Talk:Debian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Portal:Free software
 Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is a former featured article candidate. To see why the nomination failed, see the archived discussion.

Contents

[edit] Infobox

What is the purpose of the inserted infobox? With a single exception (Latest stable release, which might ought to be put in the introduction), it contains information that is already found in the first two sentences of the article and is poorly formatted, leaving four empty lines. --Centrx 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One word, my friend- Tradition! --maru (talk) contribs 20:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, it provides a quick glance to Debian. —vedant (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The OS infobox should be included on as many OS pages as possible. Is presents the information in a more accessible format and as Maru pointed out is standard fare. If you have an objection to the current implementation of the infobox, edit the template. Is there an OS project somewhere? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I asked on Template_talk:Infobox_OS how the width could be corrected and have received no response. I have asked a few times on #wikipedia, the IRC channel, how to change the format and either received no response or was told that it was not possible to change the column width. This matter ought to be resolved before the infobox be inserted into front-end articles.
"Standardizing" information into compressed factoids and summaries of summaries generally misrepresents the truth and is especially inaccurate and misleading in the case of Debian. For example, while the Debian Project as an entity provides some facilities and some structure for administering development of the Debian distribution, that entity is unlike nearly every other provider of operating software, whether commercial or not. Official Debian Developers, who do most of the work are self-organizing and autonomous, each with the liberty to work only on what he wishes and, in such work, often choose to do it rather independently. "OS family", "Source model", "License", and "Working state" all have problems like this, in addition to being ambiguous. Also, with the exception of "Latest stable release", all of this information is provided in the very first sentence of the article, and that information might also ought to be put in the introduction. Trying to fit reality into standard boxes does a disservice to any reader seeking true, accurate information. This is a rather new phenomenon, not tradition, and that it is becoming more common is not a reason for doing it if it is misleading.
So, what is the purpose of this "accessibility"? Is a reader coming to this page going to check out the right-side infobox first and not read even the first sentence of the article? Is a glancing reader going to care about the the version date and number of the latest stable release or some hodgepodge of license information more than that the distribution is developed by volunteers under the auspices of an organizing Debian Project? Why would it be a good thing that the glancing reader goes away thinking that the software in Debian is created by a "company", like Microsoft, from start to finish? How is a poorly formatted table more accessible than a single sentence and is the targetted readership of Wikipedia the same as the targetted readership of USA Today, with as much filler, tables, and graphs as possible? - Centrx 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

I've marked embedded debian for merge since it barely merits a section in this article, what with being dead. Hell, it may be worth deleting instead of turning into a section. But I leave that for other minds. 65.95.124.5 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we will be able to refine Embedded Debian into a sentence in this article. It is possible that it could warrant its own article, but as it stands it is mostly fluff, and really any of the Debian-related topics could possibly warrant "History of Debian", etc. articles but right now there is not enough to distribute it across several pages. - Centrx 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The merge suggested by 65.95.124.5 (Toronto-HSE-ppp3704050.sympatico.ca) seems reasonable. But there is a recommended size limit on articles of 30KiB.
So: The question has to be asked: Would the embedded Debian article distract from the main Debian article, and hence get deleted. Or would it better to tag embedded Debian as a stub, and let it grow. until these issues are decided, then I suggest keeping the statusquo.

Keep Both: but tag embedded Debian as a stub.

FYI: IMHO users that should not nominate pages for merge:
  • a user identified by just a numerical IP address. (Unless they are permanently anchored on this IP address)
  • a users who has never significantly contributed content to either of the pages to be merged.
  • a user that has not made any significant content contributions elsewhere.
    • Bulk cataloging and copying editing are not "a significant content contribution".
    • Bulk CfD, TfD and Vfd are not "a significant content contribution".
  • a user that has only just registered their username.
  • a user that - specialises in or - habitually nominates pages, template or categories for merging or deletion.

