Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:17:06AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, it probably usually is just like that.
> 
> I see it's just too hard for ordinary desktop user to resolve broken 
> deps, even if it's really such easy as removing one single package. The 
> "undo" should be achievable in simpler way.

Well the idea is that stable shouldn't ever hit broken dependancies,
which means a typical user won't see any.  Running testing or unstable
means you must have some basic understanding of the package system and
how things work.

> There are valid assertions that sometimes it's just not that easy, as 
> programs sometimes do data conversions etc. Well, no easy answer. Maybe 
> more pressure on upstream in order to allow downgrade.

But why waste time on it.  Better to spend to time making sure the new
version isn't broken so you wouldn't want to downgrade.  Downgrades will
not be well tested and hence likely to be even more trouble.

> I think many feel that it would be quite natural to have downgrade 
> option. In many cases, shouldn't be hard either. In special cases, could 
> be technically very difficult, sigh..

The people that feel downgrades are natural, are obviously not
programmers.

> Well, if You actually use the computer for daily work, it's not that 
> easy to "put things on hold" ;-)

You put packages on hold so they don't try to upgrade.  Not your work.

Of couse I wouldn't run sid on my work machine.  Testing maybe, but
preferably stable.  My home machines run sid though.

--
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Greg Folkert]

On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 08:17 +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> >Lennart said
> >> Peter said
> >> If You and several people claim they haven't met such problems with 
> >> testing, I can live with that. I also heard people whose experience was 
> >> different, and my personal one is closer to them. That's all.
> > 
> > All it takes is one package that has a dependancy problem to prevent
> > hundreds of other packages from upgrading or installing fully.  It looks
> > like everything is broken, when all it really is is just one missing or
> > broken package.  When you know how to read what the upgrade system tells
> > you you can usually deal with it or put the right things on hold for a
> > few days while the missing package makes it in to testing.
> 
> Well, if You actually use the computer for daily work, it's not that 
> easy to "put things on hold" ;-)

You've already said you want the latest and greatest. In this case then,
you've already gotten testing installed. You are typically _MUCH_ newer
than stable. The things on "hold" are typically just newer versions of
what you already have. Newer by small versions, typically just fixing
small issues. And the fact your "It looks like everything is broken" is
far from the truth and in my opinion "not genuine". Users should never
see this in the first place, especially on a managed machine. They never
do on a Windows machine, except when it breaks, which is quite often.

Holding these packages is not a sign of BROKEN packages, it is a sign
that the package management system is working. It is preventing a
*BROKEN* machine. But then the USER never sees that, remember Linux
machines are multi-user all the time. The admin should be doing all of
this maintenance tasks behind the backs of the user, most updates being
handed into testing are going to trivial updates in any case... until
(the next paragraph)

Now in testing, if some BIG comes along and needs to be hinted into
testing, you'll never see that problem, as all the programs needed will
drop into testing at once. This the user may see, they may have the
machine rebooted on them. Just like Windows, but FAR FAR FAR less often.
Even then, most of the time, though, the user only has to log out and
then log back in, without rebooting.
-- 
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C  2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0  2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74  E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi, Len


Yes, it probably usually is just like that.

I see it's just too hard for ordinary desktop user to resolve broken 
deps, even if it's really such easy as removing one single package. The 
"undo" should be achievable in simpler way.


There are valid assertions that sometimes it's just not that easy, as 
programs sometimes do data conversions etc. Well, no easy answer. Maybe 
more pressure on upstream in order to allow downgrade.


I think many feel that it would be quite natural to have downgrade 
option. In many cases, shouldn't be hard either. In special cases, could 
be technically very difficult, sigh..



If You and several people claim they haven't met such problems with 
testing, I can live with that. I also heard people whose experience was 
different, and my personal one is closer to them. That's all.


All it takes is one package that has a dependancy problem to prevent
hundreds of other packages from upgrading or installing fully.  It looks
like everything is broken, when all it really is is just one missing or
broken package.  When you know how to read what the upgrade system tells
you you can usually deal with it or put the right things on hold for a
few days while the missing package makes it in to testing.


Well, if You actually use the computer for daily work, it's not that 
easy to "put things on hold" ;-)



Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Look Greg,


in the original post, I referred the security patch introduced breakage 
jut to point out the existence of such risk, in order to make weighting 
the risks more realistic. Just like this: "There is some degree of risk 
of breaking functionality connected to upgrading to recent upstream 
version. There is also some degree of risk connected to backpatching the 
old version, that is increasing with the age of software. Both are real, 
both can cause severe damage. The probability of each one, _that_ is the 
matter of question."


That should be changed anyway, since security upgrades occasionally 
break things too.


You keep saying this,


That's just because people keep asking for proof and questioning the 
bare existence of the risk of security patch introduced breakage.


I haven't seen this in Sarge at all. Sarge has had

HOW MANY security updates that broke things? Etch's security updates
including the Kernel upgrade had no noticeable problems... but of course
the two *OBSCURE* issues reported affect you, right?


Should there be more appropriate word that "ocassionally", please 
suggest one. My english is not perfect.


Of course I listed only those issues that affected me. If You want more, 
go, ask someone else.



You keep trying to HIT these things home, but the more you do this, the
more you look foolish. These problems are mainly Woody and before,
except for the LONG release time for Sarge. The Woody security updates
for Mozilla was REALLY HARD.


I stated before, bugs are inevitable, either in tested "stable" 
software, or upstream stable, or in security upgrades. There is no 
intention to harm anybody. Just name the facts.


I'd say that Mozilla's backpatching was insanity from the start, the 
software was developing rapidly during the Woody's life.




Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Steve Greenland]

On 17-May-07, 06:23 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
> I think the LSB-compliance and reasonably short (or reasonably long) 
> release cycle are inevitable goals. The sooner achieved (naturally), the 
> better.
> 

You know, Debian has been discussing how to speed up releases while
supporting many architectures and still maintaining our strong
reputation for a technically solid and stable system for oh, about 10
years now. Lots and lots of people have worked on this. We've gotten
better. Not perfect, by any means, but not bad. In particular, we've
tried to balance the needs of a variety of users, which means that many
users are not going to be perfectly satisfied.

Some people have seen one of our weaknesses (up-to-date desktop
software), and built a buisness out of it. I say good for them. Debian
*can't* be all things to all people. Let some other people work on
particular problems. We'll learn from them, and they'll learn from us.
Isn't that one of the points of free software, that we don't have to
duplicate everything?

> Next thing, quite utopistic one but inevitable in long terms, should be 
> the common infrastructure for bug reporting, so that users would report 
> bugs easily, and the developers would not need to interchange the bug 
> data between users and upstream, but upstream would get them directly 
> instead.

That doesn't work. A lot of upstream authors don't want to hear about
Debian specific bugs. The user doesn't want to (and often can't)
distinguish between Debian and upstream bugs. We make it easy to report
bugs to us, and it's our job to work from there.

Steve
-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:10:21AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, and security upgrades never change behaviour of software and never 
> break things. That's the way it OUGHT to be. The reality has its own 
> turbulences.

I don't remember security upgrades ever breaking anything in testing.  I
am sure it must have happened at some point, but the security team
appears to take their work very very seriously.

> Well, I might have been out of luck. Maybe it hasn't been hudreds, just 
> a "full screen of" (didn't count them and wouldn't remember anyway).
> That changes nothing on assertion, that using the testing routinely is 
> not official, nor advisable way for ordinary users.

See below.

> My original intention was not, and still is not, to discuss capabilities 
> of testing.
> I want to discuss possibilities, how could the stable be more attractive 
> for ordinary user, how to make it usable on hardware 
> newer-than-3-years-old, how could the user be blessed with fresh 
> software rather than 2-years old, how to allow him to easily and 
> effectively participate on bug reporting, and how to avoid the work of 
> backporting security fixes to ancient software.

The answer to all of those is 'testing'.  That is all stuff stable is
definitely not meant to do.

> If You and several people claim they haven't met such problems with 
> testing, I can live with that. I also heard people whose experience was 
> different, and my personal one is closer to them. That's all.

All it takes is one package that has a dependancy problem to prevent
hundreds of other packages from upgrading or installing fully.  It looks
like everything is broken, when all it really is is just one missing or
broken package.  When you know how to read what the upgrade system tells
you you can usually deal with it or put the right things on hold for a
few days while the missing package makes it in to testing.

In unstable there are occationally bad packages uploaded that break
things enough that you just have to wonder if the maintainer even tried
to install it themselves. :)  Usually there will be an answer to how to
go back or fix it on the debian irc channel already.

--
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Greg Folkert]

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:56 +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Michelle Konzack said:
> > You forger that DOWNGRADING is officialy NOT SUPPORTED by Debian.
> 
> That should be changed anyway, since security upgrades occasionally 
> break things too.

You keep saying this, I haven't seen this in Sarge at all. Sarge has had
HOW MANY security updates that broke things? Etch's security updates
including the Kernel upgrade had no noticeable problems... but of course
the two *OBSCURE* issues reported affect you, right?

You keep trying to HIT these things home, but the more you do this, the
more you look foolish. These problems are mainly Woody and before,
except for the LONG release time for Sarge. The Woody security updates
for Mozilla was REALLY HARD.

I am beginning to understand that you want Debian with completely new
"userland" programs. That would be Testing or "CUT" as Joey Hess has
promoted.

You could also use "Sidux", which is a distro that uses sid as the base
and does minor stabilization. http://sidux.com/
-- 
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C  2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0  2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74  E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:56:57AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, I have written it there too. Kernel is, IMO, the best thing to 
> upgrade few times during release cycle, with quite little risk.

Upgrading the kernel is quite high risk.  Features come and go and
change with each new kernel.  Drivers break in some releases, although
usually only for less common hardware that no one tested during the
development of that release, or new features are added that require
updated user space tools, etc.  For example 2.6.16 and higher tag all
netkey ipsec packets with a policy tag of 'ipsec'.  Before 2.6.16 they
didn't.  So going to 2.6.16 or higher broke shorewall in sarge since it
didn't know about the new policy, and it required a newer version of
iptables since it too had to support this new behaviour.  Do you think
people with ipsec tunnels would be happy if it stopped working just
because of a kernel upgrade added to support all the people who just
have to have support for their latest machine in debian's stable release
that was made before the hardware in their new machine even existed?

> Yes, Debian was the last distro using Xfree86 I know. Of course the 
> transition was complex!

Sure seems much better with x.org than xfree86 though.

> That should be changed anyway, since security upgrades occasionally 
> break things too.

