Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Jim Pick wrote: (time to do some apologizing) This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that speculation *most* /speculation debian 1.3.1 users use netscape and that speculation *most* /speculation of those folks will want to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash that I've built for 1.3.1? Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only) mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'. In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in the debian development system. Even though there are many maintainers everyone seems to be on the same page. However, I disagree with the philosophy of fixing bugs in old distributions. Who decides when a bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution. Basically the maintainer of the package does (so take up the issue with him). I'm basically opposed to upgrading the 'stable' distribution after it's been released -- except for packages that have security flaws or were released in a 'broken' state (we shouldn't be doing that). If someone really needs the bash 2.01 version - they can always install it out of 'unstable' (along with libc6). No problem. ^^^ Not exactly! This actually requires about a half dozen packages be upgraded. If you don't do it just right, it can leave your system unuseable. Bash 2.0 is bad enough that it never should have been released in stable. I use debian at home and at work. For home use, I like to be on the cutting edge. At work, my job is developing software for clients, not being a systems administrator. I want a distribution which is easy to maintain and as well thought out as debian. Currently, soon after a distribution has been released (this happened for 1.2 as well as 1.3) it is abandoned by the developers. There are *still* bugs in the 1.3 installation (such as the problems with X). And why the hell was X 3.3 tossed in at the last minute? The 3.2 dist. didn't even install right. excuses Well, a whole bunch of security bugs popped up at the last minute. XFree is one of the biggest packages, so the X maintainer was swamped. It was a lot less work to package up the just-released 3.3 version. Unfortunately, all of this happened just as Debian 1.3 was being released. There was no opportunity to thoroughly test it in unstable. /excuses The other major problem is that we are allowing broken packages into 'stable'. There was also a problem where nobody realized that some of the X install bugs should have been 'critical'. I'm going to propose a new system for releasing things into stable that will solve these problems for the next major release. What's the focus here? Is debian trying to be a solid system or a cutting edge system. Both. But the 'stable' release should focus on being solid - and the 'unstable' working version should focus on being cutting edge. That way, somebody that is sticking with 'stable' will be assured of having a solid system that is only 6 months behind the 'bleeding edge'. Think of most of the Debian developers as people who are willing to live with the 'bleeding edge' and try to work out the bugs. The 'unstable' distribution can be quite unstable at times (I lost the data on my hard drive to one bug). Stability and being on the 'cutting edge' are mutually exclusive -- until a lot of work is done to fix bugs. We have 200 developers to do the work, which might sound like a lot, but it isn't. Nobody's doing this full-time as far as I know (although it may seem like it). Paragraph 4 of the Debain Social Contract (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software) states (whole P not quoted), To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use. I find that while the quality of distributions is generally high the emphasis from the developers is more on let's get that hot new release going rather than let's get all the bugs out of this latest distribution and make it completely solid. That rings true. Basically 'stable' is a snapshot of 'unstable' at a point in time where the developers have all taken a hiatus from adding new features, and concentrated on fixing bugs. Overworked (or absent) developers might not be able to participate fully in the release effort, and we only have
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: Richard G. Roberto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sounds above board to me. That's some careless wording. One would think you'd know I'm one of the good guys by now. :-) Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Richard G. Roberto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sounds above board to me. That's some careless wording. One would think you'd know I'm one of the good guys by now. :-) Bruce I should know better than to use colloqialisms(sp?) in international e-mail -- but I thought you were a nor-easter originally? To clarify, above board means not behind closed doors. What I meant was that nothing hapened on debian-private that wasn't discussed in public during the original CD image thread. If it had, it woudn't have been above board, but rather back room or closed door ;) Even then, it wouldn't automatically make it bad, just not above board. I already stated in the original message that this was just an inquiry -- not a judgement. I think most of the debian team are good guys. I reserve the right to be a bad guy, however :-) Cheers, -- Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living things, we will not ourselves find peace -Albert Schweitzer Richard G. Roberto -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: Jim Pick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only) mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'. I'm going to have to set this straight, since Jim alluded to a discussion on our private list. The next version of the system will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1. People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard Stallman requested that XDM display Debian GNU/Linux rather than just Debian Linux. It's worthwhile to insert that change, but not worthwhile to make everyone think they need to upgrade their systems because of it. Thus, we will not bump the release number to 1.3.2 for minor changes. This has been a large problem for some kinds of retailers, such as bookstores - they will not carry Debian unless we can promise them that we will give them a life-cycle longer than one month on their product. You will notice that both Red Hat and Slackware do not change their version numbers for bug fixes _at_all_. We will be changing the revision number, but not the release number. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
