Am Mittwoch 02 April 2008 schrieb Chris Bannister:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:16:48PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 00:38:36 -0300
> >
> > Joel Franco wrote:
> > > I think that the testing or above releases may be suitable for the
> > > desktop of a EXPERT linux user. I need a stable release because my
> > > desktop must simply to work; it is not a so critical system like a
> > > server but this is critical to my business go on.
> > >
> > >From my experience, testing is perfectly suitable for a
> > > desktop/development
> >
> > system. I have used it exclusively on both my desktop and my laptop for a
> > couple of years now, and I have experienced only a couple of minor issues
> > so far.
> >
> > The main difference between a desktop and a server is that usually on a
> > server you can't afford any downtime, while on a desktop system you can
> > screw up and reinstall every once in a while if needed...
>
> Unfortunately, many people new to Debian/Linux get the impression that
> testing is perfectly suitable for a desktop system.

It really depends on the person(s) using that desktop. But your wording
is "black or white" anyway (see: perfectly).

HS


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Le Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 01:44:56AM +1300, Chris Bannister a écrit :
>
> Unfortunately, many people new to Debian/Linux get the impression that
> testing is perfectly suitable for a desktop system.

Maybe because they have read Debian's website?

"things should not break as badly as in unstable or experimental
distributions"
http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/index.en.html

"The unstable distribution is where active development of Debian
occurs. Generally, this distribution is run by developers"
http://www.debian.org/releases/index.en.html

There is nothing in these pages that warns against the use of Testing on
a desktop system, except of course that Debian "primarily recommends
using" Etch.

There are three alternative options for escaping Etch's bugs (for
instance white-on-white selections in Evince):

- Backporting some packages by hand, but this requires skill.
- Using backports.org, but it is unofficial.
- Using Testing or Sid.

If Debian wants to issue stronger warnings for those using Testing on
the desktop, maybe mentionning that it is also a development tool and it
is not inteded for normal use would do the job…

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wak�, Saitama, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

> It is not just people new to Debian/Linux who get that
> impression. I think testing is perfectly fine for a desktop system.

Totally I agree. Testing is fine for a personal Desktop machine.


> > If Debian wants to issue stronger warnings for those using Testing on
> > the desktop, maybe mentionning that it is also a development tool and
> > it is not inteded for normal use would do the job…
>
> Well, I guess we could, but then I think we would also be
> unnecessarily alarmist.

I agree too. I have been using Debian Testing how my desktop system
for a long time (years) without any real problems (in my job and
house).

I think Testing is enough for a Linux user with intermediate level (or less).

Regards.

--
Anibal Avelar (FixXxeR) http://fixxxer.cc
GPG: 83B64656 - C143 4AD8 B017 53FA B742 D6AA CEEA F9F3 83B6 4656

Hi,

On Thursday 03 April 2008 07:19, Anibal Avelar wrote:
> Totally I agree. Testing is fine for a personal Desktop machine.

I disagree.

It's fine for some persons desktops, yes.

But it is neither "feature"-supported nor security supported, if users have
problems they'll get "use stable if you cant deal with problems" responses.
Testing may also broken for an undefined time (because it is a tool for
developments and transitions might well be more important than fixing this or
that bug). And there are more reasons why testing is called testing.

So, IMO, testing is fine for a personal developers desktop. But not in
general.


regards,
Holger

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH9Jv7UHLQNqxYNSARAisPAJ9uuPDi96ZL0iEz8jWPKS YzyazjtwCguCWr
wQyKkkMQQb4bZfuTr186s4s=
=3/oG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:

> But it is ... nor security supported

Correction, it is supported by the testing security team, and rather well IMO.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:57:31 +0100
Holger Levsen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 03 April 2008 07:19, Anibal Avelar wrote:
> > Totally I agree. Testing is fine for a personal Desktop machine.
>
> I disagree.
>
> It's fine for some persons desktops, yes.
>
> But it is neither "feature"-supported nor security supported, if users have
> problems they'll get "use stable if you cant deal with problems" responses.
> Testing may also broken for an undefined time (because it is a tool for
> developments and transitions might well be more important than fixing this or
> that bug). And there are more reasons why testing is called testing.
>
> So, IMO, testing is fine for a personal developers desktop. But not in
> general.