Downgrades are in general imposible to do, unless you put in a lot of
useless code that will never be used except when downgrading, which of
course will be used so rarely that it will be full of bugs due to not
ever being tested by anyone.  Remember upgrades sometimes have to
convert files to a new format.  A new package can do this because at the
time it was made, the maintainer knew about the older versions already
made.  If you try to install an older package, there is no way at the
time that older package was made to know how to convert from a newer
file format back to the old one.  So to solve this you would now have to
add some kind of downgrade feature to the scripts of the new package
that could be called before going to an older package.  Sometimes data
is no longer used and dropped from a file format, or new stuff is added.
If stuff was dropped how are you going to restore it on the downgrade?
If stuff was added I guess you can just throw it away on a downgrade.
But overall supporting downgrades requires a time machine and lots of
generally untested support code.  I wouldn't want to try to support
that.

Of course often there is no change to the data or config files, and you
can simply install the old package again using whatever package tool you
like to use by telling it what version to install.  So unofficially
downgrading is possible most of the time, but when it isn't, supporting
it isn't worth trying.

--
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi, Jose



What about maintainer/developer-friendly thing?


That'd be great.

I think, the more recent is the supported software, and the more 
LSB-compliant is the base, the less extraordinary work for developers 
and less concern for end users. This dosen't conflict with either 
philosophy here.


I mean, you want that us

change all our infrastructure


I think the LSB-compliance and reasonably short (or reasonably long) 
release cycle are inevitable goals. The sooner achieved (naturally), the 
better.


We discussed here, that "backports" is the best thing to start with in 
order to deliver recent desktop software to the end user, so it "just" 
needs an official approval and support.


Those are the direct infrastructure changes that it is being spoken 
about. This is not anything that would "ruin Debian into chaos" ;-)



Next thing, quite utopistic one but inevitable in long terms, should be 
the common infrastructure for bug reporting, so that users would report 
bugs easily, and the developers would not need to interchange the bug 
data between users and upstream, but upstream would get them directly 
instead. This is just an idea, however some beginning of that is being 
worked on there in Canonical, AFAIK.


, but then he gives you as solution to

change one line and exec one command and you think that's not
user-friendly? There's no magical ways to do this


If the option was only obvious, advertised and easily found and done by 
ordinary end user, without risk of breaking deps..



Friendly,
Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Jose Luis Rivas Contreras]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Mgr. Peter Tuharsky escribió:
> Stanislav,
> 
> 
> I see Your point, however this is far from "user-friendliness".
> 
> First solution -use other distro. Wow, what a great idea. Looking at
> statistics and Linux users in neighborhood, You can be _sure_ they
> discovered that way already :-)
> 
> Be also sure, that unwilling to do more for desktop users, Debian will
> not be less, but increasingly more server-oriented distro (I like Debian
> on server!). I like Debian either.

What about maintainer/developer-friendly thing? I mean, you want that us
change all our infrastructure, but then he gives you as solution to
change one line and exec one command and you think that's not
user-friendly? There's no magical ways to do this, if you want newer
packages then use lenny and if you want even more newer use sid. I use
sid because of that and my system is pretty stable.

Jose Luis.
- --

ghostbar on Linux/Debian 'sid' i686 - #382503
Weblog: http://ghostbar.ath.cx/ - http://linuxtachira.org
http://debian.org.ve - irc.debian.org #debian-ve #debian-devel-es
San Cristóbal, Venezuela. http://chaslug.org.ve
Fingerprint = 3E7D 4267 AFD5 2407 2A37  20AC 38A0 AD5B CACA B118
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGTDSzOKCtW8rKsRgRAv1yAJ9kd5ARNDxEsPct0rIdyyMosRrj2ACfQTRC
7yBRzG5rtH3LptRcnRJ8T7s=
=9zdg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:37:29AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
>  Just waving your hands and
> >saing that "not much additional work should be necessary" isn't good
> >enough.

> Right. Are there any real movements to synchronise Debian's cycle with 
> LSB's one slightly?

No.  Nor, IMHO, should there be at this point; Debian is still in the
process of recovering from a reputation of widely missing its target release
dates, and even though we actually did a decent job with etch, four months
of slippage is still enough for many people to talk about it as a failure.
We need to work on consecutively hitting whatever targets we think it's
feasible to set before we start thinking about reaching for targets set by
other people.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Don,




Volatile is for software which is known to be time critical, like
virus and spam catching rules.



Almost all Debian initiatives start as unofficial measures to
demonstrate their efficacy. Eventually if they work and there is
sufficient demand for them, they become official.


Okay.


It currently takes us a somewhere on the order of 100 person-years to
release every single version of Debian.


Woww.

 Just waving your hands and

saing that "not much additional work should be necessary" isn't good
enough.


Right. Are there any real movements to synchronise Debian's cycle with 
LSB's one slightly?



Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Hendrik Sattler]

Am Mittwoch 16 Mai 2007 17:17 schrieb Steve Greenland:
> On 16-May-07, 06:24 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's been in context, meant as "many of those problems" -a relative part
> > of problems, not absolute number of them.
> >
> > No, it's not worth the time. It's a history.
>
> The problem is that your "history" doesn't match the experience of any
> one else participating in this thread. You keep making assertions about
> testing being broken, sometimes with "hundreds of broken dependencies".
> Since one of the key criterion of packages entering testing is
> "dependencies are correct and fulfillable", this strikes most of us as
> unlikely. I won't claim testing has never had a broken depends, but it's
> very rare, and never hundreds of packages.

Well, last time testing broke for me was the tetex->texlive transition with 
one texlive package failing in post-inst because of missing files in another.
Solution was to take one package from unstable that fixed the issue.

It is not "very rare" the case that such things happen. Another example are  
incomplete KDE transitions so that some stuff stops working.

However, all of those cases are solvable by pinning to testing and sometimes 
using few packages from unstable.

HS


pgpE01GH74QFx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Ben,

this is the most constructive advice on the topic I think :-)
Thank You.


Peter




The user has that choice, to the extent that can be reasonably
expected. Consider:

The Debian project is run by volunteers: all the work done is done
because someone sees value to themselves in doing it.

Therefore, any "official support" can only be provided when a
sufficient body of volunteers decide to provide it on a continuing
basis. We have the Debian security team providing "official support"
for released stable versions of Debian, according to a policy they
voluntarily adhere to.

Any other "official support" can only come about by a similar means: a
sufficient body of people voluntarily organise themselves and put in
the ongoing work to commit to and enact a support policy. You are
welcome to help bring this about by any means you see fit, but harping
on in this forum about lack of support is unlikely to have that
result.


This does not leave our users without other options. Anyone who wants
support for Debian, beyond what "official support" is provided by
volunteer efforts, need only speak with the many consultants who have
listed themselves as providing support services for Debian. They can
then negotiate an unofficial, customised support arrangement.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi, Don

recent? current? upstream? fresh? :-)

Why the need for volatile then? I admire I'm confused a bit. Whatever, 
there should be one supported, official, and acknowledged repository for 
the purpose, I think. Not necessarry ALL desktop software should be 
upgraded this way, however at least the most demanded mainstream..


The stable cycle should reflect the mainstream course, so that not much 
additional work should be necessarry to do that. Maybe the cycle should 
copy the LSB's one somehow.


Peter



Don Armstrong  wrote / napísal(a):

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

This is closest to "backports" and "volatile" idea. I wouldn't call
it "backports" however, because that reminds porting some very new
software to some very old platform, and this is not the case. The
stable's basic platform should stay LSB-compliant and
"moderately-aged" (supported by all main software vendors) for the
whole length of release cycle. Thus the new versions of desktop
software wouldn't be "backported"; just compiled against ordinary,
stable platform.


That's precisely what a backport is. New versions of a Debian package
compiled against stable with whatever changes are required to get them
to compile. If the root of the concern is because the term "backport"
is scary or otherwise unpalatable, then suggest an alternative term.


Don Armstrong




--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Stanislav Maslovski]

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:20:48AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Stanislav,
> 
> 
> I see Your point, however this is far from "user-friendliness".
> 
> First solution -use other distro. Wow, what a great idea. Looking at 
> statistics and Linux users in neighborhood, You can be _sure_ they 
> discovered that way already :-)

Well, I think this is for the best. 

> Be also sure, that unwilling to do more for desktop users, Debian will 
> not be less, but increasingly more server-oriented distro (I like Debian 
> on server!). I like Debian either.

Debian will remain Debian ;) I really hope for it. Please, do not go for the
stupid race over the so-called average (read not willing to learn) user.

-- 
Stanislav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Stanislav Maslovski]

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:12:18AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> 
> I see main problem with testing that broad platform changes are going 
> there. That's why things break sometimes there.
> 
> That's why I think, that the Stable platform with new desktop software 
> might be the choice -the new software versions with no platform 
> dependecies breakage risk.
> 
> This is closest to "backports" and "volatile" idea. I wouldn't call it 
> "backports" however, because that reminds porting some very new software 
> to some very old platform, and this is not the case. The stable's basic 
> platform should stay LSB-compliant and "moderately-aged" (supported by 
> all main software vendors) for the whole length of release cycle. Thus 
> the new versions of desktop software wouldn't be "backported"; just 
> compiled against ordinary, stable platform.

This sounds more rational. Yes, the megafreeze model that Debian uses at the
moment has certain drawbacks. However, my experience shows that currently it
is the best one can get out of the free distros at the moment (with regard to
stability), IMO. And I choose for stability.

A base system (required utils + services + libs, 0 RC bugs) + script based 
automatic
building/backporting system, similar to that used in "testing", could be an
option. This was discussed, i believe, many times in the past.

-- 
Stanislav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Ben Finney]

"Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Yeas. Let the choice to the user. Don't dictate him. Whoever wants
> to use the old software w/o change, let be it. Whoever wants the new
> one, noticed about the risks, let's give him an official and
> supported way to do it.

The user has that choice, to the extent that can be reasonably
expected. Consider:

The Debian project is run by volunteers: all the work done is done
because someone sees value to themselves in doing it.

Therefore, any "official support" can only be provided when a
sufficient body of volunteers decide to provide it on a continuing
basis. We have the Debian security team providing "official support"
for released stable versions of Debian, according to a policy they
voluntarily adhere to.

Any other "official support" can only come about by a similar means: a
sufficient body of people voluntarily organise themselves and put in
the ongoing work to commit to and enact a support policy. You are
welcome to help bring this about by any means you see fit, but harping
on in this forum about lack of support is unlikely to have that
result.