I think numbering things this way is a great idea. I would like to see Debian succeed(?) on and off, in the real world, the net. The one thing that I have always liked about Debian is the ability to be easy but not so easy that I have to be an ape to setup it up. I hope that with this move to the market place debian does not loose it's hack ability. As for Mr. Stallman and his problems with the exact name of Debian well I'll just say that if he wants an os of his own why dosen't he make one, yea I know about the HURD and such but hey when is the last time you picked up a copy of HURD Journal. Well enough bitting of the hand that feeds. The next version of the system will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1. People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard Stallman requested that XDM display Debian GNU/Linux rather than just Debian Linux. It's worthwhile to insert that change, but not worthwhile to make everyone think they need to upgrade their systems because of it. Thus, we will not bump the release number to 1.3.2 for minor changes. This has been a large problem for some kinds of retailers, such as bookstores - they will not carry Debian unless we can promise them that we will give them a life-cycle longer than one month on their product. You will notice that both Red Hat and Slackware do not change their version numbers for bug fixes _at_all_. We will be changing the revision number, but not the release number. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- Jason Killen Question Stupidity Want to stop the IRA??? Free the north. Monolith : the new ANSI standard for humans PGP fingerprint = 64 71 48 14 31 AE C6 70 E4 4F 64 EB 3B AA 00 6B [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.wcu.edu/~jkillen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Jim Pick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only) mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'. I'm going to have to set this straight, since Jim alluded to a discussion on our private list. The next version of the system will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1. People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard Stallman requested that XDM display Debian GNU/Linux rather than just Debian Linux. It's worthwhile to insert that change, but not worthwhile to make everyone think they need to upgrade their systems because of it. Thus, we will not bump the release number to 1.3.2 for minor changes. This has been a large problem for some kinds of retailers, such as bookstores - they will not carry Debian unless we can promise them that we will give them a life-cycle longer than one month on their product. You will notice that both Red Hat and Slackware do not change their version numbers for bug fixes _at_all_. We will be changing the revision number, but not the release number. I'm unable to subscribe to debian-devel, or debian-private because neither is available in digest form. I've missed this discussion there, so forgive em if these have been answered, but i have some concerns about this. Is Debian not including fixes into the official CD image because of COMMERCIAL concerns??? Are the bug/security fixes there, but the name just not changed? Which is it? How does this naming convention have any impact on the contents of a CD if the changes are still there but the name not changed? It sounds strange to me that having a name last more than one month would have any impact on the contents if they're still being fixed/updated, etc. Also, on Richard Stallman, Is the FSF going to start selling Debian GNU/Linux CDs? Way back when, that was on there web site (I think), but then the whole mess happened, is now fixed, and looks like we're talking again. Any news of that? They used to say they might sell Gnu/Linux to fund other research, etc. Debian may do well to concede the official CD to them if they're interested. That would get us out of the CD business all together, and back in the Free Software business. Having someone else produce an officially endorced CD (as an OEM, for example) might clear up these kinds of mis-perceptions. A distribution based on putting quality first can't afford commercial conflicts of interest, lest our differentiating feature become bogus. I remember backing the decision to produce an official CD image at the time because of the need to improve our commercial viability, but we should checkpoint the effectiveness of that decision now and make sure our priorities haven't changed unintentionally. This is not an invitation to a flame war, nor is it a judgement. I just want to know what's happenning (as a debian user.) If Bruce says not to worry, I won't worry. But I'd like to know one way or another. Private mail is OK if this topic is being dubbed unfit for public discussion. I'm still a debian developer in that I still maintain a debian package. I am only subscribed to this list and admintool (low traffic, but still no digest :-( ) Cheers, -- Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living things, we will not ourselves find peace -Albert Schweitzer Richard G. Roberto -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: Richard G. Roberto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is Debian not including fixes into the official CD image because of COMMERCIAL concerns??? Are the bug/security fixes there, but the name just not changed? Which is it? The Official CD will have a slower release schedule than the system available via FTP. Those who wish the latest fixes should be willing to update a few packages on their systems via FTP between each CD purchase. Nobody can press new CDs every two weeks and continue to sell them for $4 per 2-CD set, while updating 5 packages in two weeks via FTP is fine for most people. I guess that is a commercial consideration :-) As far as I can tell, this is the best solution for the users. Cheap CDs with up to 1.3 GB data, and then you download the latest couple of megabytes of updates. Also, on Richard Stallman, Is the FSF going to start selling Debian GNU/Linux CDs? I don't think there is a need for them to do so any longer. They are selling an FSF CD, I don't know what is on it. They want to sell for a higher price than most vendors sell the Debian Official 2-CD Set. