Talk:Debian/Archive 4

Two-year-cycles - not yet
Debian's news item of 29 July 2009 is referred to four times stating that Debian 6.0 onwards will be frozen every odd-year December. Debians news item of 30 July 2009 (one day later) has been missed here. It all but cancels at least the 2009 freeze. Should we not remove three mentions of the two-year cycle and leave only the second one (in the "Releases" section), where the second news item should also be cited to make clear that Dec 2009 there is no freeze? The new reference is http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090730. --Chi And H (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrasing in the article is not actually false. The new cycle will apply to Debian "6.0 and later", meaning the cycle that begins with the release of 6.0, whenever that happens. It does not necessarily imply that it applies to the cycle which *results* in the release of 6.0. How do you suggest we rephrase this? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrasing was true to the source. While your new phrasing was better, it contradicted the source used. Both news items need to be used together. I hope my two changes take care of this. --Chi And H (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a Good Article to me
What do you guys think? 85.77.170.106 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The article has /ˈdiːbiən/, yet the Debian web page says "Since many people have asked, Debian is pronounced /ˈde.bi.ən/." Am I missing something? --Æ (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a bad change three weeks ago that I've now reverted, thanks for pointing it out. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Multi-Architecture Support
It should be noted that Debian does not yet support multiple architectures per installation.

The most common example would be a user with a 64-bit Debian installation who needed for one reason or another to run a 32-bit program. While there has been some effort to aid this particular case (packages such as ia32-libs), there is no general way to install packages from the official repositories for architectures other than that of the installed OS. This has led to many third party .debs being created for specific programs for the user to manually install with "dpkg --force-architecture".

Contrast this with say Fedora, where one can specify the architecture within the package manager, thusly:

yum install firefox.i686

Provided the repositories for the i686 architecture are installed, this will install firefox and any 32-bit dependencies.

139.80.48.118 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Case of code names, like "lenny"
Are the code names for the Debian versions really lowercased? For example, "lenny" vs. "Lenny"? --Mortense (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird sentence
In the lead, we have With its inclusion of the GNU OS tools and Linux kernel, Debian GNU/Linux[4] is a popular and influential Linux distribution. This seems to be trying to say that the combination of GNU tools and Linux kernel are the reason for Debian being popular and influential, whereas actually every Linux distro combines them. I have a horrible feeling that the sentence arose from someone trying to shoe-horn mentions of GNU and the kernel into the lead. While it is nice to have prominent links to them, it shouldn't be at the cost of meaningful text. Can we fix this? HenryFlower 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * GNU/Linux is the most popular OS that Debian released, they also released a GNU/kFreeBSD OS man with one red shoe 20:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, if not for the revert. HenryFlower 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The formation of the "Debian" name
Under History: 1993-1998, the origin of the name is mentionned two times in two subsequent paragraphs. Isn't it a bit redundant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pboi20 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This got fixed today. Pboi20 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Debian Release History
Someone has changed the release history links to the "List of Toy Story Characters". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.125.151 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you check the released section, it explains that the releases are all named after Toy Story characters. - SudoGhost (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that the releases are named after Toy Story characters I find the links unhelpful. I clicked on it, knowing very well about this naming convention but expecting more info on the release, and was annoyed to find myself on the "List of Toy Story Characters".  --Keithonearth (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed the links. I can't see a case where someone was reading the debian article, and thought to themselves "I wonder who the character in toy story was who this was named after. ." I can only see a case where someone is reading it and thinks "Oh, I'd like to know more about the squeeze release.  . WTF?"  If anyone disagrees please leave a note here to let me know why.  --Keithonearth (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Perens, Ean Schuessler and the initiation of SPI
The phrasing of the 4th paragraph of 1993-1998 section of Debian's history is terribly unclear. It currently reads as if Ean Schuessler initiated the creation of SPI, which I did not. I was very much involved in the early days of SPI but Bruce did most of the heavy lifting on getting the SPI holding company going.

While I was responsible for first suggesting the social contract concept it was also Bruce who did the lion's share of editorial wrangling that made that suggestion into a historic document. From my point of view, the Social Contract and the DFSG should be viewed as the product of a community but Bruce's role as an editor and catalyst should be made clear.

