Talk:Debian/Archive 10

Improving the MultiMedia Section
Multimedia is out of date and inaccurate.

Debian's own wiki article on multimedia may be a helful source for the update — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnTheGas (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it impossible to solve this elegantly, due to the Idiocracy, which decides quite too much in the Wikipedia:
 * We need a better explanation of "data compression algorithm".
 * We need better understanding of how software is regularly some (compiled) implementation of an idea/definition/standard
 * We need to make clear that only US law grants patents on software (= patents on algorithms). So a Debian server hosted in France or pretty much anywhere on this planet where there are no patents on algorithms, it should be perfectly ok to offer the FOSS implementation of lossy data compression algorithms… Why don't we? There is no US law in France, is there?
 * We need to stop using the words "technology", "multimedia" and "standard" sooo often.
 * A question: are we to assume, the people reading this article know what a "computer file" is, and what a "file system" is? User:ScotXW t@lk 18:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Releases life cycle table
The releases life cycle table is a essential case for every OS article. It is true that there is a page named Debian version history which provides this table, but it is need to be included in the main article for more and better visibility and accessibility, like below articles:


 * Solaris (operating system)
 * macOS, The macOS version history article is also exist.
 * Fedora (operating system), The Fedora version history article is also exist.
 * Red Hat Linux
 * Red Hat enterprise linux
 * CentOS
 * openSUSE, The openSUSE version history article is also exist.

In the "Release history" section this table is the most essential case.

Editor-1 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can start a discussion about whether the Version History article should be merged back into the main article, but having most of its content duplicated in the main article is a bit silly. &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am agree with you, but as I said, this table is extremely essential, I suggest that content of the "Release history" section moved to its main article (Debian version history) and only this table with information about phases of support provided, like below articles:


 * Fedora (operating system)
 * openSUSE

Editor-1 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Debian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/i386/ch06s03.html.en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214191646/http://live.debian.net:80/manual/stable/html/live-manual.en.html to http://live.debian.net/manual/stable/html/live-manual.en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140612213358/http://www.ti.com:80/tool/am335x-tab to http://www.ti.com/tool/am335x-tab
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706180807/https://nm.debian.org/public/stats/ to https://nm.debian.org/public/stats/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005233623/http://testing-security.debian.net:80/ to http://testing-security.debian.net

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Debian version history should be merged back into this article. Per WP:SPLIT, a split is not justified on grounds of excessive size (30k readable prose here, 3k there) or unrelated content (they deal with the same thing). &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In the previous discussion I was agree with your last sentence, not with your suggestion (merging), because this article is already bloated and confusing. I think it is better that all or most content of the "History/Release history" section moved to its main article (Debian version history) and only the release life cycle table with information about the support phases provided, because that table is extremely essential and useful. Below article are good examples:
 * Fedora (operating system), The Fedora version history article is also exist.
 * openSUSE, The openSUSE version history article is also exist.
 * macOS, The macOS version history article is also exist.
 * Editor-1 (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First, it would help if you could clearly indicate your "vote" above in the usual way ("Merge" or "Don't Merge" in bold at the start).


 * In WP:SPINOFF, it says that where a section of an article has been spun-off into a sub-article, the corresponding section in the main article should be "condensed into a brief summary section". Now, if that section has become "bloated and confusing", then it should be heavily trimmed back and useful material transferred to the sub-article. The sub-article is reserved for the lengthy technical details, which in this case would include the full list of support periods, package counts, kernel versions, etc. Duplicating that in the main article totally defeats the purpose of the sub-article.


 * However, as stated in the merge proposal rationale, the article sizes (at 30k and 3k prose, plus tables) are not big enough to justify a separate version history article, as explained in WP:SPLIT, which is why I propose they be merged (and duplicate material deleted in the process).