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: The Official CD will have a slower release schedule than the system available via FTP. Those who wish the latest fixes should be willing to update a few packages on their systems via FTP between each CD purchase. Nobody can press new CDs every two weeks and continue to sell them for $4 per 2-CD set, while updating 5 packages in two weeks via FTP is fine for most people. I guess that is a commercial consideration :-) There should be a changes file for the current version back to the last distributed version of any package -- for comparison -- available on the web site. That would help users determine what they want/need to update (if anything at all). Most of the time, bug fixes are for certain behaviors under certain conditions and don't even apply to everyone. I don't want to download a bug fix that doesn't even affect me ;) As far as I can tell, this is the best solution for the users. Cheap CDs with up to 1.3 GB data, and then you download the latest couple of megabytes of updates. Agreed -- without having to subscribe to an internet bonanza just to get debian ;) Also, on Richard Stallman, Is the FSF going to start selling Debian GNU/Linux CDs? I don't think there is a need for them to do so any longer. They are selling an FSF CD, I don't know what is on it. They want to sell for a higher price than most vendors sell the Debian Official 2-CD Set. Having it available from the FSF would look good to comercial sites that already buy GNU software. It wouldn't need to be competitive at all. Just a thought. Thanks for the clarification. Sounds above board to me. Cheers, -- Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living things, we will not ourselves find peace -Albert Schweitzer Richard G. Roberto -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
From: Jens B. Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree that we have to move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that speculation *most* /speculation debian 1.3.1 users use netscape and that speculation *most* /speculation of those folks will want to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash that I've built for 1.3.1? If you can determine that an upgrade in bash fixes the problem, we will get it in. Can you build bash and report back to us? In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in the debian development system. Even though there are many maintainers everyone seems to be on the same page. I'm as amazed as you are. We do talk about what we are doing a lot. I think the only reason it really works is that we have some _extremely_ high quality people, who were attracted by Debian's policies. Who decides when a bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution. You have to tell us what you want first. Then our V.P. engineering makes a list of priorities, and various people help him with that. By the way, we are changing the point release naming scheme for marketing reasons. The next update will probably be called Debian 1.3.1 revision 1. Once Debian 2.0 comes out we will go to one decimal point and a revision number, so it would look like Debian 2.0 revision 1. This only makes sense to a marketing person, but please bear with it. Thanks Bruce -- Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it? Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
[ most deleted for bravity ] In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: |I find that while the quality of distributions is generally high |the emphasis from the developers is more on let's get that hot new |release going rather than let's get all the bugs out of this latest |distribution and make it completely solid. I agree with everything Jens says. I expected 1.3 to be maintained and have bugs worked out of it, for the same reasons Jens gives - I need my Linux platforms to be as stable and bug-free as possible since my income, at both main work places, depends on it. Cheers, --Amos --Amos Shapira| Of course Australia was marked for 133 Shlomo Ben-Yosef st. | glory, for its people had been chosen Jerusalem 93 805 | by the finest judges in England. ISRAEL[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Anonymous -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
Dear Jens and other Debianers: ... To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use. I find that while the quality of distributions is generally high the emphasis from the developers is more on let's get that hot new release going rather than let's get all the bugs out of this latest distribution and make it completely solid. I'm currently using old S.u.S.E. Linux at home and going to update it to ELF based new version of Linux. I would like to know the main advantages of Debian Linux over other distributions such as Red Hat, etc. Any idea? -Lingran ** Lingran Chen, Ph.D. Senior Scientific Programmer MDL Information Systems, Inc. 14600 Catalina Street San Leandro CA 94577 Phone: (510) 895-1313, Ext. 1305 FAX: (510) 614-3616 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mdli.com http://syngen2.chem.brandeis.edu/~chen/lingran.html ** -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
Jens B. Jorgensen wrote: Who decides when a bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution[?] After a few months of using Debian, I don't know the answer to that. I don't even know *if* distributions are updated after release. Is 1.3.1 supposed to be a stable upgrade to 1.3 in the same way that the Linux kernel 2.0.30 is a stable upgrade to 2.0.29? If so, will 1.3.2 be released to fix bugs in 1.3.1 while developpers are working on Debian 2.0? The FAQ (9.2 How can I keep my Debian system current?) talks about tracking the Debian archive, so I assume that having Debian 1.3 doesn't really mean anything unless I also say it's 1.3 dated from insert-time-stamp-here. Perhaps the upgrade scheme and version number scheme should be explained in www.debian.org somewhere, or perhaps I have missed something critical about Debian that I should know but don't. -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maurice-Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada 418-775-0852 - FAX 418-775-0546 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