And stable is not fine for a desktop in general, because it has outdated
packages which are not what a desktop user wants.

Testing is fine for a desktop, as long as you know you may have to deal with
breakages from time to time. Not that it happens often, at least from my
experience.

--
KiyuKo
Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH9KlaDGNHFtuwOpQRApl3AKCfM18BomCcZCBuWegy3H lrK7TSkQCfXsl9
gnXzkGzwE2TY791EWpZYpj0=
=//pu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu Apr 03 11:54, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> And stable is not fine for a desktop in general, because it has outdated
> packages which are not what a desktop user wants.

_you_ may want more up to date packages, but a lot of people are
entirely happy with etch on their desktop. For example, both me and my
mother.

I'd also go as far to say that most corporate Linux desktops, to pick
another example, would welcome the lack of change for 18 months.

> Testing is fine for a desktop, as long as you know you may have to deal with
> breakages from time to time. Not that it happens often, at least from my
> experience.

Many people don't want breakage. Linux hobbiests may want the constant
latest version, and they can cope with testing (or, often, run ubuntu or
gentoo for that reason), but most computer users would rather things
_didn't_ change regularly, and those people are also our target
audience.

Matt

--
Matthew Johnson

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH9KuH2XtckeYvo1gRAvYLAJ41q+nxHNQNznacvgLesA z5QZEq+QCeJYjE
HqkgP/3d1PDHMFelcY2QSrQ=
=VLtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Holger Levsen]
> But it is neither "feature"-supported nor security supported,

The testing security team is actually doing a very good job at
supporting testing, so this is not completely accurate.

Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 15:16 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 00:38:36 -0300
> Joel Franco wrote:
>
> > I think that the testing or above releases may be suitable for the
> > desktop of a EXPERT linux user. I need a stable release because my
> > desktop must simply to work; it is not a so critical system like a
> > server but this is critical to my business go on.
>
> >From my experience, testing is perfectly suitable for a desktop/development
> system.

Humm...

> "testing is perfectly suitable for a development system"

Yes, we agree.

> "testing is perfectly suitable for a desktop systems"

If you mean "perfectly suitable for desktop of end users", I totally disagree.

New Critical/Grave/Serious bugs are fount in DebianTesting every day,
see RC bugs ! That's the purpose of Testing !

It would be interesting to compare how many serious+ bugs were opened
in stable and testing over a year (since comparing currently opened bugs
isn't meaningful. Reliability is computed over elapsed time).

- A true end-user should not be assumed to be able to resume from
those bugs.
- A true end-user wants to spend its time *using* it's system,
not fixing it.
Having the latest Firefox, OpenOffice, etc isn't so important to true
end-user. Having a Firefox and OpenOffice that never crash and has no
serious bugs IS important to true end users.

> The main difference between a desktop and a server is that usually on a
> server you can't afford any downtime,

I agree.

> while on a desktop system you can screw up and reinstall every once in a while if needed...

True end-users should never, ever have to reinstall their system because
something went wrong. (Ask your sister or ask any random woman, ask any
random guy, ask your dog how he felt when he last had to reinstall he's
system[1] .

Franklin


[1] Remember, end users don't make backup BTW, couldn't we install a
backup solution, with a GUI, in Desktop task ? with monthly reminder, of
course


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu April 3 2008 03:03:51 Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Thu Apr 03 11:54, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > And stable is not fine for a desktop in general, because it has outdated
> > packages which are not what a desktop user wants.
>
> _you_ may want more up to date packages, but a lot of people are
> entirely happy with etch on their desktop. For example, both me and my
> mother.
>
> I'd also go as far to say that most corporate Linux desktops, to pick
> another example, would welcome the lack of change for 18 months.

Stable is a poor solution for desktops because it doesn't support
recent hardware. For a long time now we've had to run Testing
mixed with the Unstable versions of xserver-xorg.*, nvidia.*, and
linux-image.* in order to support recent video and audio chips.

The huge volume of Testing updates, the occasional update failures,
and packages which go missing for months on end mean that this has
not been a pleasant experience.

