Hi!

I'm waiting for this release before reinstalling debian on my main PC... I'm a big fan of Linux, but i think it's stupid to install the current testing with the problems they encounter while trying to make a release...

Even on their site (debian.org), there isn't any way of knowing where they are in the process... I'm just so tired of waiting without knowing how long that I think about installing an Ubuntu instead... Moreover, Ubuntu integrated at last the X.org server! What is your advice ?

My advice is to install Sarge, and wait with the rest of us. I seriously contemplated a change to Ubuntu for the latest Gnome and X.org, but within a few days of installing it (on the same pc as I have Sarge installed) I found it lacking in stability when compared to Sarge. Debian is seamlessly upgradable. In fact I've upgraded my Sarge to Sid, then downgraded back down to Sarge with no problems noticed thusfar (I don't reccomend this procedure and the only guarantee is the Debian one, you break it you get to keep both pieces). For the time being (and perhaps for all time) I'm sticking to Debian. When the new stable is released I'm sure we'll all know about it, and know how to deal with it, and upgrades etc...

Isn't there a way to get informations from Debian's people in order to have a roadmap, or something like it... Even if they don't follow it for each deadlines, at least it would give us an idea of what will be done juste after the release.. Would they integrated X.org? python 2.4? Gnome 2.10... things like that...

I'd be glad to update a page every day for this !!! Just gimme the "go" !
Does someone know a person from the Debian project with who i could talk ?

Sarges roadmap keeps changing. At the pace that things are going, you could wait forever before getting a stable Sarge release. It still works fine, but if you want to be on the cutting edge you may want to try Ubuntu or other Debian derivatives.

And what problems might these be? Apparently Sarge is very close to the final freeze that precedes the release, so Debian "testing" should be now as close to "stable" as can be.

For desktops, I think, Debian "testing" is always a safe choice, especially if you've installed the apt-listbugs utility. I've had no problems using it whatsoever. I don't know if "testing" currently receives any security updates, so I cannot say if it's safe to use it for servers.

Ubuntu has "stable" releases but, considering that Ubuntu is made from Debian "unstable", I very much doubt that Ubuntu would be stable in server use in the same sense that Debian's "stable" releases are stable. I'm rather under the impression that Ubuntu is mainly targeted for desktop users. If you're considering to install a desktop system, Ubuntu might be a good choice. Personally I prefer Debian "testing" because I know it and trust it. Besides, I like to receive constantly upgrades to installed applications while Ubuntu's strategy is to upgrade installed applications only once every six months. But many people seem to be very happy with Ubuntu.

As for X.org, I'm not in a position to comment its progress on Debian but I've read other people say that it might be accepted to "unstable" right after Sarge's release.

After a quick Google search I found these pages that might be of interest:
http://lwn.net/Articles/130163/
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
The first of these (dated 1 Apr 2005) says that the final freeze before the Sarge release is very close. The second shows a graph that currently displays 100 release-critical bugs that they need to fix before the Sarge release. You might want to keep an eye on these pages to see if there's any visible progress.

Ubuntu is not entirely based on Debian unstable. It uses some packafges from unstable but builds a lot of its own packages.

reddazz, this is the second time you correct me of the same issue. You must think I'm hard of hearing. Well, I'm not. You are partly right and I can appreciate your point. Ubuntu does make lots of packages of its own. But these are something extra that Ubuntu can offer to its users and Ubuntu releases ARE actually built from snapshots of Debian "unstable". Let's just settle this issue once and for all by quoting Mark Shuttleworth:

http://interviews.slashdot.org/artic...tid=160&tid=11
"Ubuntu won't replace Debian. If people love it's Ubuntu, it's because it's built on such great engineering. Debian/sid is an awesome asset to the world of free software, even if it is the boy that breaks your toys.

The Ubuntu team takes Sid, every six months, and makes a secure, tested, and supported release of it. Hopefully many of the patches (published continuously at http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ but don't let Scott tell you he personally made all of those patches :-) we make in the process are adopted by the Debian maintainers, so Sid gets better as a result of Ubuntu, it is designed to be a two-way street."