This does not leave our users without other options. Anyone who wants
support for Debian, beyond what "official support" is provided by
volunteer efforts, need only speak with the many consultants who have
listed themselves as providing support services for Debian. They can
then negotiate an unofficial, customised support arrangement.

I just don't see what more you're expecting to happen by posting to
this thread.

-- 
 \  "I'm a great lover, I'll bet."  -- Emo Philips |
  `\   |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> This is closest to "backports" and "volatile" idea. I wouldn't call
> it "backports" however, because that reminds porting some very new
> software to some very old platform, and this is not the case. The
> stable's basic platform should stay LSB-compliant and
> "moderately-aged" (supported by all main software vendors) for the
> whole length of release cycle. Thus the new versions of desktop
> software wouldn't be "backported"; just compiled against ordinary,
> stable platform.

That's precisely what a backport is. New versions of a Debian package
compiled against stable with whatever changes are required to get them
to compile. If the root of the concern is because the term "backport"
is scary or otherwise unpalatable, then suggest an alternative term.


Don Armstrong

-- 
The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off
everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the
chairs, and the light and plumbing fixtures. The conspirators had
deliberately punished the bank, for reasons best known to themselves,
or to their unknown controllers. They had superglued doors and
shattered windows, severed power and communications cables, poured
stinking toxins into the wallspaces, and concreted all of the sinks
and drains. In eight minutes, sixty people had ruined the building so
thouroughly that it had to be condemed and later demolished.
 -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p4

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Stanislav,


I see Your point, however this is far from "user-friendliness".

First solution -use other distro. Wow, what a great idea. Looking at 
statistics and Linux users in neighborhood, You can be _sure_ they 
discovered that way already :-)


Be also sure, that unwilling to do more for desktop users, Debian will 
not be less, but increasingly more server-oriented distro (I like Debian 
on server!). I like Debian either.



Friendly,
Peter


Stanislav Maslovski  wrote / napísal(a):

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

Steve,


And as others have pointed out, the purpose of stable is to minimize
disruptions. For many users, living with known bugs with known workarounds
is a *lot* better than identifying new bugs.

Yeas. Let the choice to the user. Don't dictate him.


Well, I really cannot see your point. If you do not like how stable is done
at the moment in Debian, but do like how it is done in whatever other
distro - use that distro. Nobody forces anything on you. This is all about
choice.

Whoever wants to 
use the old software w/o change, let be it. Whoever wants the new one, 
noticed about the risks, let's give him an official and supported way to 
do it.


Fist of all, there is such a way: use testing, most of the time it is fairly
safe to use. Learn how to put packages on hold and how to get back if something
goes wrong.

[ skipped ]


Let the users choose, whether they want to upgrade.


=) OMG, I do not think that somebody really forces me when to run
apt-get upgrade and what packages to install and from what repository. 

Repeat, let there be easy downgrade option for the case things don't 
work as expected.


man sources.list
man apt_preferences
http://snapshot.debian.net/

If you maintain more than one machine - setup a local repository and fill it
with the versions of the packages you like. Including backported ones, learn
how to backport.




--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Steve,


I see main problem with testing that broad platform changes are going 
there. That's why things break sometimes there.


That's why I think, that the Stable platform with new desktop software 
might be the choice -the new software versions with no platform 
dependecies breakage risk.


This is closest to "backports" and "volatile" idea. I wouldn't call it 
"backports" however, because that reminds porting some very new software 
to some very old platform, and this is not the case. The stable's basic 
platform should stay LSB-compliant and "moderately-aged" (supported by 
all main software vendors) for the whole length of release cycle. Thus 
the new versions of desktop software wouldn't be "backported"; just 
compiled against ordinary, stable platform.



I don't know how real the vision is, however it shouldn't be completely 
impossible I hope ;-)



Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Stanislav Maslovski]

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> >And as others have pointed out, the purpose of stable is to minimize
> >disruptions. For many users, living with known bugs with known workarounds
> >is a *lot* better than identifying new bugs.
> 
> Yeas. Let the choice to the user. Don't dictate him.

Well, I really cannot see your point. If you do not like how stable is done
at the moment in Debian, but do like how it is done in whatever other
distro - use that distro. Nobody forces anything on you. This is all about
choice.

> Whoever wants to 
> use the old software w/o change, let be it. Whoever wants the new one, 
> noticed about the risks, let's give him an official and supported way to 
> do it.

Fist of all, there is such a way: use testing, most of the time it is fairly
safe to use. Learn how to put packages on hold and how to get back if something
goes wrong.

[ skipped ]

> Let the users choose, whether they want to upgrade.

=) OMG, I do not think that somebody really forces me when to run
apt-get upgrade and what packages to install and from what repository. 

> Repeat, let there be easy downgrade option for the case things don't 
> work as expected.

man sources.list
man apt_preferences
http://snapshot.debian.net/

If you maintain more than one machine - setup a local repository and fill it
with the versions of the packages you like. Including backported ones, learn
how to backport.

-- 
Stanislav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Steve,




And as others have pointed out, the purpose of stable is to minimize
disruptions. For many users, living with known bugs with known workarounds
is a *lot* better than identifying new bugs.


Yeas. Let the choice to the user. Don't dictate him. Whoever wants to 
use the old software w/o change, let be it. Whoever wants the new one, 
noticed about the risks, let's give him an official and supported way to 
do it.




For one thing, it's not just Iceweasel, it's all
the plugins and extensions that might be in use, *and* any external
software or libraries that those extensions use.


AFAIK, all Mozilla's programs take care about plugins their own way and 
offer upgrades automatically. I don't have enough technical background 
to opose You at the Debian packages level however, You're knowledge 
could be better than mine.


 Not to mention all the

other software that uses iceweasel libraries.


Is there any?

Additionally, any internal

webapps have to be validated against the new iceweasel. Internal macros
need to be validated against the new OO.org.It's a lot of work.


Yes, for the admins that are willing to deploy the software.
Repeat, I just want the _official_and_supported_way_ to do it. Let the 
users choose, whether they want to upgrade.
Repeat, let there be easy downgrade option for the case things don't 
work as expected.



Now, that may be of little relevance to the home user. But I know some
such users who also *don't* like upgrades, because they're happy with
what they have and don't need to change. For example, my father-in-law
just this year went from Mac OS9 to OSX, mostly because his hardware
was dying. So he hadn't upgraded in >6 *years*, and didn't feel he was
missing anything. There's quite a few of those people out there.


Not to upgrade, that's perfectely legitimate choice.


Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Steve,


The problem is that your "history" doesn't match the experience of any
one else participating in this thread. You keep making assertions about
testing being broken, sometimes with "hundreds of broken dependencies".
Since one of the key criterion of packages entering testing is
"dependencies are correct and fulfillable", this strikes most of us as
unlikely.


Yes, and security upgrades never change behaviour of software and never 
break things. That's the way it OUGHT to be. The reality has its own 
turbulences.


I won't claim testing has never had a broken depends, but it's

very rare, and never hundreds of packages.


Well, I might have been out of luck. Maybe it hasn't been hudreds, just 
a "full screen of" (didn't count them and wouldn't remember anyway).
That changes nothing on assertion, that using the testing routinely is 
not official, nor advisable way for ordinary users.




It's a basic point of science that the person making the unusual claims
needs to provide the data to back it up.


My original intention was not, and still is not, to discuss capabilities 
of testing.
I want to discuss possibilities, how could the stable be more attractive 
for ordinary user, how to make it usable on hardware 
newer-than-3-years-old, how could the user be blessed with fresh 
software rather than 2-years old, how to allow him to easily and 
effectively participate on bug reporting, and how to avoid the work of 
backporting security fixes to ancient software.


If You and several people claim they haven't met such problems with 
testing, I can live with that. I also heard people whose experience was 
different, and my personal one is closer to them. That's all.


Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

 > I install regulary NEW kernels where Debian had only 2.4.27 I used

2.4.32/33 and thats NOT the same as pushing a NEW Xorg into stable.

The Kernels can be installed without any problems parallel, and if
one is not working, you boot the last working one.


Yes, I have written it there too. Kernel is, IMO, the best thing to 
upgrade few times during release cycle, with quite little risk.



Right and upgrading fro, xfree86 to xorg had pushed 280 new packages on
my test system and every new package can contain potential new bugs.


Yes, Debian was the last distro using Xfree86 I know. Of course the 
transition was complex!



You forger that DOWNGRADING is officialy NOT SUPPORTED by Debian.


That should be changed anyway, since security upgrades occasionally 
break things too.



Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Ben Finney]

"Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I wrote "worse" because for Debian, this is worse. Not that it is
> damaging it somehow. Of course there naturally will be other
> distros, cooperating hopefully.
>
> It's "worse" because it implies, that Debian is not as good desktop
> as it ought to be.

This seems to be the core of your misconception in this thread.

Debian doesn't "ought to be" all things to all people; if another
GNU/Linux distribution meets someone's needs better than Debian, that
is not necessarily a flaw in Debian.

You clearly have many things you'd like to see improved, and hopefully
you are filing bugs in the Debian BTS where you find them in Debian
packages.

However, arguments based on "distro Foo meets needs differently,
therefore Debian is deficient" are fundamentally flawed, and you will
do well to abandon them.

-- 
 \   "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses |
  `\over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and |
_o__) its speaker a raving lunatic."  -- Dresden James |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Steve Greenland]

(Please don't CC me on list mail.)

On 16-May-07, 01:58 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Steve Greenland  wrote / nap?sal(a):
> 
> As I illustreted, "rock solid" is not automatically guaranteed by 
> oldness of software or by length of pre-release testing.

And as others have pointed out, the purpose of stable is to minimize
disruptions. For many users, living with known bugs with known workarounds
is a *lot* better than identifying new bugs.

> We could start with programs that don't other programs depend on much. 
> For example, what is the purpose of using 2 years old Firefox, 
> Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org and other such stand-alone programs? They 
> could be flawlessly upgraded during stable release life cycle.

Sigh. No, they can't. For one thing, it's not just Iceweasel, it's all
the plugins and extensions that might be in use, *and* any external
software or libraries that those extensions use. Not to mention all the
other software that uses iceweasel libraries. Additionally, any internal
webapps have to be validated against the new iceweasel. Internal macros
need to be validated against the new OO.org. It's a lot of work. Quite
a bit of it cannot be done by Debian, because it's site specific. I
had a client for which getting a simple patch (1 or 2 lines of code)
installed on their production server took literally > month, because of
their testing requirements and minimal scheduled downtimes. Getting a
completely new version installed took much longer.

