Mint Debian

[gnudude]

About the new graphical installer (posted on the Debian forums):

I tried it on a debian lenny lxde live image and it worked with a few hiccups. Posted a thread on the debian forums about it.

[tawan]

cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux squeeze/sid

and surviving, nicely..

[Fred]

In my opinion both the fixed release and the rolling release have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally I prefer the rolling release but it isn't perfect.

Fred

[linuxviolin]

Why is that a bad thing? I think a rolling release will be an interesting experiment.

"experiment", if you want but I don't like rolling release very much. I don't like the moving targets. E.g. you know never if the next update will not break something... To mention only two, there were, and there are still, some examples with Arch (a rolling release distro par excellence), Gnome broke after an update, and also with Debian, in Testing one day I had a Metacity update which broke it for at least one week, till the next Metacity update! Testing is less "risky" than Sid but really the "moving targets" are not my cup of tea. I prefer something like "dependable, reproducible environments".

I guess I would prefer Mint Debian follows the Parsix (a quite good Gnome Debian Testing based distro) example and its Continent repo:

Ramon r1 introduced the continent apt repository along with the official supported Parsix repository. The Continent repository consists of the whole Debian testing archive minus the official Parsix repository packages. Note that the continent repository for Parsix Viola is frozen now and will not receive updates from Debian except critical fixes. This is a new release policy to make Parsix more stable like approach. The Continent repository will be continued to be updated for the next Parsix release code name 'Boss Skua' and will be frozen before the final release of it, and so on.

(quote from the Parsix site)

I guess this is a better idea which can do the ever changing Testing more stable...

[vrkalak]

Because, I have already asked a couple of stupid questions on this topic, already.

Debian-5 is considered to be a very stable Linux distro.

What is a "rolling release" exactly ?
And how would that benefit us over a stable fixed release, like what LinuxMint has?

[Fred]

vrkalak,

A fixed release is what Linux Mint uses. There is a new version that comes out every so often, like 6 months, 8 months, a year or whatever.

A rolling release doesn't really have a release cycle. sidux, (Debian sid), is an example. Software, libs, and infrastructure are constantly being upgraded. You don't need to upgrade to a new version. The cd/dvd you download to install is just a snapshot in time. From there on you just continue to upgrade and you always have the latest version.

The main advantage of a rolling release is you never have to reinstall, unless you want to of course. You will always be up to date.

The main disadvantage is things break from time to time and you will either have to fix it yourself or wait until the fix comes through the repos. in due course. It is always a good idea to check the forums to see if anyone else is having problems before you upgrade.

I like rolling releases, but they do present their own set of problems.

Fred

[vrkalak]

Thank you, Fred.

Excellent response and well explained . . . now, I understand.

I might like this 'rolling release' thing.

Next question: (for the Mint Team) will Debian Mint start with Helena and go (rolling) from there?
Or be a Mint distro totally different?

[linuxviolin]

Good explanation Fred, as always!

As I and you said, with rolling release "things break from time to time and you will either have to fix it yourself or wait until the fix comes through the repos", "you know never if the next update will not break something". It's a very/quite unstable thing, a very moving target, at your own risk. And you can have often many updates at a time, sometimes even several times a day, sometimes with incompatibilities that require you to remove packages from the base system. (a recent example is incompatibility between Brasero and nautilus-cd-burner and between network-manager and gnome-system-tools and gnome-network-admin etc) This requires a fairly intensive maintenance and a minimum of expertise/knowledge. Please, can I work with my PC? And without fear that something breaks in the next update? Thank you very much! lol

If you like living with a constantly changing system and which can break something on every update, it's up to you. Personally, I don't buy this model, I think it's broke "by default". Remember that if it's called "Testing" this is probably not by chance...

[gnudude]

Please, can I work with my PC without fear that something breaks in the next update? Thank you very much! lol

I can usually break things without any updates whatsoever.

okay how about...

Do your work and when it is done make a quick backup, then do your updates. Problems....just restore your backup. My favorite backup method is simply to install live-helper and then run one/two command(s) that create a installable live snapshot of my system. Doesn't get any easier than that. Does it?

Simply don't update, just because there are updates everyday it doesn't mean you need to update every day. Then someone else's 'rolling' is your 'non-rolling'! That is one good thing about having a security repo, you can still get security updates even if you choose not to update anything else.

Install apt-listbugs.

Fix it yourself is often easier than it seems. Often in testing/unstable when something is broken it is simply a package conflict. As in, the packager forgot to say it depends on something or the exact opposite, they want it to depend on a newer version of Y yet nobody has upload the newer version of Y. Usually grabbing a newer version of Y from experimental/incoming will work or you may need to grab a older version from testing, snapshot, or even stable. Worst case scenario...you manually edit the depends file.

I would consider Debian testing to be more stable than most distros releases...then again I am a debian fanboi...