Mergeaholic 00:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, Emdebian is an entirely separate project from Debian; it's one of a host of Debian derivatives, like Ubuntu, Knoppix, Gnoppix, etc. - Anonymous

No, it's done by the Debian developers, it's a subproject, like OpenSSH is of OpenBSD, and since it's so small and could easily be put in Debian's article, I repropose the merge. 65.94.100.225 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL criticism

Centrx deleted some stuff about the GFDL. I think it is worth mentioning- I remember that the Emacs people were quite annoyed when the manual was reclassified as nonfree. --maru (talk) contribs 00:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The way you describe it here, this sounds more like simply being irritated, and temporarily so, possibly at having to do a little extra work, rather than a coherent rational criticism of Debian. It is also, as you say, more of a reclassification into the non-free section than a change that significantly affects a user. Anyone can still install the documentation, using apt. Anyway, I have slightly altered so that it reads that "some software and documentation" is not included in the official repository, and it is already mentioned at the bottom of the section that invariant documentation is excluded from the main archive. ~ Centrx 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio from old Debian Project?

According to Talk:Debian Project, the article Debian Project, which was merged into the article Debian, contained material from http://www.debian.org/intro/about. http://www.debian.org/intro/about is not GFDLed. Does that mean there are likely to be copyvios in the article Debian or is it likely it's all rewritten and paraphrased enough now? I have not checked personally, but if anyone else checks, it would be great if they could let others know on this talk page. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the copyrighted text there, and knowing the text of the Debian article here fairly well—and having glanced through the article again right now, I do not think that any of the copyrighted text has been duplicated. Note also that it does not appear that any of that text was actually merged in any of the edits in May 2004; it was likely just redirected with no merging because all of the information was already in the article in some form or another. - Centrx 04:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Package Manager?

Is APT actually the package manager? I was under the impression dpkg was the package manager, and apt was a front-end around it. The manpage for dpkg does include the phrase "package manager". BirdbrainedPhoenix 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are reading this from the poorly designed infobox at the top. dpkg is what manipulates the DEB format and actually installs, upgrades, and removes packages, but apt is so common and almost invariably used all the time, and it is something that is used to "manage packages". It is a nebulous term that is only found in the infobox, an item which I am going to remove now because it also isn't so important as to be at the top of an encyclopedia article. -- Centrx 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lead

I've tried to reword some awkwardness in the lead. Part of this akwardness seems to come from the need to say that it's a flavor of Linux, even though there is a version that uses the Hurd kernel. Since only a very tiny percentage of users are running Hurd, it seems inappropriate to me to twist the lead into contortions just in order to allow for that fact. I've left in the GNU/Linux reference, but it also seems silly to me. Realistically, almost everyone just calls it Linux, and I think it's sufficient to mention in the lead that it uses a lot of GNU utilities.--24.52.254.62 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the official name of the Debian system is "Debian GNU/Linux" —Centrx→talk 23:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Custom or Vanilla Kernel

I wanted to see what sort of kernel does Debian use and didn't find the info in the article. Maybe it should be put in as it is, in my anonymous opinion, relevant to the entry.


[edit] Finding out Debian version number

I was hoping to find some hints for figuring out which version of Debian I am running. If anyone knows how to do that, it would be helpful.

Wikipedia isn't the right place to ask such questions, but one way to get the information is to run cat /etc/debian_version in a shell. - Kaare 18:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for Debian releases - necessary?

Okay, I just now noticed the Wiki article on individual releases of Debian (Sarge, testing, unstable, experimental, etc.) and I'm wondering - why do these releases need articles? Most of these articles are just stubs talking about when each of these versions were released and what architectures it supports. Additionally, no other Linux distribution has pages on it's individual releases (and an article on the Dapper Drake release of Ubuntu was redirected to the article of the distro), so what makes Debian's releases so special that they get articles, and say, Fedora Core 6 and SUSE 10.1 don't? These articles aren't really necessary. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They aren't warranted at all. Feel free to merge them or simply redirect if there is nothing to merge. —Centrx→talk • 23:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I redirected most of them. The only article I merged any information from was Oldstable, all the other articles were already explained in this article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

Have I missed something, or does this article need a screenshot? 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:13 5/11/2006 (UTC)

The problem is there is no screenshot of "Debian". Debian looks like Red Hat looks like Slackware, and all of them can be made to look like anything. Perhaps we could have a screenshot of the installer, but it looks just like any other installer and it's not really that important. —Centrx→talk • 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see what you mean, but all of the 5 most popular Linux disributions (on Distrowatch) have an article with a screenshot. See: Ubuntu (Linux distribution), Fedora Core, Mandriva Linux, MEPIS and openSUSE. So, shouldn't Debian have one? 0L1 Talk Contribs 15:41 18/11/2006 (UTC)

I don't see what adding a screenshot would add to the article, since any choice of screenshot would be arbitrary. Daf 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The legality of distributing Debian

mp3 codec requires a license: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues Debian stable distributes many mp3 codecs, for example: http://packages.debian.org/stable/libs/gstreamer0.8-mad According to GPL Section 7, if the program cannot be distributed due to patent issues it should not be distributed at all. Doesn't Debian violate Section 7 of GPL? Is it legal to distribute Debian in the United States?