Now, that may be of little relevance to the home user. But I know some
such users who also *don't* like upgrades, because they're happy with
what they have and don't need to change. For example, my father-in-law
just this year went from Mac OS9 to OSX, mostly because his hardware
was dying. So he hadn't upgraded in >6 *years*, and didn't feel he was
missing anything. There's quite a few of those people out there.

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Steve Greenland]

On 16-May-07, 06:24 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
> It's been in context, meant as "many of those problems" -a relative part 
> of problems, not absolute number of them.
> 
> No, it's not worth the time. It's a history.

The problem is that your "history" doesn't match the experience of any
one else participating in this thread. You keep making assertions about
testing being broken, sometimes with "hundreds of broken dependencies".
Since one of the key criterion of packages entering testing is
"dependencies are correct and fulfillable", this strikes most of us as
unlikely. I won't claim testing has never had a broken depends, but it's
very rare, and never hundreds of packages.

It's a basic point of science that the person making the unusual claims
needs to provide the data to back it up.

Regards,
Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-05-15 09:41:17, schrieb Mgr. Peter Tuharsky:
> The kernel, the X.org
> 
> I realise, that the kernel and X.org are somewhat delicate things, 
> because they affect both desktop and server. Changing them in the middle 
> of release life, might not sound too well.

Sorry, thats not right!

I install regulary NEW kernels where Debian had only 2.4.27 I used
2.4.32/33 and thats NOT the same as pushing a NEW Xorg into stable.

The Kernels can be installed without any problems parallel, and if
one is not working, you boot the last working one.

If you install a NEW Xorg, it sucks nearly 60 packages with it and this
is not one thing, you can solv with a reboot on a production system.


> As of X, it's quite complex, however it's less the server and more the 
> desktop thing, that could also get upgraded with some caution. Might 
> also be the concern of volatile.
> 
> Some server software occasionaly need an upgrade too.

Right and upgrading fro, xfree86 to xorg had pushed 280 new packages on
my test system and every new package can contain potential new bugs.

> However the ordinary desktop packages, environments and so on could get 
> upgraded routinely IMO, with easy downgrade option. No need to do the 
> whole stabilisation scrutiny.

You forger that DOWNGRADING is officialy NOT SUPPORTED by Debian.

And If you have upgraded Xorg to a newer version, good luck, while
downgrading 60-200 packages if it fails...

Do this in an Office of your customers...  They will kill you!

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-05-15 11:25:56, schrieb Mgr. Peter Tuharsky:
> Do You think, that
> -compiling new upstream version of software against stable platform, 
> building a package and distributing it

Containing NEW bugs and the loop goes on...  --  No Thanks!

> -needs more effort than
> -studying security fixes in upstream, backporting them to ancient 
> version of software (if it's barely possible), compiling it against 
> stable platform, building a package and distributing it?

> Not much desktop software is really such inter-complex-connected that 
> upgrading version of single software breaks something else. I have 

Are you happy?

OpenOffice.org and Mozilla are ONLY two examples of the bunch I have!

> routinely used main desktop software's installations from upstream in 
> Debian stable and they have broken _nothing_ for me, being totally 
> out-of-distro packages or compiled from source. I don't see real danger 
> here as long as we can guarentee stable platform that the software would 
> be compiled against.

How many Packages do you have installed on your Computer?

I maintain currently 2800 Computers (mostly workstations) and I track
all required Packages and burn them on my own CCD. -- 1683 Packages!

Debian has OVER 19.000 binaries.

Do you have tested YOUR "from upstream compiled source" against the Disti?

I can not believe it!

I have self-coded software and other not in Debian-included too, but I
MUST do the same work as the Debian Developers do.  Thest MY EXTERNAL
software agains MY DEBIAN partial partal mirror. Otherwise i could break
installations of my customers.

This is MY job as Debian GNU/Linux Consultant.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-05-15 09:29:46, schrieb Mgr. Peter Tuharsky:
> I think, any new stable version of the desktop software should be 
> automaticaly added to security updates and distributed to end user. 
> There's no need to test the tested and stabilise the stable software. 
> Should the new stable version be broken, let's give the user easy way to 
> downgrade, and help upstream to fix it fast.

Oh yeah!!!

Push a new OpenOffic.org or iceape into stable and you
Enterprise goes down if something is NOT WORKING!

I am realy happy with Debian AS IT IS!!!

My customers too, since thea HAVE TRIED newer Software using TESTING and
UNSTABLE, And yes, I have installed at several customers on ONE machine
unstable to be able to converts some strange documents wahich can not
be opened in Stable...

But this machine was several times unsuable...  during upgrades of hell.

Version freaks should go with , Testing, Unstable,
Experimental or Hell.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Thus, I assume that not only novice consumers have the need for
> improving desktop software and bugs seen fixed.
>
> However, Debian dosen't officially support and embrace any way to do
> this. Watching for new version, You're on Your own.

> Yes, if software works well, then changes are not wellcome. That's why I
> suggest the desktop softwares upgrades to be "non-mandatory", however
> officially supported.

Each stable version has the explicit aim of being a platform with as little 
changes as possible. 
As you pointed out this sucks when the software you need is not mature 
enough to meet your needs yet. On the other hand for those users for whom 
that same software does meet the need this is a boon.

As long as progress is made upstream in meeting your needs this problem 
inevitably fixes itself with time. With each stable version meeting the 
needs of a bigger group of users. 

Depending on what software in stable doesn't meet your needs your best 
option may be one of:
1) use stable with backports/manually compiled software/selected packages
  from testing
2) use testing (or a snapshot of it)
3) use another distro (e.g. ubuntu/kubuntu/xubuntu, ...)

As a project we should aim to make 1 en 2 as easy and problem free as 
possible, and there's definately room for improvent there. But this is a 
hard problem lots of people are trying/have tried to improve. (witness 
things such as volatile, backports, CUT-releases, updated d-i 
releases, ...)
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)


pgpfbMIW75h2c.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi, Daniel


  When you talk about "desktop users", I think you really mean "novice
consumers".  Is that a fair assessment?  In my experience, Debian can
work just fine on the desktop in some situations, just not for novice
home users.  (think, e.g., about desktops for office workers)


We have had 50 Debian desktop installations in our organisation, and the 
users have had some legitimate needs, and were not happy with some 
usability shortages or bugs in some basic software found in Debian Sarge 
(OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Thunderbird, and so on).
Since we use these applications massively, and have to communicate with 
outside word, and those installations have been pilot project to whole 
organisation's migration to Linux, it has been important for us to make 
the work environment as flawless as possible.


The issues have beed reported upstream and fixed, however the only way 
to get the fixes to end user was to abandon distributional versions 
completely and install generic upstream packages.


Thus, I assume that not only novice consumers have the need for 
improving desktop software and bugs seen fixed.


However, Debian dosen't officially support and embrace any way to do 
this. Watching for new version, You're on Your own.



  Why would you want this?

  In a setting where you have people doing productive work using a piece
of software, unnecessary changes to the software are *worse* in the short
term than a fixed and unchangable set of bugs: not only are changes likely
to break the software, but they may require users to retrain or disrupt
the processes of your organization.  This is true even if the new software
is an unqualified improvement (either in terms of bug count or usability)
over the old software; look at the backlash over the new Ribbon interface
in Microsoft office, for instance.


Yes, if software works well, then changes are not wellcome. That's why I 
suggest the desktop softwares upgrades to be "non-mandatory", however 
officially supported.



Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi, Andreas

Another hand, many problems were well-known by the time I met them, 
there wasn't need to report them again.


So if there are really well-known "many problems" can you do me a favour
and list one or two here?


It's been in context, meant as "many of those problems" -a relative part 
of problems, not absolute number of them.


No, it's not worth the time. It's a history.

If you want to get a running testing

system why not installing stable and then switch to testing?  You are
right, the installer for testing might become usable for the masses
from the RC candidates and thus about half a year before a release.
This would perhaps clarify your statements, but this is not a problem
of the testing system but a problem of the installer.  Perhaps we
should document a reasonable way how to get a reasonable testing system
setup flawlessly.


Yes, that could be nice. Upgrading from stable to testing works usually, 
however I have met problems this way too. If it worked, it worked well. 
If it didn't work well, then it usually stopped to work completely :-) 
This is history too, Woody to Sarge.


 >> However, problems with testing are matter of other topic, an't 
they? ;-)


Yes, I do not want to disturb from your main point of your initial
mail.  But please do not blur it yourself with statements that are
just not true if you want that people take you honest (and I really
wish they would do).


I wish too.

Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Kevin Mark]

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:12:30PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > > Do you realize Debian's stable is classified as this:
> > >
> > > Stable means stable package list. No changes in API and ABI
> > > names or versions. This means no newer versions will ever make
> > > it into "stable". It is in "maintenance mode". This makes a
> > > very good setup for those wishing for "Rock Solid" machines. Doesn't
> > > crash. "too many" comes from the "Windows World", does not typically
> > > apply to Debian's Linux.
> >
> > No changes, no newer versions => dosen't crash? It's simply not true.
> > For example, the Debian Woody used an ancient version of Mozilla. _Very_
> > crashy one, compared with newer versions that came few months later.
> > Noone could call that "stable" one.
> 
> you're still missing the point here:
> - the point is _not_ that software in stable isn't buggy
> - the point is that software in stable doesn't change 
>-> this ensures that it won't be buggy in new ways
>   => thus making sure that what works, keeps working
>   => thus making sure that ones you have a workaround, that keeps working 
> to
> 
> In short stable is about not getting any unexpected surprises/changes in how 
> software behaves. 
I'd also say that because there are no unexpected surprises/change for a
predictable about of time (about 18 months) ,it is 'supportable' by
commercial/non-commercial entities. This is what corporate users,
embedded users, etc. want. For single users laptop users, maybe they can
choose to have less-than 'stable' aka 'unstable' which has a constant
stream of new updates to get support for current/newer hardware.
-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
|  my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian!  |
|___  Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > Do you realize Debian's stable is classified as this:
> >
> > Stable means stable package list. No changes in API and ABI
> > names or versions. This means no newer versions will ever make
> > it into "stable". It is in "maintenance mode". This makes a
> > very good setup for those wishing for "Rock Solid" machines. Doesn't
> > crash. "too many" comes from the "Windows World", does not typically
> > apply to Debian's Linux.
>
> No changes, no newer versions => dosen't crash? It's simply not true.
> For example, the Debian Woody used an ancient version of Mozilla. _Very_
> crashy one, compared with newer versions that came few months later.
> Noone could call that "stable" one.

you're still missing the point here:
- the point is _not_ that software in stable isn't buggy
- the point is that software in stable doesn't change 
   -> this ensures that it won't be buggy in new ways
=> thus making sure that what works, keeps working
=> thus making sure that ones you have a workaround, that keeps working 
to

In short stable is about not getting any unexpected surprises/changes in how 
software behaves. 
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)


pgpQlXQjQvnll.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Haven't heard how libtruetype security upgrade caused OpenOffice.org, 


Sorry, should be "libfreetype"


Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

I don't have enough knowledge to do that.