That being said, I am very happy with lenny/stable (along with a few backports and updated kernel) and do not plan to bother with any of the rolling debian flavors not because of breakage but because I do get tired of always having updates and newer versions when all I want is what I have right now.


the cool thing about debian...is you can have it any way you want it....yummy...


ps - where can I experience this incompatibility between Brasero and nautilus-cd-burner and between network-manager and gnome-system-tools and gnome-network-admin etc... what distro/version/etc are we talking about...

[linuxviolin]

Do your work and when it is done make a quick backup, then do your updates. Problems....just restore your backup. My favorite backup method is simply to install live-helper and then run one/two command(s) that create a installable live snapshot of my system. Doesn't get any easier than that. Does it?

I'm sorry but I prefer a more stable system without risk to break something on every update and without re-install or having to repair the problems simply due to a simple update. I guess this is even easier

Simply don't update, just because there are updates everyday it doesn't mean you need to update every day. Then someone else's 'rolling' is your 'non-rolling'!

Hmm, but if you "Simply don't update", why use a rolling release?

Fix it yourself is often easier than it seems. Often in testing/unstable when something is broken it is simply a package conflict. As in, the packager forgot to say it depends on something or the exact opposite, they want it to depend on a newer version of Y yet nobody has upload the newer version of Y. Usually grabbing a newer version of Y from experimental/incoming will work or you may need to grab a older version from testing, snapshot, or even stable. Worst case scenario...you manually edit the depends file.

Perhaps often but not always, far from it (e.g. the Metacity problem) and I am not sure the average Mint users (Mint doesn't target the power users, right? Many are newbies or almost) have the minimum of expertise/knowledge for that. You or Fred for example maybe but for others...

I would consider Debian testing to be more stable than most distros releases...

Maybe yes but the problem(s) is/are still there.

ps - where can I experience this incompatibility between Brasero and nautilus-cd-burner and between network-manager and gnome-system-tools and gnome-network-admin etc... what distro/version/etc are we talking about...

Well, I have no more a Debian box now so I forgot the details, I'm sorry, but this was in Debian Testing, and there was not so long... Also, like I said in a previous post, there was a problem with Metacity and we had to wait for at least one week before a fix! Not sure Mint average users (yes still them ) are really happy about this...

[gnudude]

darn those details...I guess I will simply take your word for it.

I certainly agree with what you said, you prefer a stable release. Although I am confused since even a stable release should be getting some updates and sometimes (in some distros) they can cause problems as well.

I am impressed that you are so knowledgeable about running and maintaining a rolling release installation for a significant period of time since you obviously prefer a stable release. I wouldn't of expected such familiarity with such a 'broken' system. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

I usually prefer a stable system myself (with a few newer odds and ends) but usually testing is so stable that I do not notice the difference.

ps - I consider everyone to be capable.....I simply do not recognize newbs, beginners, gurus, and all that user-friendly joe-sixpack crap so I will have to disagree on premise with a few of your points.

[RichardH]

The best way to learn the benefits of a mixed-stable system is to run sidux/sid for a while,
at least a couple of years. Much will be learned by going through a cycle of Debian freezes
which turns everything in sid on it's head, though it is more stable just nothing new coming in.
When the freeze lifts then the floodgates open and several months worth of updates, bug fixes,
and improvements beginning hitting sid. Sharp curves ahead.

sidux is a fairly stable system if you install every new release,
add the testing source and in apt.conf add: Release="testing";

Then it is no longer sidux and you won't be given much assistance if you mention "testing".
They have some fairly strict rules to which they want users to adhere:
1. only use apt-get at init level 3 with no X running for dist-upgrade, never upgrade.
2. do not use synaptic nor aptitude
3. only use sidux tools, no outsider scripts, like smxi, http://smxi.org/

You are always free to do what you want, just solve your problems elsewhere.

I find that sidux is a good path for me to testing.
But I tend to reinstall since I keep all data on other partitions,
including thunderbird.default, firefox.default and documents.
/home is in / and only contains config stuff. Easily replaced at install.
Reinstalling also cleans up leftovers from lots of changes.


But I enjoy the LinuxMint method as well and am learning from it.
Also the Remastersys LXDE distro and remaster tool.
The AVlinux based on Debian testing and Remastersys LXDE.
It is for creating audio and video but is also a rolling "testing" distro.

I try to keep at least 1 stable partition and a couple of others in trials.
Lots of toys; so little time.
The stable allows reinitializing to get work done.
Mainly my HP1020 printer is 100% linux compatible but not very stable.
Changes tend to cause it not to print. Sometimes just turning it off causes it not to print.
Though it is more stable in sidux once installed than in Mint or any of the new 'buntus.


Honestly, I believe that starting from Debian testing will yield a much more stable rolling distro.

