Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian 11 Is Releasing This Weekend With Many Improvements

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by nado View Post
    You're either trolling or you've completely misunderstood what Debian is.
    I don't understand why Debian 10 was released with the following desktop environments:
    .
    Desktop env Debian 10 Available @ 2019-07-06
    Cinnamon 3.8 4.0
    GNOME 3.30 3.32
    KDE Plasma 5.14 5.16
    LXDE 0.99.2 ?
    LXQt 0.14 0.14 (up to date)
    MATE 1.20 1.22
    Xfce 4.12 4.14
    .
    What is an explanation for this?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

      I don't understand why Debian 10 was released with the following desktop environments:
      .
      Desktop env Debian 10 Available @ 2019-07-06
      Cinnamon 3.8 4.0
      GNOME 3.30 3.32
      KDE Plasma 5.14 5.16
      LXDE 0.99.2 ?
      LXQt 0.14 0.14 (up to date)
      MATE 1.20 1.22
      Xfce 4.12 4.14
      .
      What is an explanation for this?
      Because Debian has a very strict and robust quality assurance process, which 1. takes some time and 2. means that fresh upstream releases don't always live up to the requirements.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Brisse View Post
        Because Debian has a very strict and robust quality assurance process, which 1. takes some time and 2. means that fresh upstream releases don't always live up to the requirements.
        Exists there a solid proof - I am asking specifically about desktop environments (DE) - that 1-3 years old previous-generation DE releases are more robust&stable than 1-6 months old current-generation DE releases? Feature-wise, previous-gen DE in majority of cases have less features than current-gen DE - but I am not asking about features, I am asking about robustness&stability. Is there a proof that it is true - or is it just a belief/religion?

        MS-DOS is very suitable&stable for playing old CGA/EGA/VGA games and running old software: retro computing, history preservation.

        In your answer, if possible, please try to factor out the effect of people being in certain cases resistant to changes and innovations.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

          I don't understand why Debian 10 was released with the following desktop environments:
          .
          Desktop env Debian 10 Available @ 2019-07-06
          Cinnamon 3.8 4.0
          GNOME 3.30 3.32
          KDE Plasma 5.14 5.16
          LXDE 0.99.2 ?
          LXQt 0.14 0.14 (up to date)
          MATE 1.20 1.22
          Xfce 4.12 4.14
          .
          What is an explanation for this?
          Here a counter question for you to think about:

          Why can you list the version numbers of 7 environments of Debian 10, but then fail at listing the version number of LXDE on the date you have given?

          The not so obvious answer is: without realising it did Debian give you stable set of version numbers to work with, while you could not create this for yourself. Now image you had to do this not for 7 but for 50,000 packages ...

          That's why it has Debian stable.
          Last edited by sdack; 15 August 2021, 10:40 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            atomsymbol Don't know about proof, but it's certainly a question of ideology and philosophy. This is why there are diametrically opposed distributions out there, like Arch, which doesn't have an army of developers to QA, polish and take responsibility for the software they distribute. The Arch philosophy is "keep it simple stupid" (KISS), and instead of what Debian does, they shove all the responsibility over on upstream developers. They just take the latest upstream release, builds it, test it for a few days and then shove it out to the public. There are pros and cons to each way and they both have legit use cases. I think it's a great feature of FOSS that we have such diversity and we can freely pick whatever suits our use case or personal preferences.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

              I don't understand why Debian 10 was released with the following desktop environments:
              .
              Desktop env Debian 10 Available @ 2019-07-06
              Cinnamon 3.8 4.0
              GNOME 3.30 3.32
              KDE Plasma 5.14 5.16
              LXDE 0.99.2 ?
              LXQt 0.14 0.14 (up to date)
              MATE 1.20 1.22
              Xfce 4.12 4.14
              .
              What is an explanation for this?
              Yes,
              You only list desktop environments which may not be as important for server use. Old or slightly outdated does not mean unusable, bad or buggy just for your info.

              Debian STABLE = most people use this for servers. Things that just need to work. Desktop environments are not *that* important as long as they work and get the job done.
              Debian TESTING = for desktop and "rolling release". Has passed QA (read up on testing and you will understand)
              Debian UNSTABLE = for people that think new versions always are better than old versions. That is not always true , especially from a security perspective.
              Last edited by waxhead; 15 August 2021, 11:04 AM. Reason: Fixed a few typos..

              http://www.dirtcellar.net

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

                I don't understand why Debian 10 was released with the following desktop environments:
                .
                Desktop env Debian 10 Available @ 2019-07-06
                Cinnamon 3.8 4.0
                GNOME 3.30 3.32
                KDE Plasma 5.14 5.16
                LXDE 0.99.2 ?
                LXQt 0.14 0.14 (up to date)
                MATE 1.20 1.22
                Xfce 4.12 4.14
                .
                What is an explanation for this?
                They follow an entirely different model. The latest version isn't necessarily the most stable or ready for inclusion when it comes time to release a new version of Debian. Debian is extremely stable and predictable. This isn't a distro that's designed to be cutting edge in terms of what's new, they're cutting edge in making sure that their distro is rock solid with what is tried and proven. I thought that this is something everyone who has even the slightest knowledge of Linux knew, forgive me though as I stand corrected.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by sdack View Post
                  Here a counter question for you to think about:

                  Why can you list the version numbers of 7 environments of Debian 10, but then fail at listing the version number of LXDE on the date you have given?

                  The not so obvious answer is: without realising it did Debian give you stable set of version numbers to work with, while you could not create this for yourself. Now image you had to do this not for 7 but for 50,000 packages ...

                  That's why it has Debian stable.
                  The reason why I used a question mark for the LXDE version is that I found conflicting information when I was searching for an LXDE version number.

                  According to information I found, the number 0.99.2 is arbitrary and has little relation to the versions of most LXDE packages. The statement "Debian 10 was released with LXDE 0.99.2" conveys little information, that is, you don't know which LXDE version you are getting when you install LXDE in Debian 10.

                  If you have a proof to the contrary, please post it.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
                    ...
                    What is an explanation for this?
                    KDE4 and Gnome3 jammed into most distributions' LTS releases in a barely-working state for a large chunk of the late 2000s is a pretty good explanation for many users' preference of the debian model. If you use desktop linux long enough, you will encounter a situation where devs/maintainers are overconfident about the state of a bleeding-edge DE, resulting in an annoying experience for the user. It will happen again. Mitigation of this occurs on a spectrum with debian and arch on opposite and equally valid ends.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
                      The reason why I used a question mark ...
                      That is not important. What is important is that you need to comprehend the effort behind it. How about you ignore the version numbers and start by getting these 7 packages working together? And when you have done this try doing it with 50,000 packages. Maybe then you will get an understanding of the effort. Until then will you not be able to see how truly monumental the work is that Debian is doing. You are still stuck at comparing version numbers and think it would just work when you only have all the latest versions. It is not how it works. Developers have to start from a stable base on which they can found their work on. They do not know what everybody else does at any given moment. It is because of the foundation Debian provides that it only seems like having the latest versions would be enough. Or try to compile all packages with the ISO C/C++17 standards. See how quickly everything falls apart when you do not use the older standards, but jump straight to the latest ones.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X