 * &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge Your explanations were convincing. If those tables added to this article, that sub-article will have little non-repetitive information. The below article have also the same state: List of Linux Mint releases Editor-1 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge While there isn't a ton of text in the version history article, the visuals do take up a substantial amount of space, and are a nice tool. If anything, we should be expanding the version history article (same goes for Linux Mint). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.168.70 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge. Hi Rwxrwxrwx and Editor-1 :) To reduce clutter, for readers to have a pleasant experience, and that main Debian article to be able to scale bigger with additional version history contributions, my vote goes to don't merge. I feel that both that summarized version history and that detailed version history are valuable. But even more valuable with their own respective article. How about adding a shortcut link under that "Version" section or another appropriate section? Link would read "Main article: Debian version history". Link would go to that detailed version history. So the main Debian article is not clutter. While at the same time readers interested in details have a quick and easy access to that detailed version history. How about reformatting and trimming that main Debian article "Version" section, that main Debian article "History" section, and their related tables into a summary format? And move all their trimmed details into that detailed version history article? Francewhoa (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge The Debian article is already pretty cluttered. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge Agreed, the Debian article is already pretty cluttered. 60.86.245.141 (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge The article is already bloated and confusing. It is better to be the first to cleanse and optimize article. Editor-1 (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't merge The visuals are important, and take up a lot of space. If anything, the other article just needs to be expanded on with more information about Debian's history (which won't happen properly if they are merged). 65.95.220.51 (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge There needs to be a minor section with the link to the history. I came to the main page looking for the version history and found the link because of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.32.250 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge there is the history on ubuntu linux mint and linux distros and there is it on android some android Roms but the versions are probably the least important part of the debain article--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please conclusion this proposal and remove its template from the article. Editor-1 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Debian#Installation_and_Live_images: Cinnamon

 * 1) Cinnamon (software) is available in the Debian repositories, but is it available as Live Disk?
 * 2) Probably KDE Plasma 5 should replace KDE Software Compilation. User:ScotXW t@lk 10:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Compilation
Debian is available in binary form, i.e. compiled. But primarily it is a source code from third parties + patches by Debian (and third parties).
 * 1) I think this fact should be made much more clear!
 * 2) The used compilation toolchain should be 1) mentioned and 2) documented in this article. Source : e.g. https://wiki.debian.org/GCC7#Timeline
 * 3) This is not only relevant per se, but especially because Debian and Ubuntu are IMHO not binary compatible, because even though they use identical (in most cases) source code, they are compiled with different compiler versions/options. User:ScotXW t@lk 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Debian Project vs. Debian Distribution
The article should better reflect these two entities: Debian Project = People (and their form of organization) developing/maintaining the Debian Distribution = an Operating System. User:ScotXW t@lk 10:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article contains too much stuff about too many things. That's one of the reasons I moved the version history section into its own article. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Debian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716055445/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html to https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819164015/http://ianmurdock.com/debian/ubuntu-vs-debian-reprise/ to http://ianmurdock.com/debian/ubuntu-vs-debian-reprise/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://live.debian.net/manual/stable/html/live-manual.en.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ti.com/tool/am335x-tab
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://testing-security.debian.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Change to GPL reference in the intro
The introduction previously stated that Debian is a "computer operating system that is composed entirely of free software, most of which is under the GNU General Public License and packaged by a group of individuals participating in the Debian Project." I removed the bit about most of Debian being licensed under the GNU GPL for a couple of reasons: 1. It is not substantiated by any cited source, and 2. Even if it is true, it is coincidental. None of Debian's foundational documents (Constitution, Free Software Guidelines, Policy, etc) indicate any preference for the GPL over other free licenses. Nmeyerhans (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

ia64 re-added as ports architecture
Just in case anyone wants to update the article: We just recently re-added ia64 as a ports architecture: https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=ia64&suite=sid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:88:6932:2C00:DDBB:12FB:6BB3:845F (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Branches as sections
I'm trying to learn and find my way through the jungle of Linux/Unix distros and today I learned that some are derivatives of different branches of Debian. I think that could be better described some places, which I will try to update, but on this page, I think it would be better if the branches are listed as sections, instead of bullets. That way it will be possible to link directly to a branch, e.g. to the one a derivative is based on. Does anyone object against that, or is there some other way to do it? /PatrikN (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list
An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.