OTOH, Ubuntu has excellent release cycles but only limited support
for "Universe".

We're currently using Debian while we pray for a fully-supported
distro which can support recent hardware in a stable manner but
the pain is real and we may have to switch desktops back to Ubuntu.

--Mike Bird


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:03:51AM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> _you_ may want more up to date packages, but a lot of people are
> entirely happy with etch on their desktop. For example, both me and my
> mother.
>
> I'd also go as far to say that most corporate Linux desktops, to pick
> another example, would welcome the lack of change for 18 months.

Given how much uproar there is about Microsoft's desire to retire
Windows XP while many people would rather stick with it that go to
Vista, perhaps the idea that everyone wants the latest and greatest is
no longer true.

> Many people don't want breakage. Linux hobbiests may want the constant
> latest version, and they can cope with testing (or, often, run ubuntu or
> gentoo for that reason), but most computer users would rather things
> _didn't_ change regularly, and those people are also our target
> audience.

I run unstable on my home machines, and stable on my work machines. At
work I am trying to get things done, not play with my software. At home
is different. I don't need to spend 4 hours figuring out why X no
longer works after an upgrade at work. At home I don't mind (although
unstable rarely breaks stuff).

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:55:40AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> I run unstable on my home machines, and stable on my work machines. At
> work I am trying to get things done, not play with my software. At home
> is different. I don't need to spend 4 hours figuring out why X no
> longer works after an upgrade at work. At home I don't mind (although
> unstable rarely breaks stuff).

Strange; I run stable at home, because if I spent 4 hours figuring out
why X no longer works, my wife would kill me (a) for breaking X, and (b)
for wasting 4 hours. ;-)

Cheers,
Dave


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 04:13:19PM +0100, Dave Holland wrote:
> Strange; I run stable at home, because if I spent 4 hours figuring out
> why X no longer works, my wife would kill me (a) for breaking X, and (b)
> for wasting 4 hours. ;-)

My wife would only be upset if I messed with her machine, or if I broke
the mythtv box (so I only upgrade it every few weeks if everything looks
good on mine).

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu April 3 2008 9:17:54 am Mike Bird wrote:
> On Thu April 3 2008 03:03:51 Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu Apr 03 11:54, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > And stable is not fine for a desktop in general, because it has
> > > outdated packages which are not what a desktop user wants.
> >
> > _you_ may want more up to date packages, but a lot of people are
> > entirely happy with etch on their desktop. For example, both me and my
> > mother.
> >
> > I'd also go as far to say that most corporate Linux desktops, to pick
> > another example, would welcome the lack of change for 18 months.
>
> Stable is a poor solution for desktops because it doesn't support
> recent hardware. For a long time now we've had to run Testing
> mixed with the Unstable versions of xserver-xorg.*, nvidia.*, and
> linux-image.* in order to support recent video and audio chips.

I can speak here as someone that has actually deployed Debian on the desktop
in a corporate setting. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 office
folks running Debian, which represents the majority of our office users. We
also have virtually 100% of the machines on our manufacturing floor (we're a
manufacturing company that makes lawn mowers) running Debian. We also have
a number of laptop users with Debian.

We had trouble with SATA drivers in the kernel in etch. We are now
installing 2.6.22 on our desktop machines, because it correctly communicates
with the SATA controllers on all our desktops. We also had trouble with the
old versions of OpenOffice in etch, and run the OpenOffice.Org builds of
that instead of Debian builds.

We have not had such trouble with video on the desktops, though I can see
that day on the horizon. We have had trouble with video on the laptops, as
X in etch does not support current Intel chipsets. We had to resort to the
same tactic you did: X from lenny.

We avoid the procurement of video hardware that requires fglrx or nvidia
drivers for our general desktop users.

That said, the overall stability of etch is a Good Thing, and something we
welcome. I have shied away from testing for some time for just the reasons
you enumerate. However, it is getting harder and harder to do so.
Evolution, OpenOffice, and Evince in etch are highly buggy, and we run
non-Debian builds or backports of Evolution and OOo already.

We have not investigated anything other than Debian yet.