Jens B. Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that speculation *most* /speculation debian 1.3.1 users use netscape and that speculation *most* /speculation of those folks will want to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash for 1.3.1? I don't... Here's my slant on Bash 2.01 (since we seem to be into rants) * 2.01 is a lot of new and untested code Already, afaik, at least two bugs have been found, one is the segfault on declare -p and the other a really nasty bug in libreadline which causes a segfault on tab completion in a number of the programs which use libreadline. The Debian policy of no new code, expect for urgent security fixes in stable, is IMHO, a good one. If it weren't for that, these bugs might have been discovered in the stable Debian 1.3.x tree. * 2.01-0.1 is a *non-maintainer* release About when 2.01 was released the real maintainer, Guy Maor, was off on a month along (announced) holiday. I did 2.01 because it fixed the set -a; set +a man bug and because I urgently wanted a libc6 libreadline. (I don't use netscape and barely knew about the ``bug'', never mind cared about it). I am not the real maintainer for a very good reason (apart from that there already is a maintainer), I wasn't able to port all the changes Guy had done to bash 2.0's libreadline to bash 2.01's libreadline or adapt one of his security fixes for bash itself. What I did do in the end worked, and would do for a while *in unstable*, until Guy got back and could fix my kludged solution. Guy is of course back, but he's been even more busy than usual with the move of master, so he hasn't done a proper release yet. The two reasons above are two good reasons why there is no bash 2.01 in stable. Even if the second one is fixed by Guy doing a proper release, I'm still of the opinion that there is too much new and untested code in bash 2.01 for it to go into stable (the two bugs found so far being excellent arguments for that position). You just cannot put untested code into a stable tree and have it cause gdb, es, etc. to segfault on tab. That is _not_ stable. -- James -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
(time to do some apologizing) This really annoys me. (No, not you Jason.) I agree that we have to move on the the next distribution, but given the fact that speculation *most* /speculation debian 1.3.1 users use netscape and that speculation *most* /speculation of those folks will want to use a plug-in, I think this bug merits an upgrade to 2.01 bash for 1.3.1? If a really .deb upgrade is not the answer, can we create a special upgrade on ftp.debian.org where I can upload a 2.01 bash that I've built for 1.3.1? Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only) mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'. In fact while I'm at it let me expand on this general point. Let me say first that I marvel at the (apparent?) organization inherent in the debian development system. Even though there are many maintainers everyone seems to be on the same page. However, I disagree with the philosophy of fixing bugs in old distributions. Who decides when a bug is important enough to be rolled back into an old distribution. Basically the maintainer of the package does (so take up the issue with him). I'm basically opposed to upgrading the 'stable' distribution after it's been released -- except for packages that have security flaws or were released in a 'broken' state (we shouldn't be doing that). If someone really needs the bash 2.01 version - they can always install it out of 'unstable' (along with libc6). No problem. I use debian at home and at work. For home use, I like to be on the cutting edge. At work, my job is developing software for clients, not being a systems administrator. I want a distribution which is easy to maintain and as well thought out as debian. Currently, soon after a distribution has been released (this happened for 1.2 as well as 1.3) it is abandoned by the developers. There are *still* bugs in the 1.3 installation (such as the problems with X). And why the hell was X 3.3 tossed in at the last minute? The 3.2 dist. didn't even install right. excuses Well, a whole bunch of security bugs popped up at the last minute. XFree is one of the biggest packages, so the X maintainer was swamped. It was a lot less work to package up the just-released 3.3 version. Unfortunately, all of this happened just as Debian 1.3 was being released. There was no opportunity to thoroughly test it in unstable. /excuses The other major problem is that we are allowing broken packages into 'stable'. There was also a problem where nobody realized that some of the X install bugs should have been 'critical'. I'm going to propose a new system for releasing things into stable that will solve these problems for the next major release. What's the focus here? Is debian trying to be a solid system or a cutting edge system. Both. But the 'stable' release should focus on being solid - and the 'unstable' working version should focus on being cutting edge. That way, somebody that is sticking with 'stable' will be assured of having a solid system that is only 6 months behind the 'bleeding edge'. Think of most of the Debian developers as people who are willing to live with the 'bleeding edge' and try to work out the bugs. The 'unstable' distribution can be quite unstable at times (I lost the data on my hard drive to one bug). Stability and being on the 'cutting edge' are mutually exclusive -- until a lot of work is done to fix bugs. We have 200 developers to do the work, which might sound like a lot, but it isn't. Nobody's doing this full-time as far as I know (although it may seem like it). Paragraph 4 of the Debain Social Contract (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software) states (whole P not quoted), To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use. I find that while the quality of distributions is generally high the emphasis from the developers is more on let's get that hot new release going rather than let's get all the bugs out of this latest distribution and make it completely solid. That rings true. Basically 'stable' is a snapshot of 'unstable' at a point in time where the developers have all taken a hiatus from adding new features, and concentrated on fixing bugs. Overworked (or absent) developers might not be able to participate fully in the release effort, and we only have cursory checks (Dale Sheetz and Brian White + their helpers), so bugs slip through. I don't think we have any developers actively working to improve 'unstable'. That's a good thing - who'd do the testing? I'll admit that our testing/releasing procedures could (and will) be improved. Debian 1.3 is really only the 3rd major release we've done (my 2nd). We're still learning. Being the distributed
