On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 06:47:42PM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
> This thread got started because people were frustrated about having
> to explain stable vs. testing vs. unstable to new users trying
> Debian. But it appears to me that a lot of people with strong
> ideas on how to fix that don't und
I think that will only add to the confusion.
Operating systems aren't supposed to be esoteric.
Pick a good name for each (your "future," etc sound
good), and then write an easy to understand
one-sentence explanation at the download site.
--- Will Trillich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On
Wed, A
On 2004-04-15, Will Trillich penned:
>
> john doe will read "stable" and might think it means that "it's got
> all the current upstream bug fixes" when what we mean by it is "we
> stopped adding new stuff to this one a long time ago, and haven't
> found any serious conflicts in quite a long time".
Hi 2gether,
I read your posts with great interest and I wonder if there might be a
chance to overthink the strategy the Debian People setup once (maybe not at
this moment but in the far future).
You know, I'm also quite a newbie with Debian, and YES the strategy is quite
confusing. And as I read
> P.S.: And while I'm on it, plez enhance the installation routine,
> something like a graphical interface. This takes the fear off most users.
Personally I like the current Woody installer :-)
I find it quick and easy to use - runs nicely on older hardware due to not
having the overhead of an
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:22:22AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:59:49 -0600
> "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your
> > description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and
> I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos
boxes
> or a blue screen :-)
> I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (not true for
> every inst. step though)
Isn't this down to personal preference tho' - the last time I installed RH
or Mandrake it had
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Simmel wrote:
> Hi Pete :-)
>
> >
> > Personally I like the current Woody installer :-)
>
> I dislike the old and miserable/poor look of it, reminds me of old dos boxes
> or a blue screen :-)
> I dislike the poor information you sometimes get out of it (n
> I don't mean this to sound rude, but it probably will do. If you need
> it and no-one else is willing to do it, we look forward to submission of
> your patch. If no-one else is willing to devote resources to it, then
> take a step back and ask why.
:-) well said.
> Also, please note that Debi
- Simmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-16 14:18:37 +0200]:
> May sound lazy too, and yes I'm a lazy guy. If my boss tells me to setup an
> apache server and tells me to use debian because the cust would like to have
> especially this distri well heck I'm stuck in the installation routine for
> hou
> You might like to try the new debian installer
> (http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/) which is in
> development
> at the moment. It's at beta 3. It autodetects a lot of hardware,
> and if you're lucky consists of mostly pressing enter.
>
> > And to get away from M$ ("winzigweich") you
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:40:19 +0200
"Simmel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So why not think about using a strategy that almost every company uses
> (although Debian isn't one), e.g. Redhat, SuSe, even
> Microdoft... For me as a user and systems administrator
> something like this would be m
Incoming from Chris Metzler:
>
> But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
> and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
> their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
> fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence i
s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Chris Metzler:
But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
fundamentally for. The purpose of their
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:28:26 -0600
"s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Incoming from Chris Metzler:
>>
>> But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
>> and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
>> their existence gives users choices; bu
On (16/04/04 10:28), s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Chris Metzler:
> >
> > But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
> > and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
> > their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
> > f
Incoming from Chris Metzler:
>
> Hi. You picked my post to reply to when you said this. It may just
> have been a choice of many and wasn't directly in response to me.
> But just in case not, let me say that I agree completely with you,
> that I thought the point of view I was expressing was abs
On 2004-04-16, Chris Metzler penned:
[snip]
>
> But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing
> and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that
> their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're
> fundamentally for. The purpose of t
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:18:58 -0600
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If that's the most important thing, the very next most important thing
> is that the descriptions make clear to non-developer users that testing
> and unstable are not intended for them. I see no such advisory
> If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides,
> the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of
> backports or even /usr/local.
That's something i personally don't understand. I'm not sure if i get this
right but isn't the point of running stable on servers that
Incoming from Benedict Verheyen:
> > If the user wants/needs newer software than stable provides,
> > the Debian system can accomodate that through the installation of
> > backports or even /usr/local.
>
> That's something i personally don't understand. I'm not sure if i get this
> right but isn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
> I'd say no. If you're tracking sarge/testing, what happens when sarge
> is promoted to stable? If you specify sarge, your machine tracks what
> is now the stable distro; if you specify testing, your
s. keeling wrote:
>> So if you install backports, you introduce new releases of packages
>> and maybe libraries on your system which might contain serious bugs.
>> Compiling the source of some apps (to install to /usr/local) might
>> even fail because they need a newer libc6?