I don't assume you are hard of hearing and I didn't remember correcting you before, but now that you have mentioned it, I do. I understand your point of view about the issue and what the Ubuntu people have promised to do. Unfortunately others in the Debian community seem to disagree and see ubuntu as a threat or harmful to Debian.

I am using Debian Sarge as a desktop and I love it. I am still a Linux noob, and am cutting my teeth on Debian. I did an Internet install with RC2, and had a flawless installation. I have installed and set up new applications, a newer kernel (2.6.8-2-686), setup x, installed and configured cups and have my USB HP printer working, and am using it to design a new Web site. While these are rather simple tasks, I have done these as a complete newbie, using apt and these forums, and have never had any problems with Sarge. I cannot comment on Ubuntu as I have never used it, but I find Debian Sarge very stable.

Ubuntu is harmful to Debian in that developers working on ubuntu should be working on Debian IMO. Maybe with their work added directly to the project we could get Sarge released. I gave Ubuntu, and Kubuntu a shot on one of my better home desktops and found it lacking. Others I talk to love it, and more power to them. My experience was simple. Sid is stable enough that the machine below has been running perfectly with it, Ubuntu (or at least some of the major apps that it ships with) was too unstable for even me. That and I don't see the need for it. Debian rules, as the Ubuntu developers would likely agree, since they use it to make Ubuntu in the first place.

I frankly am not waiting for Sarge to be released, it already has been as far as I am concerned. I run it fine on my laptop, and Sid just plain rules. I don't know why people expect Debian to tie itself to the release cycle of the comercial distros. Use what works for you, that is what matters.

Security patching is not dependent on the distro makers, if you pay any attention to any one of the vast number of security related websites that exist today.

Just my 2 pennies

But Ubuntu does not equal pure Debian. And, in my opinion, it is just not worth the hassle.

I have both Sarge on my desktop and Hoary on a test machine. Yes, Ubuntu is easy to install, pleasant to use, and has some neat features. Automounting CDs and USB sticks works like magic, the desktop is combed almost to perfection, and it is fast and ultramodern by Linux standards. But the HAL/DBUS daemons in real use just aren't stable enough. Gnome 2.10 and Xorg are cool but not a huge leap of innovation, certainly not enough to sacrifice SID compatibility. And I find Ubuntu's supported repository quite lacking. You must jump through hoops to get extras like non-free stuff, and opening universe and multiverse repositories has brought in dependancy issues that I, nevermind a noob, struggle to resolve. I too like KDE, but the Kubuntu-desktop is weak.

So, I would recommend going the extra mile and installing Sarge or even SID, set-up your desktop and forget about it. Debian will always be with us, but now Ubuntu ... as long as Shuttleworth provides the cash. Above all, be patient; Ubuntu features will trickle from experimental and you won't lose the stability and features that make pure Debian quite superior.

Debian had a milestone a little while back of bug # 300,000. I suppose after that they want to be careful, especially with 14 CD's in question that not one new or a hundred new bugs come up because of the packages included on the other 13 CD's that aren't needed to install Debian.

As a note though... In console mode the current (this weeks) Debian 3.1 RoCkS!@

If you don't want to wait, try ubuntu 5.04 (hoary) or Helix 1.6.

My 2 cents -- I have recently started experimenting with Debian and its cousins, and the following are my reactions.

Debian Woody (aka "stable") - the foundation just seems too old for my tastes. I have no particular complaints, but no particular trophies to hand out either. Overall I decided to remove it.

Debian Sid (aka "unstable") -- although up to date, the stability was a bit shaky. Removed it.

Ubuntu -- slick looking, simple install, but in the end, I didn't see what the fuss was about. The functionality just seemed overly stripped down (personal opinion of course). Played with it for a day or two, but nothing "clicked" for me.

Kubuntu -- same reaction as with Ubuntu.

Debian Sarge (aka "testing") -- now we're talking. Stable, complete, and apt-get is a huge plus in my book. (As a Slack guy, I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to install package "A", only to find that there were 5 or 6 package "B's" to install first, which I'm fine with and I accept, but when one or two of the B's require another 2 or 3 package C's, it can try my patience) I still spend the bulk of my time on Slack and Suse, but the amount on Debian is rising pretty quickly (mostly at the expense of Slack to my surprise) The bottom line is that for anyone interested in trying Debian (or a Debian-based distro), my advice would be to go with Sarge.