I think it would make sense for this paragraph to receive some attention from someone with good writing skills to balance and clarify the roles of the various individuals. Unfortunately, a good bit of this information is locked up in early Debian-Private and SPI-Private mailing lists so I'm not sure how much of the information is directly available. There is a lot of interesting reading in there about the origin of the DFSG, the Open Source trademark and other important events in Free Software. It would make sense to start contacting the people involved in those discussions and get permission from them to release their writings to the public at large so that a clear historical picture can be assembled. Ean Schuessler (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Debian multiarch?
I see that the 'release history' table includes "introduce multiarch support" in the list of milestones for wheezy. However, there is no information either here or anywhere else in Wikipedia that explains what multiarch precisely is or why it should be considered important.

Relevant information here: wiki.debian.org/Multiarch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.70.191 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oldstable updates info is outdated
Oldstable (lenny) has been updated: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/lenny/ChangeLog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.238.250 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate information in sections "Organization" and "Project organization": merge?
The sections Organization and Project organization in the article seem to cover similar aspects. Both of them cover the Debian Constitution and the Social Contract and both give numbers for contributors / developers. The section "Organization" has little additional information to that.

Therefore I think the two sections should be merged. What do you think? --Marko Knoebl (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Default DE
Debian is changing default DE to Xfce Bacafe (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Overly Linux-centric in a few spots
The authors have done a good job of making sure that it is clear that Debian is an OS that works with either the Linux or FreeBSD kernel. That said, there's a few places -- particularly under hardware support -- where sentences like "Debian has no hardware requirements beyond those of the Linux kernel..." can still be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.175.71 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning of alternative kernels in lead section: edit conflict
Me and another editor (contributions) are having a conflict on wheter to include a statement about the three different kernels that are available for Debian in the lead section. This statement was originally introduced in this edit.

We also have reverted some other edits of each other, but most of them are not that important to me and it would be OK for me to keep the rest of the article as it is now. However, I was the last one who edited the article and in this edit I have introduced some changes that the other editor will probably not agree to. If that is the case, I'd like to discuss these changes here as well.

I'm concerned with the sentence "Debian is unique in its trifecta support for the Linux, FreeBSD, and Hurd kernels." I think the fact that Debian supports these kernels should be mentioned in the article, but I think it should not be in the lead section. Both alternative kernels are not used much (statistics from Debian popularity contest indicate that they are installed by less than 0.1% of all users) Furthermore I think that the way in which this information is presented is not quite neutral. In his last edit summary, the other author stated that "The point of the "trifecta" statement in the lead is to highlight the aspect of uniqueness.", which indicates that this statement was not intended to be neutral.

I hope we can find a consensus here.--Marko Knoebl (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this manner in a mature fashion.. Kudos to that. Now, as far as these edits, they basically amounted to four different things, each of which I had issue with, but couldn't really comment on as the changelog length is restricted.


 * 1. The mention of Hurd and kFreeBSD support
 * 2. The rewording of the section about a theoretical switch from GNOME to Xfce as the default selection
 * 3. "site" -> "website"
 * 4. "GNU/Linux" -> "Linux"


 * 1:

Now, as far as the Hurd/kFreeBSD "trifecta" statement... Again, I need to reiterate here that this is for *emphasizing* the unique aspect in this regard, and thus I feel is appropriately placed. Especially considering Linux was already explicitly mentioned directly before it. Now, as far as it's "0.1% of all users" popularity... This does not derail it's factual basis. For example, according to statcounter.com, GNU/Linux systems have less than 2.77% polling points... Does this mean that GNU/Linux shouldn't be mentioned at all? Only "popular" things should be mentioned on Wikipedia?

Also, the fact that they're "soo unpopular", in my mind, places even more validity in higher visibility... For example, it's possible that the extremely low numbers are largely due in part to ignorance of their existence.

I understand the NPOV rhetoric and that Wikipedia is not for "publicity" and that's up to the actual organizations which represent for the content which is documented. There's no doubt about that, and it is completely moral and logical. *But*, I will note that almost all "non-biased" informational documentation has some sort of underlying bias, as it's almost unavoidable. Simply the fact that the documentation of some specific information exists at all can be argued as being a bias in and of itself. Take for example, information on things that are regarded as highly immoral by a large majority of general society, such as mind control, eugenics, or paedophilia. Does this mean this information shouldn't exist at all?

Again, any perceived "bias" that may exist, nor opinion on "popularity", make any difference in regard to the factual content of the "trifecta" statement. Can you point out another operating system which supports three kernels?