From http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html#4 it is clear that an mp3 license is needed if one is using Debian to stream mp3 files for commercial purposes. However this violates Section 7 of GPL, which asserts that the user should be free to use the software for commercial as well as non-commercial purposes. "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.171.31 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there has been no evidence that this is indeed a valid patent; many software patents in fact use common mathematic algorithms for which there is prior art and therefore which are not patentable. Patents are issued with little scrutiny, and in the absence of any active enforcement whatsoever by Thomson/Fraunhofer on anyone, debian-legal does not consider this a problem. Most software in the world is covered by issued patents, but few of those patents are actually valid. —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Centrx, $1.5 billion MP3 patent verdict against a company that already paid $16 million to Fraunhofer to license MP3 technology makes it clear beyond reasonable doubt that MP3 patents are indeed valid and enforceable in US courts. Don't you agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.171.31 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
IANAL, but if I understand correctly, Debian's distribution of that package does not violate the GPL, but possibly infringes the patent. What section 7 means is that distribution of "the Program" is either a GPL violation or is patent infrigement. — A.M. 06:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A.M. I don't think Debian infringes the patent. Thomson/Fraunhofer explicitly says that a patent license is not necessary for non-commercial use. Debian is non-commercial and therefore it doesn't infringe the patent. However it does violate GPL Section 7. Because the code that Debian distributes should be legal to do use for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Which it clearly isn't. Just look at: http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html Centrx, I don't agree with you about this patent being invalid. It is one of the few patents where everybody pays royalties and nobody ever challenged this patent. All hardware manufacturures, game developers, software developers (Real, Fluendo and even Microsoft) pay mp3 codec patent fees. It is clear that if none of these companies challenged the patent, it would be very difficult for an unsuspecting Debian user, who is using his Debian installation for a commercial purpose, to challenge this patent in case he gets sued. Therefore, even though Debian does not violate the patent itself due to it non-commercial nature, and in that respect it is safe from being sued by the Thomson/Fraunhofer, it puts its users under a threat of a legal lawsuit and by doing that it clearly violates Section 7 of GPL. This also means that anybody who deploys Debian in a commercial environment clearly infringes on Thomson/Fraunhofer patents, and puts his company under a huge and unnecessary risk of patent lawsuit. Please prove me wrong.

Debian-legal, which is expert and conservative, disagrees. —Centrx→talk • 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please give me a link?
See this thread. — A.M. 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I read the thread and the only excuse for violating the patent was that it wasn't "actively enforced". I find that to be a very weak argument because in reality it is being actively enforced all the time. Not on oridinary people of course, but companies. An open source company Fluendo for example was forced to "pay the license of Fraunhofer and Thomson to be able to distribute a binary mp3 decoder." Ani
Notice that section 7 doesn't say "[...] then the only way you could satisfy this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program"; it says "[...] then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program". In other words, if something (e.g. a patent license) does not allow you to fulfil "your obligations under this License", then, by distributing the Software, you are either violating the something (e.g. by distributing the software under the terms of the GPL) or you are violating the GPL (e.g. by distributing the software in the way that the something allows).
Also, notice the last sentence of section 7: "This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License." This means that section 7 doesn't actually have any effect; it doesn't forbid anything which isn't already forbidden by the other sections. — A.M. 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
A.M., you have convinced me that Debian either violates the GPL license or it violoates the patent.
Debian GNU/Linux is commercial. It is developed by paid developers, it is made for commercial use and it is sold. So in every sense of the word it is commercial. If a program isn't allowed to be used in a commercial way, it sure has no place in main. If the patent is enforced to Debian, Debian GNU/Linux violates both the GPL and the patent. -- mms 09:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If Debian does infringe the patent, that doesn't mean that it infringes the copyright of the software also. Nothing in the GPL says that the software may not be distributed if the software infringes a patent. Section 7 says that anyone distributing the software must only distribute the software in the ways that sections 1 through 3 allow, and if doing so is disallowed by "any other pertinent obligations" (such as a patent), then distributing the software in any way would violate either the "other pertinent obligations" or the copyright of the software or both. (See the messages here by "iabervon" and "pimlott" for another explanation.) — A.M. 06:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Fraunhofer itself has to say about this issue (http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developers.html#51):