The entry is :


 * Debian red

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

number of packages
hi, you seem not to agree to update the historic number of 5x'000 packages referenced by this mail from 2014, as you reverted it here? i am a little unsure which principle you follow to classify the same source for this number in 2014 ok and 2018 as "primary research"? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"As of [...] still in development"
I updated the statement after looking at the source, but I'm not sure this doomy-gloomy wording is warranted - as per https://contributors.debian.org/, Debian has over 1,000 active developers scattered across the globe, huge considering that it is not so much an OS as a distribution. If you include all the upstream people, you'll surely get a count >100,000. If Debian ever became inactive, it would send such shockwaves that we (511 page watchers) would surely remember to revise the article. Agreed? Samsara 13:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagree. If debian ever become inactive, you will be too busy trying to survive to care about wikipedia. Also, note that wikipedia itself runs on debian, as mentioned on its FAQ, meaning such event could make wikipedia itself stop working either permanently or while in process of switching to different distribution. -- Hkmaly (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Debian default desktop
Hello, I don't why you have removed the screenshot just because it is not GNOME. Can you give me a source where it is stated that GNOME is the official Debian DE? IIRC Debian has no default desktop environment. And the screenshot is useful because of the Debian mock up (Wallpaper, etc.) Emil Engler (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, per [1], [2], [3] and [4] Debian is using GNOME as default desktop since v2.1 (slink), also see Debian and its refrences.

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Gnome

"The GNOME Desktop task is what is installed by Debian-Installer's Desktop "task" (unless you picked another DesktopEnvironment!)."

[2] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktopHowTo#Select_a_Desktop_Environment

"To select the desktop environment that the debian-installer installs, enter "Advanced options" on the boot screen and scroll down to "Alternative desktop environments". Otherwise, debian-installer will choose GNOME."

[3] https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

DistroWatch is a reliable source for this purpose.

[4] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Debian-10.0-Released

about Debian 10: "on the desktop side GNOME Shell with Wayland is the default experience"

Editor-1 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Debian 3.2" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Debian 3.2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"Debian 6.0.3 Squeeze" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Debian 6.0.3 Squeeze. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"Debian 6.0.4 Squeeze" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Debian 6.0.4 Squeeze. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"Debian 6.0.5 Squeeze" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Debian 6.0.5 Squeeze. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Debian being a Unix-like operating system
Yes, only the Linux kernel is officially supported, but this does not change the fact that the Debian project provides a version of the operating system with another kernel. To say that Debian is "Linux distribution" is FALSE not even misleading. Please don't change "Unix-like operating system" by "Linux distribution". Only having the Linux kernel officially supported doesn't change anything about that. --109.10.155.228 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

cite your sources stating that Debian is "Unix-like" and STOP editing the article until the talk topic is resolved. offering an unofficial port using the FreeBSD Kernel does not mean it's Unix-like. This discussion is about what value to specify for the family parameter for the Infobox OS template which is used by this article. I note that the template documentation for that parameter describes that parameter as follows: "The name of the family of operating systems that this version is a part of. Examples include 'Microsoft Windows', 'Unix-like' and 'Mac OS'; 'Linux' and 'Mac OS X' are not OS families"
 * From wiki.debian.org: "Debian uses the Linux kernel (the kernel is the core of an OS), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project. Thus we refer to Debian as a Debian GNU/Linux operating system, giving credit to all its originators."
 * From DistroWatch: "Debian ... the world's largest Linux distribution." Jchap1590 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Following on this edit, which focuses more tightly on Debian: Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC) I propose: Are there any objections to this? Particularly,, do you have objection to this? If there are objections, please explain and justify the reasons for these objections added: citing reliable supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposal
 * 1) that the family parameter in the infobox be set to Unix-like, wikilinked to that wikipedia article;
 * 2) that this be footnoted with &lt;ref>s citing the two book citations I suggested above.

Well, going by the articles for Arch Linux, Deepin, Fedora, Gentoo and Linux Mint as examples, they all list the OS Family as "Linux." other Linux Distributions list "Unix-like" and at least one (KDE neon) lists "Linux (Unix-like)." I think if we want to call Debian Unix-like, then we have to consistently call them all Unix-like. personally, I like KDE neon's verbiage the most. Jchap1590 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have raised that for discussion at Template talk:Infobox OS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi software (Raspbian)
Please can the Raspbian software be mentioned in this article, as it is a major branch off Debian.

91.74.26.182 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 25.3.2020
 * I m not a regular editor of this article but I see it mentioned, a;ong with numerous others, at List of Linux distributions, which is linked as a in the Derivatives and flavors section of this article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove armel from list of platforms?
Debian stretch was the last version to support armel, and the LTS for stretch ended in June. I suppose maybe armel should be removed from the list? 123contribute (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

no, armel is still (2023, Debian bookworm cycle) a supported architecture: 2003:F8:EF07:7F00:49D1:1A41:DB49:F8F7 (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Mobian
I think mobian section on this article should be a new article on its own Sarangem (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)