 * 2:

So, about your "rewording" of Xfce-related junk... I will admit that I was partially predisposed against this in general purely because I didn't exactly love any of your other three modifications. Compounded by the fact, like I mentioned in the changelog, you actually *introduced* an error, rather than fixing anything. {/s/fits/it fits} You introduced an error, didn't fix anything, and didn't provide any new information... So it was wholly unnecessary. *My* edit of the previous version was the change from the "matter-of-fact" tone, to the "possibly-but-still-as-of-yet-unofficial" tone. It was worded specifically to emphasize this point, especially so that it can be noticeable and understood by the previous author, and other potential editors. Ich bin nicht ein deutsch-fließend. :)


 * 3:

Regarding "web site" vs "site"... Obviously, the infobox is required to have "website" for functional syntactic reasons, so that was a minor slip on my part. But, as far as in the "text"... Well, first off: It's not really "text", they were in links. Now, as I briefly blurbed out in the logs, "This is an *OS* on the *NET*"... You're accessing information about a -computer operating system- through the -Internet- in 2012. AND they are HTML hyperlinks. I don't think there's any ambiguity about "site"... Topic-specific jargon is appropriate and to be expected especially in regard to UTF/ASCII/HTML/HTTP/TCP/IP/WWW/... It exists within every industry. Do people say "calculational devices", or "computational systems", or "hyper links" ? Where appropriate, maybe... To establish context. But here? *shrug*


 * 4:


 * http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html


 * http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNU/Linux_naming_controversy






 * Etc.--75.32.37.33 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Concerning the kernels I'd like to discuss three aspects of our conflict separately:
 * 1. Where should we state that, in addition to the Linux kernel, Debian also supports the kFreeBSD kernel and the Hurd kernel?
 * In my opinion, this should be stated in the article body, and not in the lead section. According to Manual of Style/Lead section, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". I am not questioning the factual correctness of this statement, I just think that the other kernels are not as important to this topic as the Linux kernel is.
 * 2. Where should we state that Debian is the only operating system that supports three kernels?
 * For this statement, I strongly feel that it should be part of the article body instead of the lead section. I don't see much value in this statement for any reader - When deciding on which operating system to use, nobody will base their decision on how many different kernels are supported, as each installation can only use one kernel. And even if this is a fact which is unique to Debian, this does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in the lead section. Many aspects which are unique to Debian are mentioned in the article body - some of them seem much more important to me than the fact that it supports three kernels.
 * 3. Which wording should we use?
 * To me, the use of the terms "trifecta" and, to a lesser extent, "unique" make the sentence very biased. I would prefer a more neutral tone, like "Debian is the only operating system that supports three different kernels." I think we should discuss this once we have decided where to put the above statements.
 * Concerning the edits on the hypothetical change from GNOME to Xfce: This part was recently edited by another anonymous editor who removed two of the issues that I did not agree with. The two remaining issues from my point of view are these:
 * Placing of a link to GNOME 3: This is a redirect to GNOME, which is already linked to from the previous sentence. Visitors who will click on the link will likely expect to find more information on GNOME 3 through that link.
 * Using the wording "GNOME 3 might not be able to fit on the first CD" instead of "GNOME 3 might not fit on the first CD". I think the first version is unneccessarily complicated.
 * Concerning the other two issues, I already said that it's ok for me to keep them the way they are now (i.e. keep your version)
 * --Marko Knoebl (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

“Latest unstable release”
Debian doesn't make any “unstable” or “beta” releases, but there are sid/unstable distribution and Debian Installer, which has beta releases, but it's not the whole distribution, but just an installer! I suggest to remove that item completely from the infobox as it's misleading. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Kernels
What's the point of having "Latest kernel version just before the Debian release" to compare with? By design the kernels will almost always (well for Linux) be outdated due to the long freeze time. It should probably be removed. 81.233.34.70 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this column is not relevant enough to be included. I just made an edit to correct the table: Obviously some information was displayed in the wrong column for more than a year now and no editor noticed - So I guess that this table is only observed by very few readers. I think it should be removed.--Marko Knoebl (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I decided to go ahead and delete the kernel table. 81.233.34.70 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Derivatives
Derivatives section is a subset and should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions#Debian-based 93.103.93.103 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Features of Debian
Having used Debian for going on 11 years, I can sure testify that while they claim to focus on security and stability, they also adhere to obsolete and insecure packages, come hell or high water.