Peter

David Nusinow  wrote / napísal(a):

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:41:17AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

The kernel, the X.org


So are you volunteering to join the kernel and XSF teams to make this
happen?

 - David Nusinow





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

I'm glad it works for You.

Peter

Greg Folkert  wrote / napísal(a):

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:


We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian
releases: 

testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half
year 

before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the
rapidly 

increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will not
be 

installable at all, will have dependencies severely broken, etc.

In several mails you claimed testing as broken.  This is completely
orthognal to my experience.  I'm using testing since its existence
on most of my boxes.


To that, I run Sid/unstable on 90% of everything I have. Stable on those
machines that cannot have problems.


Only production servers are running stable and I keep my fingers from
running unstable (except of chroots).


I haven't seen an unstable problem that was a problem for more than a
couple of days... and mostly had workarounds in any case.


So were is the proof for you statement.  What are the numbers of the
bugs you might have reported against packages in testing? Could you
please a bit more verbose about your problems in testing because
nobody else made it to my radar that testing is that unusable. Perhaps
I missed something ...


I've asked for specific examples.


Kind regards

Andreas (writing from a laptop that runs testing. ;-))


Cheers from a Sid+Experimental machine.





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi, Greg

You took it quite actively.



As many see, all of them are different in server and in desktop world,
and many times Debian chooses to dictate the users "we know the best 
what You need" instead of listening to them.


Why then are there 28000+ packages in Debian? If Debian only dictates,
why then are there *FAR* more packages available for install than in
*ANY* other Distribution? How many Window Managers? How many alternative
packages to do the same thing, like word processing, editors, music
clients, rss feed readers, web-browsers? I could go on for days, but I
hope you get my point.

Come on, we know the answer, you can say it.


Yes, no single other distro offers such a vast choice possibility, if 
we're speaking about software. The "dictate" I feel on other levels. 
Diff the end user approach of Ubuntu and end user approach of Debian and 
You see a part of it.


It's complex to discuss undercover, however with Ubuntu, user get's an 
_impression_ that this is created especially for _him_ and that Ubuntu 
_cares_ about what he might need. We could call it "marketing", however 
it's only partially about marketing. Whatever quality the Debian offers, 
it's harder for user to _interact_ with the community, and harder to get 
the impression that he actually can have any impact on what's going on. 
One easily gets impression, that he can move the mountain more easily 
than affect Debian's course.



b, Stable without (too many) crashes


Do you realize Debian's stable is classified as this:

Stable means stable package list. No changes in API and ABI
names or versions. This means no newer versions will ever make
it into "stable". It is in "maintenance mode". This makes a very
good setup for those wishing for "Rock Solid" machines. Doesn't
crash. "too many" comes from the "Windows World", does not
typically apply to Debian's Linux.


No changes, no newer versions => dosen't crash? It's simply not true.
For example, the Debian Woody used an ancient version of Mozilla. _Very_ 
crashy one, compared with newer versions that came few months later. 
Noone could call that "stable" one.


Generally speaking, there _are_ stability issues in any software. Should 
they eventually get fixed upstream, then newer version _objectively_ is 
_more_stable_ than older, providing no new stability bug has been 
introduced since the old has been fixed. Yes, it's perfectly possible 
that newer version of software is more stable (less crashy) than old 
one. (Should it be reversely, then software is more and more crashy and 
will not be usefull at the end ;-)


As I said, "old" is not automatically equal to "stable".




c, Applications should work generally


Okay, what specifically does not work in Debian?


I just listed criteria, didn't blame Debian at this point.


d, Applications should work together well


Again, if you are using a Desktop environment, they just DO.


By the means of usability, not always.

For example, Abiword dosen't exchange files ideally with other office 
suits (Koffice, OpenOffice.org etc) found in Sarge due to different 
import/export filters. With Etch, it's been improved (due to upstream's 
work, of course). However, they and other apps are being under 
development that leads to ODF support. New version will work 
_much_better_ with each other.


Openoffice.org hve had problems with importing it's own files, that have 
been fixed. Thus newer version is more interoperable with itself than older.


Other example is SVG support. We'll (hopefully) get soon new version of 
OpenOffice.org with SVG support, Firefox with improved SVG support, etc.


Applications mature in course of interoperability in FOSS world. "Newer" 
almost always meens "better".



In fact, I use XFCE. If I click on a link in my e-mail client
(Evolution) it opens up my preferred Web-browser (Iceweasel). If I open
a "Word Document" in Iceweasel, it opens the doc in OpenOffice.org
writer. If I make a mailto link in Writer and click on it, it opens an
Evolution "new mail" interface. So, once again, I don't see your problem
here.


Well, if You have chosen to use Thunderbird (Icedove) instead of 
Evolution, You must have installed gnome-support manually, otherwise it 
dosen't interact with other apps well.


In Sarge, I've had many problems regarding file associations with 
Thunderbird.


I just say, that newer versions usually interact better with each other, 
and thus the oldness is decreasing the usability, not increasing, by 
means of interoperability.





e, The serious security problems should get fixed ASAP


Again, just pointing the need, not blaming anyone.


Debian's Stable cannot introduce new versions. This complicates things.
It makes it tough, the security team has to "backport" the fixes from
the "new versions" and force the changes to not bump the ABI numbers.
This may seem trivial to you, but it is NOT.


In fact, Im saying that it is too complicated (if even poss

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 09:11, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> I'd say, half of problems with testing were connected to bugs in
> installer.

This statement really wants some qualifications...

The official releases (beta and RC) of the installer for testing have had 
no really serious bugs, though there may be errata that can affect 
specific situations or hardware. They are tested extensively.

Also, in most cases it is not the _installer_ that is broken, but that 
there are bugs in individual packages that are installed during an 
installation that can cause the installation to fail.
Unfortunately such bugs are often only detected after a package migrates 
to testing because that is the first time someone will try to do an 
installation that includes the package.
I also think that we will see a lot less of such problems for Lenny than 
we have for Etch. For Etch we've had a few really major changes (kernel, 
initrd generators, removal of base-config, XOrg transition) that had a 
high impact on the installer an installations. I doubt we'll have so many 
for Lenny.

Installation problems when using daily built images or weekly snapshots is 
therefore quite possible, but we always try to get such issues fixed 
ASAP.

However,  you are also almost guaranteed to be able to install testing 
using a full CD/DVD image from the last official D-I release, especially 
if you choose to use only the CD and not use a network mirror in addition 
to the CD/DVD.
And, as Andreas has already said, you can always install stable and 
upgrade to testing (though that may get harder as stable gets older, 
especially as there will be no release notes yet).

Even though all this may not really change things from the viewpoint of an 
end user, it is IMO very relevant when discussing the usability of 
testing as a whole.

Cheers,
FJP


pgpt3arQMxgEH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 16 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

Don't remember, not too much. However, if hundred of packages had broken 
deps,


This statement is definitely wrong.

where would You report the bug? I'm not too experienced with apt and I 
hate hacking around it.


There is no need to hack around it.

Another hand, many problems were well-known by the time I met them, there 
wasn't need to report them again.


So if there are really well-known "many problems" can you do me a favour
and list one or two here?


I'd say, half of problems with testing were connected to bugs in installer. I


I don't know what you mean here.  If you want to get a running testing
system why not installing stable and then switch to testing?  You are
right, the installer for testing might become usable for the masses
from the RC candidates and thus about half a year before a release.
This would perhaps clarify your statements, but this is not a problem
of the testing system but a problem of the installer.  Perhaps we
should document a reasonable way how to get a reasonable testing system
setup flawlessly.

I heared many people on mailing lists saying they would never suggest running 
testing for other than testing purposes, and they often added typical 
problems one coan get in with testing..


Links?
Well, testing has its name for purpose and I personally think about to
whom I suggest using testing.  But the name is choosen quite conservative for
a quite stable thing (which is just not "rock solid" as stable).


However, problems with testing are matter of other topic, an't they? ;-)


Yes, I do not want to disturb from your main point of your initial
mail.  But please do not blur it yourself with statements that are
just not true if you want that people take you honest (and I really
wish they would do).

Kind regards

  Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

In several mails you claimed testing as broken.  This is completely
orthognal to my experience.  I'm using testing since its existence
on most of my boxes.


I use it on some boxes too, however, mostly the snapshots from the 
half-year before-stable period of time. Attempts to use much sooner 
snapshots were not too successfull for me.


Only production servers are running stable and

I keep my fingers from running unstable (except of chroots).  So
were is the proof for you statement.  What are the numbers of the
bugs you might have reported against packages in testing?


Don't remember, not too much. However, if hundred of packages had broken 
deps, where would You report the bug? I'm not too experienced with apt 
and I hate hacking around it.
Another hand, many problems were well-known by the time I met them, 
there wasn't need to report them again.


I'd say, half of problems with testing were connected to bugs in 
installer. I know the guys are doing though work around it, however I 
think installer should get stabilised a while before the testing gets 
into feature freeze. Etch has been quite better by this means than Sarge 
btw.


 Could you

please a bit more verbose about your problems in testing because
nobody else made it to my radar that testing is that unusable.
Perhaps I missed something ...


I heared many people on mailing lists saying they would never suggest 
running testing for other than testing purposes, and they often added 
typical problems one coan get in with testing..

However, problems with testing are matter of other topic, an't they? ;-)


Best regards

Peter



Kind regards

   Andreas (writing from a laptop that runs testing. ;-))




--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Steve Greenland  wrote / napísal(a):
On 14-May-07, 07:55 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$ 
refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even worse, 
abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu?


Why is this worse?


I wrote "worse" because for Debian, this is worse. Not that it is 
damaging it somehow. Of course there naturally will be other distros, 
cooperating hopefully.


It's "worse" because it implies, that Debian is not as good desktop as 
it ought to be.


Why isn't there room for two similar distributions,

with one aimed at being more up-to-date for a limited set of packages
and hardware, while the other aims at being rock-solid on a wide variety
of hardware for extended periods of time?