The main aspects of "testing" are as follows, from http://www.us.debian.org/devel/testing.en.html:
<<< "The "testing" distribution is an automatically generated distribution. It is generated from the "unstable" distribution by a set of scripts which attempt to move over packages which are reasonably likely to lack release-critical bugs. They do so in a way that ensures that dependencies of other packages in testing are always satisfiable.

A particular version of a package will move into testing when it satisfies all of the following criteria:
1. It must have been in unstable for 10, 5 or 2 days, depending on the urgency of the upload;
2. It must be compiled and up to date on all architectures it has previously been compiled for in unstable;
3. It must have fewer release-critical bugs than, or the same number as, the version currently in "testing";
4. All of its dependencies must either be satisfiable by packages already in "testing", or be satisfiable by the group of packages which are going to be installed at the same time;
5. The operation of installing the package into "testing" must not break any packages currently in "testing". >>>


So, by definition, testing should only contain packages proven to compile and not break existing packages in "testing".
Of course, a newly entered package could contain new bugs which due to the more complicated process of entering testing, sometimes take longer to be available. Which leads many to run a mixed "testing/sid" system in order to get fixes quicker.

Generally, testing is very stable compared to sid and much less likely to break and almost as up-to-date as sid. Much more up-to-date than stable which is a true software release that only receives bug-fixes and security updates. Stable still has OOo2.4.1 while most everyone else has OOo3.0 or 3.1, etcetera. Until the freeze, at which time, testing slowly becomes stable and is finally released. And the cycle starts all over again.

[linuxviolin]

Sidux is a good distro but for me, they use the bad Debian branch, should be Testing, not Sid. For a good Testing distro I prefer/like, and used, Parsix.

But just, rolling release = moving target, something always changing, with the risk at every update to break something.

Now yes, everything can work well, at least most of the time, but the risk is still there and you can not predict whether the next update does not likely to break something. If you like/want rolling release it's your choice but you and people must know and accept this, and it's better if you have a minimum of expertise/knowledge just in case...

I am impressed that you are so knowledgeable about running and maintaining a rolling release installation for a significant period of time since you obviously prefer a stable release. I wouldn't of expected such familiarity with such a 'broken' system

Yes, I had some "experiences"...

I consider everyone to be capable

Capable, yes maybe, but for some it can be somewhat difficult ... Just read some posts in these forums to see that a number of Mint users can be in "panic" if in problem...

Anyway, as always it's Clem who will have the last word, although we say...


P.S.= OOo 3 is crap, or almost. Office is better. But it's not the problem here.

[Zwopper]

...and then again you don't HAVE to update, just because an update is available, if your system works, why risk to break it?!

[linuxviolin]

...and then again you don't HAVE to update, just because an update is available, if your system works, why risk to break it?!

OK but again if you don't update, why a rolling release, why use a rolling release, what is the point? Do not update goes against the principle of rolling release...

[gnudude]

...so you can update something if you choose to

[linuxviolin]

Yes but it's not really the "principle" of rolling release and you can also do it with a not rolling release, sometimes... When I had Testing or/and Parsix I had updated several times some apps from Sid or from their web sites with a newer version. This is possible also with a more "stable" distro like Mint main for example or Ubuntu, and there too I have already done, several times also. Even on the apps web sites, not all but some, you can have packages for one or several distro(s) and sometimes they are newer than the version(s) in the repos and you can install them without problem.

For me rolling release is a broken model by design but some people can have a different opinion.

Use a rolling release is a choice by the user but (s)he must be aware of the risks and so (s)he must not then complain if something breaks. That's all. I guess also it's better if (s)he has a minimum of expertise/knowledge just in case.

[Fred]

linuxviolin wrote:

I guess also it's better if (s)he has a minimum of expertise/knowledge just in case.

Now he tells me! As soon as I learn to read and write, I promise I will run right down to the library and try to get some. I hear that is where they keep that stuff. Is it expensive?

Fred

[linuxviolin]

linuxviolin wrote:

I guess also it's better if (s)he has a minimum of expertise/knowledge just in case.

Now he tells me! As soon as I learn to read and write, I promise I will run right down to the library and try to get some. I hear that is where they keep that stuff. Is it expensive?

Fred

Hahaha, Fred I like you! lol

[gnudude]

By this I mean I like to run a system using only 122MB RAM and still having X lol

I prefer around 64mb on a fresh boot to the desktop. I think a environment should use a minimal amount of memory in order to have maximum amount of memory for the apps I want to run. That being said, I can tweak gnome or kde3 to meet my demands and often go back and forth between those two, for a lite environment I perfer icewm. Hard to beat icewm, in regard to resource usage.

debian lenny with kde3

Code: Select all

Info:      Processes 65 Uptime 3 min Memory 72.8/980.0MB Client Shell inxi 1.1.13

I wonder if mint debian will be any leaner/meaner?