Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian 10.0 "Buster" Lining Up To Release In Early July

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
    Thankfully the anti-harassment team hasn't objected upon the "Buster" codename.

    OK I'm sorry.
    So I guess a release named "Snowflake" is now out of the question ?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Danielsan View Post
      To end this is a typical case why is extremely important having a COC everywhere, people that aren't unable to moderate themselves need to learn to follow some very basic rules.
      There already is one. It's called common sense.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        If you want innovation or new and thrilling, look at derivatives. These are the ones I know about:
        ...
        and also Ubuntu of course if you want to suffer and scream at the stupidity of Canonical. But please don't do that.
        And also that distro by that guy who advertised his distro here 24/7/365, which claimed so many things of which haven't been proved yet.

        Comment


        • #34
          Started using Buster two weeks ago with my own 5.1.5 kernel.

          Colour me impressed. I have never seen such a stable version of Plasma Wayland before. Even OpenSUSE Leap's Wayland version of Plasma had multiple irritating flaws that made me want to put my fist through my monitor when used.

          Their packaging system still sucks balls though.Who thought it was a great idea to break up all the *-dev packages into tiny individual components like qt5SOMETHING1-dev, qt5SOMETHING2-dev...qt5SOMETHING99-dev instead of just simply qt5-dev? Now I have to hunt down individual packages.

          And why is ffmpeg a dependency for Plasma and Gnome? And why can't i install a minimal Gnome or Plasma without any of its multimedia applications?
          Last edited by Sonadow; 06-12-2019, 10:46 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            It is a pity crazies attacked Debian. Why Debian? They should had went for Ubuntu, or better yet, make their own special snowflake fork of Debian. That would had been by far the best and right way to do.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Danielsan View Post
              From this link: https://www.debian.org/intro/about that I post before there is no one line where your statement matches the Debian description:
              That's just more of the same. And just as above it's not contradicting what I said. You probably didn't understand what I said, but that's your own issue.

              It is contradicting what you want it to become though. In no place it says this free volunteer-developed OS should experiment with new concepts and so on. In no place it says it should be a test bed for innovation.

              The only correct thing you stated is the fact that Debian is released when stable, which is well known and no one need to read further about it; all the rest are just insinuations,
              Sorry?

              "Debian is a stable (or at the very least dependable) base for a lot of downstream projects aimed at whatever else."

              That's a fact. A lot of different and innovative projects are using Debian as a base. You can't deny this.

              "It's a jack-of-all-trades and master of none."

              This is also a fact. Debian is GENERIC and all-inclusive, and this is written in the very thing you posted, and in its CoC. It does not have any specific goal in mind besides being a free operating system made by volunteers, which is as generic as a goal as it gets.

              "It's the "giant's shoulder" for others to stand on."

              Same as first statement. Looks more cool, and is also a famous quote.

              with a certain tone of disrespect about Debian
              The only one disrespecting Debian is yourself, that want it to become something it isn't, because you don't understand what it is.

              because I don't care about derivatives, derivatives aren't Debian as well Ubuntu is not Debian.
              Bulk of derivatives are basically Debian with additional repositories and some different default settings. Calling them "not Debian" is kind of arrogant.

              Ubuntu is different enough to be called "Not Debian" even though it is indeed very very close.

              I pretense you stop your attitude with me;
              Really, fuck off with this bullshit victimizing yourself.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                There already is one. It's called common sense.
                "common sense" is sadly not really "common", he is technically right, rules are required.

                A true CoC should be able to deal with fakers and SJW, that "are offended" by anyone having different opinions, or by people pointing out the reality to them.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  [...]
                  Still continues to quote me dude? Take it easy and leave your childish comments for someone else, there is no reason for your "mirror climbing", I don't really care what you think.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Danielsan View Post
                    I don't really care what you think.
                    If you really did, you wouldn't be still here quoting me...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                      Their packaging system still sucks balls though.Who thought it was a great idea to break up all the *-dev packages into tiny individual components like qt5SOMETHING1-dev, qt5SOMETHING2-dev...qt5SOMETHING99-dev instead of just simply qt5-dev? Now I have to hunt down individual packages.
                      I totally agree with you. They have the worst package format in the universe.
                      However, I do have to tell you that the package split exists to keep API/ABI compatibility (GoboLinux also does this), especially for libraries which break oh-so-freaking-many times like ICU and protobuf.
                      But after all, the -dev packages are stupid. Who thought it was a good idea to distribute a program without the headers, and the headers in a separate -dev package?!?! Seriously, I mean, one day I raged so hard I typed sudo apt install \*-dev in a poor attempt to install every single -dev package and get rid of this problem...

                      But that's not all:

                      - You can't install local packages with APT. You have to use dpkg, which doesn't do any sort of dependency resolution. The next statement describes one problem arising from this fact.
                      - The package manager basically tells you that you can't screw up once. When you install a broken package (e.g. missing dependencies), your package manager places the package in a "to-install" list, but since the package is broken, you can't install ANYTHING unless you "fix" the system, and sometimes doing that can result in the package manager wiping the whole system (this occurred to me once... I was installing some packages from KXStudio and at one point I almost deleted like 1000+ packages due to a simple break). pacman is superior in this regard. Not only you're able to install local packages within the package manager, but also it doesn't break. If you try to install a broken package, pacman just stops and doesn't screw up. No need to cleanup or anything like that.
                      - Creating packages... is a headache. Under Arch Linux all you have to do is create a PKGBUILD, type makepkg, and boom, your package's baked. However, under Debian, you have to create like a hundred files (like a changelog, a set of rules, package details, licenses, patches, manpages, files to install (IS THIS EVEN NECESSARY?!), library symbols (what the HELL), etc.), use a thousand tools, and then you finally have a package. It's like autotools vs. CMake/Meson. Autotools requires you to write like 10 files and run like 20 commands to get a Makefile. CMake/Meson? You just write 1 file, create a build dir, type cmake .. or meson .. and done, Makefile get!
                      Last edited by tildearrow; 06-13-2019, 03:39 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X