As I illustreted, "rock solid" is not automatically guaranteed by 
oldness of software or by length of pre-release testing. And for the end 
_desktop_ user, usability matters too. Sometimes even more than the age 
(I wouldn't tell "stability" because, again, this is not always the 
same). That's the first thing I think Debian is doing wrong, if it tries 
to be desktop distro too. The optimum is somewhere in between.




There are certainly ways that Debian can improve, but I'm not convinced
that "become more like Ubuntu" is one of them. Why not let Ubuntu
fulfill the desires of that group of users?


"More like Ubuntu" -by some means, we could learn much from them. 
However I don't suggest to become another Ubuntu.


There are partial approaches possible that could itself benefit Debian 
dekstop much. And in the Debian, other ways of applying changes than 
"step-by-step" I don't see even possible, does anybody? ;-)


We could start with programs that don't other programs depend on much. 
For example, what is the purpose of using 2 years old Firefox, 
Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org and other such stand-alone programs? They 
could be flawlessly upgraded during stable release life cycle. If "extra 
stability" or whatever is the mean, then let them be tested for a while 
(however, preferrably during _their_ testing phase).


Next, the bug reporting is completely flawed for desktop user, and in 
order to make it functional, the balance must be moved closer to the 
recent software versions. I don't see other way to do it. Does somebody? 
There is no choice but keeping Debian desktop user 
out-of-software-community for next years.


Third, bug reporting systems really needs some consolidation, and 
probably negotiations between distros and software vendors. It took too 
long to have LSB, and convergention of the bug reporting systems I see 
as the next step necessarry. And who could offer bigger authority than 
Debian, the greatest community-driven distro?



Peter



Steve



--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Raphael Hertzog  wrote / napísal(a):

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation "whole 
system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here; occassional 
bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable is not acceptable.


Have you facts to assert this?


Just a personal experience.



I've been an happy user of testing. It happens that some packages are not
upgradable during a timeframe however the installed packages are not broken
and thus the system is perfectly reliable.


You can't just get the latest version and hope that it won't break
anything.
That should be verified in light of broad experience (I don't have any). 
Does it happen often that GNOME version change breaks many things? The 
only my try was to put GNOME 2.0 to Debian Woody (ugly GNOME 1.2), and I 
was succesful.


You can't generalize based on a single experience like that.


Yes, I admired that openly.

Your

restricted yourself to software published by the Gnome project. Check how
many applications depend on Gnome and yet are not developed following
Gnome's schedule. Those are the applications which have not been tested by
upstream with the new Gnome and which are the more likely to break.


Could we put more pressure on them to follow some rules? Make it 
compliant or be not released at all?

I'd expect that enterprise is already making pressure on this..



You can't rely on upstream to do this testing for you. We have a purpose,
we don't stabilize our distribution just because it sounds nice, it's
really needed in many cases.

Don't get me wrong however, I'm all in favor of having backports
integrated in Debian and make it a viable alternative for many users.
But you simply can't drop newer upstream version in what we call "stable"
like you suggest.


I respect Your opinion and probably You know what You're speaking about, 
however the interests should come to some balance (stability vs 
available labour force vs usability vs bug reporting vs security).


Maybe, there could be these levels in release cycle:
-stable (security fixes are backported, depending on popularity and 
demand the packages have)
-recent (tested, functional fresh packages, that could stable be 
upgraded by, w/o breaking deps, officially supported)

-testing (stabilisation playground for next libraries platform)
-unstable (new software packages)


Peter



We don't really need more discussion on that topic. We need improvements
to make that a realistic goal.

Cheers,



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[David Nusinow]

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:41:17AM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> The kernel, the X.org

So are you volunteering to join the kernel and XSF teams to make this
happen?

 - David Nusinow


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Greg Folkert]

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> 
> > We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian
> releases: 
> > testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half
> year 
> > before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the
> rapidly 
> > increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will not
> be 
> > installable at all, will have dependencies severely broken, etc.
> 
> In several mails you claimed testing as broken.  This is completely
> orthognal to my experience.  I'm using testing since its existence
> on most of my boxes.

To that, I run Sid/unstable on 90% of everything I have. Stable on those
machines that cannot have problems.

> Only production servers are running stable and I keep my fingers from
> running unstable (except of chroots).

I haven't seen an unstable problem that was a problem for more than a
couple of days... and mostly had workarounds in any case.

> So were is the proof for you statement.  What are the numbers of the
> bugs you might have reported against packages in testing? Could you
> please a bit more verbose about your problems in testing because
> nobody else made it to my radar that testing is that unusable. Perhaps
> I missed something ...

I've asked for specific examples.

> Kind regards
> 
> Andreas (writing from a laptop that runs testing. ;-))

Cheers from a Sid+Experimental machine.
-- 
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C  2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0  2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74  E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Greg Folkert]

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 14:55 +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or 
> M$ refugee?

For me the choice is clear. I use Debian for myself. I choose to support
Ubuntu for people that do not want as many choices. This is what M$
refugees think they want. Ubuntu is channelized into a few "platforms"
as you put it. It has:

Ubuntu == GNOME Desktop Environment ("platform")
Kubuntu == KDE Desktop Environment ("platform")
Xubuntu == XFCE Desktop Environment ("platform")

Each is release accordingly to the "GNOME" release schedule, as that is
the driving force behind Ubuntu's release schedule. This release
schedule is 6 months.

> Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even worse, 
> abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu?

The same reason many people choose Fedora Core or Mandriva or Gentoo or
 because they can. I abandon Debian for other
people, only because it has a (as you put it) more "friendly" support
system. 

> Why do most people consider Debian to be user-unfriendly and
> server-oriented distro?

It is a misnomer that Debian is all about "elitism" or that it is hard
to install or that the developers/mailing lists don't speak "newbie-ese"
or that it doesn't support "new hardware" really well. I have to tell
you the only thing in that list that *might* be right is the hardware
thing for "stable". Stable... more on the stable/ testing/ unstable/
thing in a bit.

> Debian developers often see "Ubuntu the enemy" and are mocking it as 
> inferior technology. However, they fail to see, what does the Debian 
> really offer to desktop users eventually.

Sure, there is a bit of friction. Not "Ubuntu is TEH 3N3MY, 7HR0W R0XX
47 7H3M! D13! D13! D13!" or "Argh, there mateys, we be sailing up the
port side of the "Ubuntu", prepare the starboard side cannons!"

Nothing of the sort. Ubuntu and Debian have a tremendously different set
of motivators for releases and development.

Debian, is all about volunteers, free and Free software and
policy to implement them without much ado. This also has to
occur across 10 or so Hardware architectures at the same time.

Ubuntu, is all about volunteers, free and Free software, except
where is interferes with the release schedule and the "quality"
of the user experience. And it only supports three hardware
architectures. And apparently soon, only 2 as Apple dropped
PowerPC as an architecture. AND it is supported by a commercial
entity.

> They fail to understand, why are they using Ubuntu happily and
> reference it to novices. It seems, that desktop users don't see Debian
> fitting their needs. What are the means?

It is more about the fact that Ubuntu is indeed a niche OS. Debian runs
on a plethora of Hardware Architectures and is consistent across those
architectures.

> The answers:
> 1, needs
> 2, release cycle philosophy
> 3, community
> 4, priorities
> 
> As many see, all of them are different in server and in desktop world,
> and many times Debian chooses to dictate the users "we know the best 
> what You need" instead of listening to them.

Why then are there 28000+ packages in Debian? If Debian only dictates,
why then are there *FAR* more packages available for install than in
*ANY* other Distribution? How many Window Managers? How many alternative
packages to do the same thing, like word processing, editors, music
clients, rss feed readers, web-browsers? I could go on for days, but I
hope you get my point.

Come on, we know the answer, you can say it.

> Let's think a while about the current situation. First define, what I 
> need from my _desktop_, being an ordinary power user:
> 
> a, The system must work well with available hardware, automatically
> and "naturally"

This depends on *MANY* things. Primarily the Kernel. But also side
projects to deal with vendors that produce *WINDOWS ONLY* device
drivers. Case in point Wireless drivers. NDIS wrapper is a very good
attempt to cover this. There are other device manufactures that only
develop Windows drivers only. This is a case of "Why bother, Windows
cover 90%+ of the field"

> b, Stable without (too many) crashes

Do you realize Debian's stable is classified as this:

Stable means stable package list. No changes in API and ABI
names or versions. This means no newer versions will ever make
it into "stable". It is in "maintenance mode". This makes a very
good setup for those wishing for "Rock Solid" machines. Doesn't
crash. "too many" comes from the "Windows World", does not
typically apply to Debian's Linux.

> c, Applications should work generally

Okay, what specifically does not work in Debian? I have a few obscure
problems, but they are obscure. Currently in Sid, I have an xnest
problem, but it was only just introduced, will be fixed very shortly. I
don't see your "should work generally", mine just *D

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases: 
testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year 
before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the rapidly 
increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will not be 
installable at all, will have dependencies severely broken, etc.


In several mails you claimed testing as broken.  This is completely
orthognal to my experience.  I'm using testing since its existence
on most of my boxes.  Only production servers are running stable and
I keep my fingers from running unstable (except of chroots).  So
were is the proof for you statement.  What are the numbers of the
bugs you might have reported against packages in testing? Could you
please a bit more verbose about your problems in testing because
nobody else made it to my radar that testing is that unusable.
Perhaps I missed something ...

Kind regards

   Andreas (writing from a laptop that runs testing. ;-))

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Steve Greenland]

On 14-May-07, 07:55 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$ 
> refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even worse, 
> abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu?

Why is this worse? Why isn't there room for two similar distributions,
with one aimed at being more up-to-date for a limited set of packages
and hardware, while the other aims at being rock-solid on a wide variety
of hardware for extended periods of time?

There are certainly ways that Debian can improve, but I'm not convinced
that "become more like Ubuntu" is one of them. Why not let Ubuntu
fulfill the desires of that group of users?

Steve
-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Steve Greenland]

On 15-May-07, 08:27 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases: 
> testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year 
> before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the 
> rapidly increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will 
> not be installable at all, will have dependencies severely broken, etc.

That does not match my experience with testing. 

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Steve Greenland]

On 15-May-07, 04:25 (CDT), "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
> Do You think, that
> -compiling new upstream version of software against stable platform, 
> building a package and distributing it
> -needs more effort than
> -studying security fixes in upstream, backporting them to ancient 
> version of software (if it's barely possible), compiling it against 
> stable platform, building a package and distributing it?