"You should know that patent rights for mp3 exist. Both Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson have done important work to develop mp3 audio compression (before and after it became part of the ISO/IEC MPEG standards). This work has resulted in many inventions and several patents, covering the mp3 standard. Although others may also hold patents, Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson have an important portfolio of patents related to mp3. Patent licenses under the combined patent portfolio of Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson are granted by Thomson exclusively. In case your business does not involve the manufacture of relevant products, but importation or purchase of such products from a third party manufacturer, you are advised to check whether the manufacturer is duly licensed by us, as the trade in unlicensed products may expose your company to liability for patent infringement. Accordingly, you are advised to obtain licensed products only. "

The fact that not a single software or hardware company has ever challenged these claims makes me think that these patents are real in spite of what debian-legal "experts" might think. This clearly makes Debian users "liable for patent infringement". Debian is the only major Linux distribution that knowingly distributes unlicensed mp3 codecs. I think this should be mentioned in the "Criticism" section.

Debian's not the only one; Ubuntu also includes gstreamer0.8-mad (in "universe"), and it also includes the package libxine-extracodecs which includes xineplug_decode_mad.so (in "multiverse"). However, Debian does not include mp3 encoders (rather than decoders). Apparently, this is because the patent holder allows "decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users". (Arguably, this means that DFSG section 1 requires the software to be distributed in "non-free".) — A.M. 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Debian is not the only one. Even though Ubuntu clearly states that "MP3 is patent-encumbered, for both encoding and decoding. These patents are being actively enforced, so usage and development of MP3-programs is not encouraged." they still have it in Universe repository. However, It's legal to download from the Debian archive for personal use, but it's not legal to distribute on a CD or for non-personal use. So the situation is this: gstreamer0.8-mad is part of "main" and therefore gets distributed on CDs for non-personal use, which means that it not only violates the DFSG but it also violates the Thomson/Frauenhofer mp3 decoder patent. Am I correct? Ani

I think we need to add a sentence: "Debian distributes patent-encumbered software, such as mp3 decoders, which makes Debian users liable for patent infringement."

You would need a reliable source on that, "Debian users are liable for patent infringement" is an original synthesis and there has not been any lawsuit, let alone a successful one, against any Debian users. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few sources:

"MP3 is patent-encumbered, for both encoding and decoding. These patents are being actively enforced, so usage and development of MP3-programs is not encouraged." ubuntu.com


"Even though MP3 is an ISO standard it is not a free and open standard and is covered by numerous patents. It is not legal to distribute unlicensed MP3 Decoders and Encoders in most countries." opensuse.org


"Fedora is unable to include encoding and decoding support for the MP3 format because it requires patented technologies and the patent holder has not provided licenses that are compatible with Fedora's requirements. The MP3 patents are protected by United States law and international treaties, and the Fedora Project will honor the applicable laws and treaties." fedoraproject.org


"As part of the free RealPlayer 10 for Linux, Real has paid Thomson for a legal MP3 playback license and then includes it at no cost as part of the newly released RealPlayer 10. As I speak to people, many are under the false impression that MP3 playback patent and royalty rights are free, since there are open source implementations of MP3 playback available. Not true. Nonetheless, we are glad to do our part of making the Linux desktop a first class citizen by legally providing MP3 playback to users via our new RealPlayer." Kevin Foreman, GM of Helix RealNetworks, Inc.


"Fluendo has paid the license of Fraunhofer and Thomson to be able to distribute a binary mp3 decoder." fluendo.com


"... you should know that patent rights for mp3 exist." mp3licensing.com (69.86.171.31 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Based on these references I suggest adding the following 2 sentences to the "Critism" section:

Debian distributes mp3 decoders which are covered by numerous patents. It is not legal to distribute unlicensed mp3 decoders. And if you would ship an mp3 decoder, you can not link it from GPL software, because this would cause a GPL violation (because of it's additional restrictions). Are these sources reliable enough for you Centrx?