As for the splintering of development work between Debian & Ubuntu, frankly it's my opinion that Debian made its bed and now needs to sleep in it. There's no doubt that the glacier pace shown by Debian when it comes to new releases is to its detriment, and at least in my view, probably one of the main reasons Ubuntu exists is because of this lack of new releases from Debian (along with the absence of a clear direction from Debian itself.)

To quote the Debian site, "Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (a.k.a. woody) was released on 19th of July, 2002." (emphasis added) We're now in April 2005 and Debian is still putting out release candidates -- C'mon, everyone understands that careful testing is worthwhile, and Yes, labels and version numbers can be arbitrary, but no doubt I'd say there is a perception that Debian is just behind the times. Granted, that may not be technically accurate (rc5 was just released a few days ago) but in the marketplace, oftentimes perception counts for a lot more than technical details, and like it or not, I would characterize Ubuntu as having the reputation as being modern and jazzy, while Debian has the characterization of being outdated and somewhat behind the times. That's just my viewpoint, naturally.

In short, Ubuntu could be considered as a response to Debian's quasi-frozen status; if Debian stuck to some sort of known, scheduled release plan (even just once a year) I suspect the need for a Ubuntu or a Kubuntu would be significantly diminished. However, Ubuntu is here, now, and at least in the short term I think its momemtum will increase. I actually applaud the Ubuntu team for stepping up to the plate and doing something positive for the Debian family of distros, and for re-igniting some buzz and interest in Debian in general. At the same time though, I very much agree with Pcghost that it probably would be better overall for all this new effort to be put into Debian rather than to be concentrated elsewhere. The simple fact remains that Debian is the foundation upon which Ubuntu (et al) are based, and therefore it would make a lot more sense in the long run to strengthen the foundation than it would be to dress up the externals. Just like in architecture, you can put a new facade on a building to make it appear new and more desirable, but indoors you still have the same basic floorplan, wiring, plumbing, etc, and if you really want to modernize that building, you'll do a lot more good by upgrading the wiring, plumbing, etc.

In any event, both the Debian and Ubuntu projects have their merits, and I appreciate the efforts of both teams in putting out solid, worthwhile products. My personal hope however would be that eventually, the buzz that now surrounds Ubuntu be directed back to Debian, and perhaps to even have the Ubuntu project folded into Debian. That to me would be the best of both worlds, where the stability and deliberateness of Debian is enhanced by the energy and drive of Ubuntu. As I indicated, this is just my own 2 cents -- J.W.

Well, it seems that Ubuntu isn't well enough for Debian users... Which i understand very well! It's just that there are still some missing packages, which are ready, but blocked by the sarge frozen repositories, due to the release...

J.W.: I regulary read the Debian news and I don't know if you are aware of this, but the Debian project planned to supply stable release only for the 4 main distros: i386, powerpc, ia64 and amd64. The other architectures will still be maintained, but in testing/unstable state only. Thanks to that, they planned to make a stable release every 12-18 months.

See the log here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel.../msg00012.html

As noted above there is a mailing list archive:

http://lists.debian.org

With some "testing" related threads, here is another one.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-testing/

The truth is I don't think Debian developers themselves know exactly when Sarge is going to be released. About the best they can do is issue "drop-dead" dates for various stages and hope everyone gets everything in on time. If they push things too hard then a lot of useful packages will get deleted because they either aren't stable enough, or haven't been tested well enough. It is very hard to draw the line in what is otherwise a continuous process of updates.

Anyway, I have fantastic luck with "unstable" (Sid) on my non-critical desktop systems. I do tend to be a little careful when doing updates however. On major things that could seriously break the system, I usually wait a couple of days before going for it. If something still breaks, it is usually fixed in a couple of days on the next update. On security, I think I would applaud the hacker that kept current with the Sid development cycle enough to have time to hack machines before they got updated again. I guess nobody would be hiring me to run manage their servers anytime soon, huh?