It's not a matter of effort, it's a matter of stability. A new upstream
version is a *much* higher risk of breaking other packages than
backporting a security fix. 

Steve
-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Daniel Burrows]

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:55:40PM +0200, "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> Debian developers often see "Ubuntu the enemy" and are mocking it as 
> inferior technology. However, they fail to see, what does the Debian 
> really offer to desktop users eventually. They fail to understand, why 
> are they using Ubuntu happily and reference it to novices. It seems, 
> that desktop users don't see Debian fitting their needs. What are the means?

  When you talk about "desktop users", I think you really mean "novice
consumers".  Is that a fair assessment?  In my experience, Debian can
work just fine on the desktop in some situations, just not for novice
home users.  (think, e.g., about desktops for office workers)

>  b, Stability
> 
> It simply depends on, well, luck on choosing the particulary good 
> version of software. With stable upstream versions of software, there 
> should not be major stability issues anyhow.
> 
> Debian proclaims to offer excellent stability. However, if some 
> application does have stability issues, users must wait at least 2 years 
> for next "stable" version of Debian to see the fix. The stability is not 
> automatically guaranteed by oldness of software and lack of upgrades in 
> Debian.

  The word "stable" with regard to Debian's repositories doesn't mean
"works without bugs".  Every piece of software has bugs, and in general,
if a newer version of the software appears to have less bugs, that's a
reflection of the fact that there's been less time for people to report
the bugs it contains.

  Debian stable is "stable" in the sense of "solid rock" versus "shifting
sands": we ensure that the behavior of the system won't change during a
stable cycle.  There might be bugs in it, but they'll be the same bugs
throughout stable's lifetime.


  Why would you want this?

  In a setting where you have people doing productive work using a piece
of software, unnecessary changes to the software are *worse* in the short
term than a fixed and unchangable set of bugs: not only are changes likely
to break the software, but they may require users to retrain or disrupt
the processes of your organization.  This is true even if the new software
is an unqualified improvement (either in terms of bug count or usability)
over the old software; look at the backlash over the new Ribbon interface
in Microsoft office, for instance.

  Having briefly overseen a small network of Debian systems for a research
group, my sense is that an 18-month cycle would work well in this setting;
anything shorter than a year would be too disruptive.

  I await correction from more experienced members of this list who can
tell me I'm full of it. :)

  Daniel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases: 
> testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year 
> before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the 
> rapidly increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will 
> not be installable at all, will have dependencies severely broken, etc.

The goal of testing is to be continuously installable with as few RC
bugs as we can manage. In general, it approaches this goal closely
enough to be usable almost constantly.
 
> That's why I suggest: focus on base platform, stabilise it, polish the 
> dependencies. Then compile software against it and release it, compile 
> newer version and release it, etc.. Desktop software itself shouldn't 
> break dependencies.

If only that were the case. Most of the bugs and pain in transition
that we run into are not in the base system itself, but in everything
else that people actually want to use on their Debian system.

While I am glad that you are interested in making Debian better, you
need to pitch in and become conversant with the problems that we
actually have; only then will you be able to present solutions to
those problems.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
 -- Aesop

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian releases: 
testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half year 
before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the 
rapidly increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will 
not be installable at all, will have dependencies severely broken, etc.


That's why I suggest: focus on base platform, stabilise it, polish the 
dependencies. Then compile software against it and release it, compile 
newer version and release it, etc.. Desktop software itself shouldn't 
break dependencies.


Peter

Frans Pop  wrote / napísal(a):

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 14:44, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation
"whole system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here;
occassional bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable
is not acceptable.


Can you substantiate that? In my experience it is not true.

And even unstable is almost always usable if you know how to avoid 
temporary uninstability of packages and how to downgrade a package 
occasionally.


Though I'd not advice running unstable to end users, I would happily 
suggest testing.


Cheers,
FJP




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation "whole 
> system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here; occassional 
> bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable is not acceptable.

Have you facts to assert this?

I've been an happy user of testing. It happens that some packages are not
upgradable during a timeframe however the installed packages are not broken
and thus the system is perfectly reliable.

> >You can't just get the latest version and hope that it won't break
> >anything.
> 
> That should be verified in light of broad experience (I don't have any). 
> Does it happen often that GNOME version change breaks many things? The 
> only my try was to put GNOME 2.0 to Debian Woody (ugly GNOME 1.2), and I 
> was succesful.

You can't generalize based on a single experience like that. Your
restricted yourself to software published by the Gnome project. Check how
many applications depend on Gnome and yet are not developed following
Gnome's schedule. Those are the applications which have not been tested by
upstream with the new Gnome and which are the more likely to break.

You can't rely on upstream to do this testing for you. We have a purpose,
we don't stabilize our distribution just because it sounds nice, it's
really needed in many cases.

Don't get me wrong however, I'm all in favor of having backports
integrated in Debian and make it a viable alternative for many users.
But you simply can't drop newer upstream version in what we call "stable"
like you suggest.

We don't really need more discussion on that topic. We need improvements
to make that a realistic goal.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Frans Pop]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 14:44, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation
> "whole system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here;
> occassional bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable
> is not acceptable.

Can you substantiate that? In my experience it is not true.

And even unstable is almost always usable if you know how to avoid 
temporary uninstability of packages and how to downgrade a package 
occasionally.

Though I'd not advice running unstable to end users, I would happily 
suggest testing.

Cheers,
FJP


pgpNJ1U7ciwY0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[François]

Hello,

On Le Tuesday 15 May 2007, à 14:01:28, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Testing should simply be the place where _platform_ changes are shaken 
> > out, not the "input buffer for the new software".
> 
> Actually sid is where the platform changes are done. And once they're OK,
> they get moved to testing in a coherent manner. So testing should stay
> usable.

And you can also look at [CUT][] which seems a project to fit well
desktop user's needs.

[CUT]:
  
  "Constantly Usable Testing"

François

Post Scriptum : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in

>
> CUT was exactly what testing was supposed to be, in the beginning.
> Period. It hasn't become that. It has gotten to the point that
> sometimes
> testing is borkdened for long periods of time... in small areas mind
> you, but still broken.

which I agree even in a lot of case testing is really usable


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi, Raphael

Testing is usable. I used it through the whole development cycle of etch.
Bugs are unavoidable, you said it yourself. It's a matter of how many
problems you can accept.


Yes, bugs are unavoidable. However, testing is often in situation "whole 
system broken" or "nearly useless". I see difference here; occassional 
bug in desktop app is acceptable. Whole system unreliable is not acceptable.



In the Debian context, "Gnome" is a platform. It's not only software
that runs on top of libc6. Gnome represent dozens of libraries that are used
by hundreds of applications.


That's true.



You can't just get the latest version and hope that it won't break
anything.


That should be verified in light of broad experience (I don't have any). 
Does it happen often that GNOME version change breaks many things? The 
only my try was to put GNOME 2.0 to Debian Woody (ugly GNOME 1.2), and I 
was succesful.




If You mean to use the software from testing -You must first make it run 
on stable without need for library upgrades. That is more similar to 
backports job, than to testing.


You can't backport everything if you don't want to upgrade libraries. It's
simply not doable without rewriting the application.


I think majority of software _should_ build w/o problem with ordinary 
libraries of maximum 2 years age. In my experience, apps are generally 
happy if libraries are not older than that. Of course, shorter release 
cycle could remove remaining problems in this order.


Next stable release of Debian will of course upgrade the whole platform, 
including the versions, thus software would be happy for next 18 months.




Testing should simply be the place where _platform_ changes are shaken 
out, not the "input buffer for the new software".


Actually sid is where the platform changes are done. And once they're OK,
they get moved to testing in a coherent manner. So testing should stay
usable.


This is just a wish, not a common experience.

Peter


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Raphael Hertzog]

Hi,

Thank you for sharing your point of view. But you draw too many
conclusions. You speak out of "rumors" and "experience" and you fail to
understand that Debian is not a Desktop-only distribution.

Get involved and learn our development process, you'll discover that you
can't rely on many assumptions that you made.

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> in my experience, testing is not really good option for real work. There 
> are _platform_ changes going in testing, that leads to broken 
> dependencies and sometimes completely nonfunctional snapshots.

Testing is usable. I used it through the whole development cycle of etch.
Bugs are unavoidable, you said it yourself. It's a matter of how many
problems you can accept.

> Therefore, I suggest _the_platform_ (libraries and so on) to remain 
> stable, just upgrade the software that runs on top of that. Thus we can 
> both avoid broken deps problems, and have new software available.

In the Debian context, "Gnome" is a platform. It's not only software
that runs on top of libc6. Gnome represent dozens of libraries that are used
by hundreds of applications.

You can't just get the latest version and hope that it won't break
anything.

> If You mean to use the software from testing -You must first make it run 
> on stable without need for library upgrades. That is more similar to 
> backports job, than to testing.

You can't backport everything if you don't want to upgrade libraries. It's
simply not doable without rewriting the application.

> Testing should simply be the place where _platform_ changes are shaken 
> out, not the "input buffer for the new software".

Actually sid is where the platform changes are done. And once they're OK,
they get moved to testing in a coherent manner. So testing should stay
usable.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Andreas Tille  wrote / napísal(a):

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

I know there is backports.org -however this, and the testing, 
unstable, stable, volatile, experimental.. So many package versions, 
so much duplicate work..


I do not think that the work between the things you mentioned is really
duplicated.


In order of "rapid upstream versions inclusion", they partially would be.



I think, any new stable version of the desktop software should be 
automaticaly added to security updates and distributed to end user.


Uhmm, I think you missed the point about security updates.
I would see an option to make backports more official and perhaps
there is even a slight chance to use autobuilders in some cases
to support backports (better informed people might correct me), but the 
cruxial thing in you sentence is the "I think" part: It

does not only people who have good ideas - we just need people
who do the actual work.  Are you willing to work on the problem
you just uncovered?


Do You think, that
-compiling new upstream version of software against stable platform, 
building a package and distributing it

-needs more effort than
-studying security fixes in upstream, backporting them to ancient 
version of software (if it's barely possible), compiling it against 
stable platform, building a package and distributing it?




There's no need to test the tested and stabilise the stable software. 
Should the new stable version be broken, let's give the user easy way 
to downgrade, and help upstream to fix it fast.


This is just a personal point of view.  A complete distribution is
a complex system of several components that interact with each other.
The chances to replace a key component and break something else are
really high.  From a users point of view I would hate if people
call something "stable" and are risking to break my system.