None of these sources say "Debian users are liable for patent infringement." That is an original synthesis. None of these sources even say "We at Red Hat decided to exclude mp3 software because we think it makes our users liable for patent infringement." You do not even need to install any mp3 software with Debian; you can be a "Debian user" without even using the software referred to in the above quotes. —Centrx→talk • 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Centrx, I did not say "Debian users are liable for patent infringement." I said: "Debian distributes mp3 decoders which are covered by numerous patents. It is not legal to distribute unlicensed mp3 decoders. And if you would ship an mp3 decoder, you can not link it from GPL software, because this would cause a GPL violation (because of it's additional restrictions)." and this is not an original synthesis, it has been copy/pasted from opensuse.org. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.171.31 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
No, you wrote "Debian distributes patent-encumbered software...which makes Debian users liable for patent infringement."[1] That is an original synthesis and it is false, and there are no reliable sources that say it. The Opensuse webpage says nothing about users who are not distributing or who do not even have any mp3 software installed. Anyway, that's a pubicly editable wiki, not legal advice from an intellectual property expert. —Centrx→talk • 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote "Debian users are liable for patent infringement." on a different occasion. You are answering to a different proposal. My proposal is written right above your statement it starts with words "Based on these references I suggest adding ..." (69.86.171.31 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Here is another quote MP3 is a patented technology. Ergo MP3 codecs should not be in gNewSense by default. Applications like Rhytembox using gstreamer (without MP3 installed) should be fine. gNewSense is a Linux distribution that is run with the assistance of the FSF.

Did none of the quotes I posted here convince anybody that distributing and using unlicensed mp3 decoders is illegal in countries which have software patents?

I'm convinced it's technically illegal. I just don't know how such a fact can easily make its way into the Debian article that doesn't come across as having an agenda or POV. Furthermore, as was pointed out, it's not just Debian, so do you edit every possible article where there is or might be an unlicensed MP3 codec to point this out?
Let's evaluate this further. First, a single person using an unlicensed patented technology incurs negligible legal risk, so I'd say trying to make this point in the Debian article would result in removal because it is a trivial matter, with no precident of legal action, especially in Debian. So, nothing there.
Second, for Debian distributing an unlicensed patented technology: there is potential legal liability here, and as I understand it, the Debian legal team monitors patent enforcement and takes action to remediate when necessary. To my knowledge, there is no precident of legal action against Debian users, contributors or SPI for patent infringement.
Factually, patent infringement is illegal. In theory, SPI could be subject to legal action. In theory, there may be a number of other reasons why someone would bring legal action against Debian, unrelated to patent infringement. In theory every user of Debian could be sued. In practice, nobody has been sued for patent infringement.
The patent liability and management by Debian-legal are, in my opinion, potentially worthy of inclusion in the article, but you have to tell both sides. It needs to be balanced. Pointing out only the issue without addressing how it's being managed wouldn't be acceptable. pbryan 19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Debian is Free Software, and open to discussion and suggestions. If you find a package that is incorrectly labeled (e.g. in main, instead of in non-free), or should not be included at all, please go tell the developers. But please, stop trolling this site. Wikipedia is a place for widely acknowledged information, not original research done by you. Is people speaking about this patent infringement by Debian? Is it a common concern? Is it an information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedic work? Including it because it is "true", is like including info about latest bugs in Debian packages, just because we don't want to be evil and push a hidden agenda of denying the errors of Debian. — Isilanes 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, people are speaking about this patent infringement and yes it is a common concern. As you can see from the quotes above this concern is important enough for a number of prominent Linux distributions. 69.86.171.31 08:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Opensuse open wiki and a bug report filed by who knows are not reliable sources. What could be appropriate is something like "Debian includes mp3 software that Fedora and other distributions have chosen to exclude because of concerns over the legality of distributing patent-encumbered software". Even for that you should be able to find a reliable secondary source that describes it in that manner and clarifies how important it is and what the people at Debian think about it. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to come up with a more neutral statement. Could you name me which popular Linux distributions distribute unlicensed mp3 decoders? Ubuntu doesn't have mp3 decoders in its main repository. 69.86.171.31 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ubuntu includes "mp3blaster", an "mp3 player". Slackware and Gentoo both include several mp3 players. —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ubuntu signed an agreement with Linspire to distribute legally licensed multimedia codecs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.171.31 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Debian Installer