I would suggest at least one thing: that the current stable policy makes no
sense when it comes to hardware drivers. We should push new kernels, X, and
associated hardware drivers such as madwifi, foomatic, etc. into stable on a
routine basis. Otherwise, you have a situation where stable simply does not
fully run (or even install) on a wide range of modern hardware.

This wouldn't solve our OpenOffice or Evince problems, but then again solving
those involves a much more invasive update to Gnome. Madwifi, foomatic,
fglrx, Xorg, and the kernel are pretty much standalone pieces that don't
make me all that nervous.

-- John


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu April 3 2008 9:55:40 am Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:03:51AM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > _you_ may want more up to date packages, but a lot of people are
> > entirely happy with etch on their desktop. For example, both me and my
> > mother.
> >
> > I'd also go as far to say that most corporate Linux desktops, to pick
> > another example, would welcome the lack of change for 18 months.
>
> Given how much uproar there is about Microsoft's desire to retire
> Windows XP while many people would rather stick with it that go to
> Vista, perhaps the idea that everyone wants the latest and greatest is
> no longer true.

I want the latest and greatest driver support. That's where the analogy
breaks down, since XP still supports latest hardware, but etch doesn't.

(Note that "Support" for XP may not mean "supports out of the box", but
that "drivers are available")

The rest of your point is valid for a corporate desktop system. I give our
users etch, although my workstation runs unstable.

-- John


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On 2008-04-03, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Thu April 3 2008 03:03:51 Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Thu Apr 03 11:54, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>> > And stable is not fine for a desktop in general, because it has outdated
>> > packages which are not what a desktop user wants.
>>
>> _you_ may want more up to date packages, but a lot of people are
>> entirely happy with etch on their desktop. For example, both me and my
>> mother.
>>
>> I'd also go as far to say that most corporate Linux desktops, to pick
>> another example, would welcome the lack of change for 18 months.
>
> Stable is a poor solution for desktops because it doesn't support
> recent hardware. For a long time now we've had to run Testing
> mixed with the Unstable versions of xserver-xorg.*, nvidia.*, and
> linux-image.* in order to support recent video and audio chips.

http://wiki.debian.org/EtchAndAHalf will solve that soon.

Cheers,
Moritz


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu April 3 2008 14:38:14 Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On 2008-04-03, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Stable is a poor solution for desktops because it doesn't support
> > recent hardware. For a long time now we've had to run Testing
> > mixed with the Unstable versions of xserver-xorg.*, nvidia.*, and
> > linux-image.* in order to support recent video and audio chips.
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/EtchAndAHalf will solve that soon.

Now that linux-image 2.6.24 has migrated from sid to lenny and will
be included in EtchAndAHalf that helps a lot. There's also a need
for sid's xserver-xorg.* 7.3 which has not yet made it to lenny,
and IIRC also the nvidia.* from sid.

--Mike Bird


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Le Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:55:40AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen a écrit :
>
> Given how much uproar there is about Microsoft's desire to retire
> Windows XP while many people would rather stick with it that go to
> Vista, perhaps the idea that everyone wants the latest and greatest is
> no longer true.

Hi Lennart,

I think that the way people use XP looks more like "Stable + Backports"
that just "Stable".

As for the purpose of Testing, in the end the answer is probably in the
hands of those :
- who invented it;
- who control its content.

On this list we can read opposite opinions of individual developpers,
so maybe the persons who feel "in charge" of Testing (probably the
release team, the FTP team, and the testing security team) can clarify
on the list and/or on the website if they think it is needed.

This said, the best answer to the question, "Is Testing suitable for the
Desktop", will probably come by the next innovations to come from
Debian, be it the officialisation of backports, the adoption of Joey
Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing) concept, and/or the
Stable-and-a-half releases.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wak�, Saitama, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hi,

On Friday 04 April 2008 00:35, Mike Bird wrote:
> for sid's xserver-xorg.* 7.3 which has not yet made it to lenny,

http://layer-acht.org/debian/xorg-etch-backports/


regards,
Holger

P.S.: If you wonder why there are no backports on bpo, please provide them.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH9frJUHLQNqxYNSARAtkPAJ4sdcQl8W09xYpPBjgEqH MPmiRGZQCeJTvD
klo3IkX2NDKIiENstB8saCc=
=nkpv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----