>
> Perhaps, yes. But
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
On a related note, I'm trying to understand the whole concept on
stable - unstable because in a few weeks time i'm going to get the time
from my current company to install some test servers with debian to
compare them to windows. They will be running apache, tomcat,jboss
a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Massey) said on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:14:05 +1000:
> want the very latest and are willing to sacrifice stability." Or
> something like that. Explain what the release names mean more accurately,
> rather than use new names that will still need explanation.
And one thing that re
Hi,
Yes, I have some comments :). I myself do not consider unstable to be so
extremely unstable as the name suggests. Naming it DANGEROUS sounds like
over-exegarating it even more being some kind of whoppy system that
crashes every 10 minutes or so. It sounds like it will *hurt* your brand
new shi
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> Stable --> CURRENT_STABLE
> Testing --> ALMOST_STABLE
> Unstable --> NEW_NOT_PROVEN
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unstable
1. a) Tending strongly to change: unstable weather.
b) Not constant; fluctuating: un
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
>> Stable --> CURRENT_STABLE
>> Testing --> ALMOST_STABLE
>> Unstable --> NEW_NOT_PROVEN
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unstable
>
> 1. a) Tending strongly to change: unstable weather.
>b) Not constant; f
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 04:29:57AM -0500, Will Trillich wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 05:58:57PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> > On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned:
> > > Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, "more unstable than the stable distribution" takes a lot longer
> > >> to type a
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
[...]
} I think the first question is of which user you want to attract. A good
} system admin knows what stable/testing/unstable means, but if you want to
} atract John Doe to run Debian as a desktop, we need to think a diff
Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
} My suggestions for new names:
}
} Stable --> CURRENT_STABLE
} Testing --> ALMOST_STABLE
} Unstable --> NEW_NOT_PROVEN
[...]
Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing
something
Hi All,
> The idea of renaming the releases is coming up not because of marketing,
> or attracting people. It is coming up because the current naming scheme
Hmm. You are right about that. However, I always like to make an analisys
on the 'bigger picture' before I start digging :). I think it is im
On 2004-04-14, Gregory Seidman penned:
>
> Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing
> something that long in IRC. I'd say we want pithy but clear. How about:
>
> stable ---> lowrisk
> testing --> current
> unstable -> earlyaccess
>
> I can see an argument that testing should
Morning,
I vaguely suspect that renaming the releases won't actually solve the
problem that it's meant to - reducing confusion among new Debian users.
You're likely to just end up with a new set of labels to explain. Any
name you come up with is going to be too short to fully explain the
situation
On 14 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
[snip]
> My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your
> description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I
> believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstable.
> I see it more as a develo
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:39 +0300
Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> sarge -- alternatives to "TESTING":
>
> - desktop
> - user
> - mostly stable
> - freezing
Some of these would actually be dangerous, as they communicate something
about testing which is *
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:59:49 -0600
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is in conflict with your
> description. Testing is the last to receive security updates, and I
> believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package bugs than is unstab
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> In computer-world unstable means: is known to crash too often, or
> something similar. It sounds like it is flaky, buggy crap :).
I worked at Microsoft for 3 years. They build NT Daily. They have:
* Daily Builds
* IDW B
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:32:40AM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> Daily Builds are expected to fail. IDW Builds are about the equivalent
> of Debian's Experimental. IDS Builds are about the equivalent of
> Debian's Unstable: they are shipped to ISVs, most people are expected to
> run them, th
>
> it's important to note that the present branding scheme
> (unstable / testing / stable) is certainly ACCURATE from the
> point-of-view of the programmers and script-writers -- but for
> the public-at-large, those terms seem MYSTERIOUS and engender
> frequent explanations and lectures on this
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:13:41AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:39 +0300
> Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>sarge -- alternatives to "TESTING":
> >
> > - desktop
> > - user
> > - mostly stable
> > - freezing
>
In that case it should
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 03:18 pm, mike wrote:
>I think the names are just fine.
>The code names are great and the debian Names (Stable, Testing, Unstable)
> are as they should be. If they are changed, I think we would have more
> questions asking about the naming scheme.
>
>Mike
I agree with so
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 4:29 am, Will Trillich wrote:
> here i brainstorm to conjure up some naming scheme possibilities
> (referring to current status as of 13 apr 2004):
>
> sid -- alternatives to "UNSTABLE":
> - "UNKNOWN"
> - "DANGEROUS"
> - "CAVORT
Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once.
Unstable is less stable than testing. But it's the
only way to go, in my humble opinion.
--- Anthony Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On
14 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> > My understanding of the 'testing' distribut
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
Thomas Pomber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once.
> Unstable is less stable than testing.
If by "less stable", you mean "less changing in its contents in time,"
then that's true.
But if by "less stable", you mea
45 matches
Mail list logo
