stop there and jump to clean and then stop. But every BIND9 security upgrade for example always pulls in new libraries and can't be upgraded in place. Therefore after the upgrade if there are packages still pending then I proceed through dist-upgrade and the rest. I strongly recommend using upgrade first followed by dist-upgrade. Hopefully reportbug is only rarely needed on Stable. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Friday 06 March 2015 23:15:12 Gene Heskett wrote: On Friday 06 March 2015 15:22:21 Miles Fidelman wrote: Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. Miles Fidelman It doesn't. I would say it needs weekly updates. And ir has been said ot be stable enough for general use not stable. It's not teh sam ehting. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503070006.06635.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Ouch, sorry. Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Shouldn't rush. My typing is lousy. Herewith again: On Friday 06 March 2015 23:15:12 Gene Heskett wrote: On Friday 06 March 2015 15:22:21 Miles Fidelman wrote: Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. Miles Fidelman It doesn't. I would say it needs weekly updates. And it has been said to be stable enough for general use not stable. It's not the same thing. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503070035.32269.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306092723.782d8...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/06032015200627.a6337c4e1...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Le 06/03/2015 21:22, Miles Fidelman a écrit : Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. Miles Fidelman It does not need daily update. But some update must be done ASAP... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fa0cfd.4020...@rail.eu.org
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54fa0c7d.9050...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Friday 06 March 2015 20:11:52 Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. I agree. I always use full-upgrade (I use aptitude), unless there is a compelling reason why not. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503062105.32932.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Miles Fidelman wrote: Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet any definition of stable that I'm familiar with. As far a Debian is concerned, you have the incorrect definition of stable. With Debin Stable means unchanging, without serious bugs, not less prone to crash. It's confusing, I agree. I wish a different term had been chosen. Security and bug fixes are a part of every OS and app. I update my system database daily, that is I check daily for any fixes. Some do so weekly. In any case, this may require upgrading, i.e. something new is installed replacing something old that needs the fix, about every week or two. Sometimes, it can be one tiny library; other times it can be a dozen system files, including the kernel. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306220427.53857...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Brian wrote: On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. Upgrade won't do that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert to upgrade for the most part. I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable. It depends on whether you want an unchanging system -- what Stable means in Debian-speak -- as opposed to less prone to crash. Upgrade only brings in bug and security fixes for what's installed. Only necessary changes. Dist-upgrade brings in that plus more extensive changes. In my experience with Wheezy after it went Stable, I've only needed dist-upgrade, maybe, 3 or 4 times, and that's solely due to a couple apps from backports. If you only use upgrade and something needs a major fix that only dist-upgrade can handle, you're notified during the update part. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306213758.71042...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On 03/05/2015 12:33 AM, Ken Heard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In the next month or so I will have to do a clean OS installation in two desktops. Jessie is now frozen (Debian's contribution to retarding global warming?); and there are apparently fewer RC bugs at this point after the freeze than there were at the same point in time after the freezing of previous releases. Jessie has been rock solid for me for many months. It's probably more solid than it's Ubuntu counterpart. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54f8b1e7.7030...@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Adding my noise; It was simple for a newbie like me; I did an upgrade and a fresh install and both were uneventful activities. It simply works. Adding some noise too. I did a new installation of Jessie on a Lenovo T440s about a month ago and immediately afterwards upgraded my desktop system to Jessie. The conclusion: best Debian ever. Eugen sivaram -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Thursday 05 March 2015 19:43:35 Ric Moore wrote: It's probably more solid than it's Ubuntu counterpart. Ric Correction: it's CERTAINLY more solid than its Ubuntu counterpart. ;-) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150306.21241.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 22:34 +0100, Eugen Wintersberger wrote: Adding my noise; It was simple for a newbie like me; I did an upgrade and a fresh install and both were uneventful activities. It simply works. Adding some noise too. I did a new installation of Jessie on a Lenovo T440s about a month ago and immediately afterwards upgraded my desktop system to Jessie. The conclusion: best Debian ever. I have 5 separate systems all running Jessie since the freeze, and even my wife and kids like it. LostSon signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Thu, Mar 05 2015,Lisi Reisz wrote: [snipped 7 lines] A few weeks ago I used the Jessie RC1 Installer, the day after it was released. I loved it. It was IMHO nicer than the Wheezy one, easier to use for what I wanted it for (I did not want to install Gnome, but it looked as though it would have catered well for other quirks). If you want to install Jessie, don't faff around with the Wheezy installer and upgrading, just go for it! Just my 2p. FWIW, I am enjoying Jessie so much (on my TV box) that my desktop, still on Wheezy, is going to be upgraded sooner than I had intended. Adding my noise; It was simple for a newbie like me; I did an upgrade and a fresh install and both were uneventful activities. It simply works. sivaram -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3t3xxon@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Thursday 05 March 2015 07:17:25 Bob Proulx wrote: Having said that you might just want to go ahead and test the new Jessie installer. Can't hurt. It will either work (install successfully) or it won't. Either way you will have learned something and can plan for it. If it fails then please make an installation report with the details of the problems. A few weeks ago I used the Jessie RC1 Installer, the day after it was released. I loved it. It was IMHO nicer than the Wheezy one, easier to use for what I wanted it for (I did not want to install Gnome, but it looked as though it would have catered well for other quirks). If you want to install Jessie, don't faff around with the Wheezy installer and upgrading, just go for it! Just my 2p. FWIW, I am enjoying Jessie so much (on my TV box) that my desktop, still on Wheezy, is going to be upgraded sooner than I had intended. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503051235.59001.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie RC1 is it. Regards, Ken -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlT5IagACgkQlNlJzOkJmTenMACcDU5QwjjiXzegcr6Q5cpvQwHQ XzcAn1sZx8xsKPGyJjHcSe2CT/GI0zuF =jXiT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54f921a9.9060...@teksavvy.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri, Mar 06 2015,Lisi Reisz wrote: On Thursday 05 March 2015 19:43:35 Ric Moore wrote: It's probably more solid than it's Ubuntu counterpart. Ric Correction: it's CERTAINLY more solid than its Ubuntu counterpart. ;-) Thus starts the flame wars. :) sivaram -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oao63gcr@gmail.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
Ken Heard wrote: I see that RC1 of Jessie is now available. I would consequently appreciate opinions as to whether Jessie is now or will be by mid April sufficiently stable for such installations, or should I install Wheezy instead and upgrade to Jessie when it is officially declared stable? I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or less. Perhaps when I get around to those installations there may be a further RC release of Jessie? I am not really sure precisely what you are asking. But I think from the questions I will answer this way. If you have compatible hardware I would install Wheezy today and then immediately upgrade to Jessie. The installer is always one of the last things to finish before release. It generally needs to be one of the last things because it is reacting to changes in the release. Therefore the typical thing is to use the previous installer which is stable and well tested for the installation and then upgrade. Usually when we do this we don't install a desktop. We install a bare bones system and then upgrade and then install the heavy bits of a desktop in the new system. But that plan only works if the new system is old enough to be supported by the previous installer's kernel. If it is then great. If it isn't then the older kernel not supporting newer hardware will push you into some trouble. In that case go ahead and try the new installer. Remember that there isn't anything very magic about the installer. It is just there to bootstrap your system. All you need to do is to get to the point that you can log into the new hardware. And then the tricky part may be getting networking. Because often newer network cards need the newest kernel drivers. Once you can log in with network access then you can install the rest of the system. Having said that you might just want to go ahead and test the new Jessie installer. Can't hurt. It will either work (install successfully) or it won't. Either way you will have learned something and can plan for it. If it fails then please make an installation report with the details of the problems. Just my 2 cents... There are many ways to do it. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In the next month or so I will have to do a clean OS installation in two desktops. Jessie is now frozen (Debian's contribution to retarding global warming?); and there are apparently fewer RC bugs at this point after the freeze than there were at the same point in time after the freezing of previous releases. I see that RC1 of Jessie is now available. I would consequently appreciate opinions as to whether Jessie is now or will be by mid April sufficiently stable for such installations, or should I install Wheezy instead and upgrade to Jessie when it is officially declared stable? I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or less. Perhaps when I get around to those installations there may be a further RC release of Jessie? Regards, Ken -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlT36pEACgkQlNlJzOkJmTdGaQCfQCkRb6xLqrKzX3pbFhtbL93P RMoAnjs11Z7e/KxNUU2mapnE2kqPXA00 =kj9j -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54f7ea91.7030...@teksavvy.com
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 12:33:05PM +0700, Ken Heard wrote: I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or less. What's inherently better about the one step? I can't recall the last time Debian threw me a major curve ball doing a version upgrade. OTOH, it's a great question and I'd like to hear about the new toddler in the family too! -- Bob Bernstein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150305065025.ga12...@sixtiessurvivor.org
Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In the next month or so I will have to do a clean OS installation in two desktops. Jessie is now frozen (Debian's contribution to retarding global warming?); and there are apparently fewer RC bugs at this point after the freeze than there were at the same point in time after the freezing of previous releases. I see that RC1 of Jessie is now available. I would consequently appreciate opinions as to whether Jessie is now or will be by mid April sufficiently stable for such installations, or should I install Wheezy instead and upgrade to Jessie when it is officially declared stable? I would much prefer the one step approach -- install Jessie within two months and live with non RC bugs for a while -- to the two step approach -- Wheezy now and upgrade to Jessie six months later more or less. Perhaps when I get around to those installations there may be a further RC release of Jessie? If its any assurance, the Wheezy install on this system began its life as an RC1 dual boot with the Primary OS at the time -- Fedora 12. I never had any issues with the RC1 or the later releases including Stable. Debian is VERY conservative with their release designations. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150304230244.15f52...@debian7.boseck208.net