You're right, I would hate the breakage too, however today's security 
patches occassionally do the same.


Not much desktop software is really such inter-complex-connected that 
upgrading version of single software breaks something else. I have 
routinely used main desktop software's installations from upstream in 
Debian stable and they have broken _nothing_ for me, being totally 
out-of-distro packages or compiled from source. I don't see real danger 
here as long as we can guarentee stable platform that the software would 
be compiled against.


If developer wishes to test the software before including it to 
repositories, he can join the upstream's beta testing cycle and help 
shake the bugs _before_ the software is "stabilised upstream". That's 
how the software cycle is meant like.



Thank You for Your reply

Peter


Moreover, I could suggest the backporting work to be "moved" closer to 
upstream and further from Debian itself. Other distros do lot of 
backport work too, so working together somewhere in the upstream's 
playground could bless all together.


I would move it into the other direction:  If you want to make Debian
better for Debian user you have to move backports closer to Debian.
It is absolutely no contradiction to work together with upstream, but
I see no profit for the Debian stable end user here.

Kind regards

  Andreas.




--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:

I know there is backports.org -however this, and the testing, unstable, 
stable, volatile, experimental.. So many package versions, so much duplicate 
work..


I do not think that the work between the things you mentioned is really
duplicated.

I think, any new stable version of the desktop software should be 
automaticaly added to security updates and distributed to end user.


Uhmm, I think you missed the point about security updates.
I would see an option to make backports more official and perhaps
there is even a slight chance to use autobuilders in some cases
to support backports (better informed people might correct me), 
but the cruxial thing in you sentence is the "I think" part: It

does not only people who have good ideas - we just need people
who do the actual work.  Are you willing to work on the problem
you just uncovered?

There's 
no need to test the tested and stabilise the stable software. Should the new 
stable version be broken, let's give the user easy way to downgrade, and help 
upstream to fix it fast.


This is just a personal point of view.  A complete distribution is
a complex system of several components that interact with each other.
The chances to replace a key component and break something else are
really high.  From a users point of view I would hate if people
call something "stable" and are risking to break my system.

Moreover, I could suggest the backporting work to be "moved" closer to 
upstream and further from Debian itself. Other distros do lot of backport 
work too, so working together somewhere in the upstream's playground could 
bless all together.


I would move it into the other direction:  If you want to make Debian
better for Debian user you have to move backports closer to Debian.
It is absolutely no contradiction to work together with upstream, but
I see no profit for the Debian stable end user here.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Ad testing,


in my experience, testing is not really good option for real work. There 
are _platform_ changes going in testing, that leads to broken 
dependencies and sometimes completely nonfunctional snapshots.


Therefore, I suggest _the_platform_ (libraries and so on) to remain 
stable, just upgrade the software that runs on top of that. Thus we can 
both avoid broken deps problems, and have new software available.


If You mean to use the software from testing -You must first make it run 
on stable without need for library upgrades. That is more similar to 
backports job, than to testing.


Testing should simply be the place where _platform_ changes are shaken 
out, not the "input buffer for the new software".


Peter


Petter Reinholdtsen  wrote / napísal(a):

[Peter Tuharsky]

Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even
worse, abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider
Debian to be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?


Interesting analysis, with several good points on keeping the stable
release working with newer hardware and keeping the software selection
relevant.  But my first impression after reading your long text is
that you are ignoring the work going on at backports.org, and the
ideas that has been floating around on making a Debian release based
on the stable version for the "base" packages, and include upgraded
packages like the kernel, X, Gnome, KDE and other hardware- and
user-interacting packages from backports.org.  You might want to have
a look into those ideas.

I've also seen ideas on making releases based on testing, now that we
have security fixes for the packages in testing.  It could give a
snapshot of internally consistent packages (as opposed to unstable).

Friendly,



--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

The kernel, the X.org

I realise, that the kernel and X.org are somewhat delicate things, 
because they affect both desktop and server. Changing them in the middle 
of release life, might not sound too well.


However, at least by the means of the kernel, the server world also 
needs new hardware support. Putting Debian on the server could get hard 
in the second half of release cycle.


Fortunately, upgrading the kernel dosen't break anything usually, as 
long as there is not some nasty bug in there. I suggest the kernel to 
follow the "stable tree" at kernel.org, with caution of course. If the 
kernel version upgrade was available eq 2 times inside stable release 
life, those willing to upgrade could use it, and those unvilling can 
stay with old version.


The kernel upgrade could fit the "volatile" philosophy IMO.

As of X, it's quite complex, however it's less the server and more the 
desktop thing, that could also get upgraded with some caution. Might 
also be the concern of volatile.


Some server software occasionaly need an upgrade too.

However the ordinary desktop packages, environments and so on could get 
upgraded routinely IMO, with easy downgrade option. No need to do the 
whole stabilisation scrutiny.


If some developer wishes to test the package before putting it to the 
repositories, he can join the upstream's beta testing to help catch the 
bugs before the software is "stabilised upstram".



Peter

Petter Reinholdtsen  wrote / napísal(a):

[Peter Tuharsky]

Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even
worse, abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider
Debian to be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?


Interesting analysis, with several good points on keeping the stable
release working with newer hardware and keeping the software selection
relevant.  But my first impression after reading your long text is
that you are ignoring the work going on at backports.org, and the
ideas that has been floating around on making a Debian release based
on the stable version for the "base" packages, and include upgraded
packages like the kernel, X, Gnome, KDE and other hardware- and
user-interacting packages from backports.org.  You might want to have
a look into those ideas.

I've also seen ideas on making releases based on testing, now that we
have security fixes for the packages in testing.  It could give a
snapshot of internally consistent packages (as opposed to unstable).

Friendly,



--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

Hi,


Ad backports importance,

I know there is backports.org -however this, and the testing, unstable, 
stable, volatile, experimental.. So many package versions, so much 
duplicate work.. Other hand, there's nothing "official" and 
"recommended" excepting the stable. Using anything else, You're on Your 
own..


I think, any new stable version of the desktop software should be 
automaticaly added to security updates and distributed to end user. 
There's no need to test the tested and stabilise the stable software. 
Should the new stable version be broken, let's give the user easy way to 
downgrade, and help upstream to fix it fast.


I can agree with You in some point -Yes, compiling against the, let's 
call it "stable base", as I suggested before, could also mean real 
backporting work, especially if the upstream moved to higher libraries 
versions in the middle of Debian's release cycle. That's why i think the 
backport's people are _very_important_ in the proposed scheme.


Moreover, I could suggest the backporting work to be "moved" closer to 
upstream and further from Debian itself. Other distros do lot of 
backport work too, so working together somewhere in the upstream's 
playground could bless all together.



PS. I know the text is long. I can work on bulleted version. Is there 
any interest?


Peter

Petter Reinholdtsen  wrote / napísal(a):

[Peter Tuharsky]

Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even
worse, abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider
Debian to be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?


Interesting analysis, with several good points on keeping the stable
release working with newer hardware and keeping the software selection
relevant.  But my first impression after reading your long text is
that you are ignoring the work going on at backports.org, and the
ideas that has been floating around on making a Debian release based
on the stable version for the "base" packages, and include upgraded
packages like the kernel, X, Gnome, KDE and other hardware- and
user-interacting packages from backports.org.  You might want to have
a look into those ideas.

I've also seen ideas on making releases based on testing, now that we
have security fixes for the packages in testing.  It could give a
snapshot of internally consistent packages (as opposed to unstable).

Friendly,



--
Odchádzajúca správa neobsahuje ví­rusy, nepou¾í­vam Windows.
===

Mgr. Peter Tuhársky
Referát informatiky
Mesto Banská Bystrica
ÈSA 26
975 39 Banská Bystrica

Tel: +421 48 4330 118
Fax: +421 48 411 3575

===


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Luis Matos]

Seg, 2007-05-14 às 17:03 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen escreveu:
> Interesting analysis, with several good points on keeping the stable
> release working with newer hardware and keeping the software selection
> relevant.  But my first impression after reading your long text is
> that you are ignoring the work going on at backports.org, and the
> ideas that has been floating around on making a Debian release based
> on the stable version for the "base" packages, and include upgraded
> packages like the kernel, X, Gnome, KDE and other hardware- and
> user-interacting packages from backports.org.  You might want to have
> a look into those ideas.

One good point would be to include tested backports into stable release
cycle.
I don't mean base backports, but mainly user interfaces and so on.

i'll give one simple example:
 - with network-manager-gnome, every time i connect to a radius network
i have to put username, password and certificate. A newer version now
saves this info.

do i have to spend 2 years (at least) doing so to have a debian stable
distribution?

> 
> I've also seen ideas on making releases based on testing, now that we
> have security fixes for the packages in testing.  It could give a
> snapshot of internally consistent packages (as opposed to unstable). 

There are people that use testing. In my work computer i only upgrade
from stable to testing more or less at 3/4 of stable's release cycle.

i don't think this is a way out ... maybe a better one is the one stated
above.

best regards

Luis Matos


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Peter Tuharsky]
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
> refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even
> worse, abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu? Why do most people consider
> Debian to be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?

Interesting analysis, with several good points on keeping the stable
release working with newer hardware and keeping the software selection
relevant.  But my first impression after reading your long text is
that you are ignoring the work going on at backports.org, and the
ideas that has been floating around on making a Debian release based
on the stable version for the "base" packages, and include upgraded
packages like the kernel, X, Gnome, KDE and other hardware- and
user-interacting packages from backports.org.  You might want to have
a look into those ideas.

I've also seen ideas on making releases based on testing, now that we
have security fixes for the packages in testing.  It could give a
snapshot of internally consistent packages (as opposed to unstable).

Friendly,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian desktop -situation, proposals for discussion and change. Users point of view.

[Kevin Mark]

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:55:40PM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Ask somebody, what distro would he install at desktop for novice or M$
> refugee? Why many are choosing Ubuntu instead of Debian, and even
> worse, abandon Debian in favor of Ubuntu?  Why do most people consider
> Debian to be user-unfriendly and server-oriented distro?

Debian wants to be used on many architectures and uses. Ubuntu does not,
it largely focuses on desktop/laptop support. With more resources on
desktop issues and shorter release cycles, Ubuntu will contribute to
Debian's desktop support, although I cant say to what extent because of
the uneven and inconsistent relationship between the two projects, which
is 'a good thing' for both Debian, Ubuntu and all users.

-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
|  my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian!  |
|___  Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]