The page on Debian Installer seems a bit outdated. Perhaps it is time to mention a bit more (with screenshots) the new graphical installer, to delete the page, or to merge it with Debian's one ? — Antidrugue 17:00, 09 December 2006 (UTC)

Got some screenshots --h2g2bob 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, the article needs work, but the images are great. — Antidrugue 06:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation

Hello, I realized, that Debian itselve is not so sure about its pronunciation. Here are two sources, telling different truths: http://www.debian.org/intro/about http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ch-intro.en.html I have asked debian for checking this difference, but I also want you to have a look on this thing, for I'm not often in the english wikipedia. --129.13.186.1 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are almost identical pronunciations. The only difference is the stress on whether it is "deb-ian" "or de-bian". As such, I would gather both are in common use. Depending on what the IPA pronunciation in the first link is, it may just be a misunderstanding. —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split the article to the distributions and the project

I think there should be an own article of the Debian Project and Debian talks about Debian GNU/Linux and the yet unreleased distributions. mms 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages and Criticisms Section

Changed this to Advantages and Criticisms with edits. Perhaps the entire section should be removed, however, some of the discussion there may be useful... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darana (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

You added: "One criticism is that some software and documentation is not available in the official Debian software repository because it does not satisfy the Debian Project's strict requirements of freeness. However, with more than 15,000 packages available in the stable release, it's unlikely that you'll have an unsatisfied requirement." Can you explain please, how does the presence of 15,000 packages compensate for missing documentation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.171.31 (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi 69.86.171.31: When I changed the "Criticism Section" to "Advantages and Criticisms Section" I was trying to move the needle more toward neutral and perhaps went overboard. Lack of quality documentation for Debian is an issue. There seems to be lots of documentation, but it's spread out all over the place: man pages, forums, usr/share/doc, etc. But I guess that's what wikis are for. :-)
wiki.debian.org is looking for volunteers to migrate the wiki to mediawiki if you're inclined.
Darana 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Advantages and Criticisms section mentions the long release cycle twice. Is it alright to merge the dupes? --oKtosiTe talk 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed external links

I've removed the last two edits which added external links.

This included this link to a Windows based Debian installer. There is an external link to a list of Debian installers already. If anything, this should be added to that page (or that link removed with a more canonical list from Debian the project). There are many unofficial Debian installers and it's simply not this articles job to list them all.

I've also removed the link to Debian-News.net which seems a like a link blog to Debian with a catchy domain. I've been a Debian Developer for a very long time and have not heard of it. Links to Debian Weekly News Planet Debian and Debian Planet would each deserve links before this because they have a much better claim for representing the project.

—mako (talk•contribs) 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Garrett

The sentence about the resignation of Matthew Garrett in the History section is currently phrased so that it is highly irrelevant. Developers resign all the time, for various reasons; if you're going to mention the resignation of Matthew Garrett like that, then you should at least also mention, e.g., the resignation of Herbert Xu shortly before the Sarge release, who was then doing kernel maintenance all by himself, and who's resignation had far more groundshaking effects to Debian as a whole.

I was about to remove the sentence about Matthew when I saw the footnote, and the title of the external webpage it referenced. This could be relevant information, but then it should be in the article, as opposed to merely being a footnote. I couldn't quite think of a good way to rephrase the sentence to enter that information in the article while keeping it NPOV and still not inflating the importance of Matthew's resignation, however. Yoe 09:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMD64, Intel EM64T

Shouldn't these be merged (in the infobox) to simply x86-64? I just created a redirect from Intel EM64T to EM64T (the link was broken), but in the end it's the same software, and the same basic architecture, isn't it?
--oKtosiTe talk 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AMD-64 and EM64T are the same thing; see [2]. IA-64 is different however. Rwxrwxrwx 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I knew that...
I just merged them to x86-64. --oKtosiTe talk 10:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/b/Talk%7EDebian_7e09.html"