There are a number of packages in their distribution that simply don't work or contain bugs that render them useless. However, Debian is very reliable and secure if you:


 * Don't install packages from their distribution.
 * Install software from source code and configure using your own preferences where you take responsibility for your own security.

Many software projects will not provide support for Debian users on their forums whom installed from a package because the versions used by Debian have long since been obsoleted (often 2-5 years old) and no longer supported.

Once Debian gains a stronger volunteer following, the progress in development may pick back up again to where it was back in the 90's, but there has been an attrition to other Debian-like distributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.0.138 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Added "Wheezy"
I added debian 7.0 "Wheezy" to the list in "2005-present". It's testing, but currently has a Release Candidate, so I thought it would be good to add it. If that's not OK, please take it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.45.53 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining the reasons for your edit. Personally I think your additions do not really fit in the "history" section, as things like the announcement of the release name or the release of an alpha installer are not that significant in Debian's history. Furthermore, most of the information you added is already present in the "Releases" section. --89.144.206.215 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Gah, sorry. Thanks for removing it. 76.246.34.250 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup edits
Patching by Westlake-- first paragraph very inaccurate, lots of clutter. First sentence has too many "software" words and is too cluttery. Modifying to keeping it simple, reduce clutter, add readibility. "Debian is known for relatively strict adherence to the philosophies of free software[11] " Not very direct nor clear on the meaning of that expression. See http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html, and read the 'Debian' heading. Contradiction with expression and philosophy of the GNU project, which doesn't say Debian is relatively strict for "free software". Better to remove or completely rewrite the sentence. Features section, More editing needs to be done on this article Policies section,
 * Inadequate to mention 'Hurd' kernel as a feature, as it's not available beyond experimental testing branches. If 'Hurd' is available as a productive/stable possibility, then the introduction of the article can be updated.
 * Added, to simplify introduction. Describing debian's policy was getting in the way to describing it's notable strength of package repository. Emphasis of it's large size of package repository is more appealing than the technocracy/bureaucracy policies for achieving it. Linux is built mostly on packages/opensource, so these concepts take higher precedence in the introduction of article.

Swestlake (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for your efforts to improve this article! As I have stated in my edit summaries I disagree with some of your edits and have reverted those (I was not logged in at that time). I explained my reasons for doing so in the edit summaries and I think they should be mostly uncontroversial. Furthermore I'd like to discuss some of your changes which are probably more controversial on this talk page.
 * "Debian is known for relatively strict adherence to the philosophies of free software": I think this is an important aspect regarding Debian: Debian is one of the strictest distributions when it comes to inclusion of non-free software. Furthermore its development happens in the open and decisions are made by the community. All this indicates adherence to the philosophies of free software. However, the existence of the non-free repository is not 100% in line with the philosophy of the GNU project - thus the wording "relatively strict" instead of "strict".
 * "It focuses on stability and security and is used as a base for many other distributions.": You removed this statement from the lead section. I think that Debian's focus on stability is one of its most important characteristics and should definitely be mentioned in the lead section. The other parts of this sentence are not that important and could be left out.
 * "Debian can be used on a variety of hardware, from laptops and desktops to NAS devices, phones, and servers." This is probably too specific for the lead section, but I think it should be mentioned in the article. So if we don't add it back to the lead section I think it should be included in the section "Hardware support"
 * --Marko Knoebl (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@Marko Knoebo(and whomever performed edits), thanks for feedingback to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debian&oldid=550345590 (I talk about this page I think you edited, which is the current article as of date, but I don't know who it is with an ip-address I spoked to on their ip-address address talkpage said they relogged on with a username, but in anycase I'm addressing the changes to you and anyone else who did changes to this page as well as the version before 550289338) "Its repositories hosts these large numbers of software packages for multiple architectures more than any other Linux distribution project. Debian hosts non-GPL software in it's repositories, explaining why the GNU organization does not endorse Debian" Using "relatively strict adherence to the philosophies of free software" is unclear and controversial and debating with Debian's "GNU" part, but using "strict" to Debian's pragmatism to it's development strategy(&policies) should be the focus of the article, as that's what Debian is-- and was written(changes I made). Debian is an "adopter" of free software of the GNU GPL License too, and using your sentence would convolute the message of who's affiliated with GNU. GNU is a separate entity.. The Debian project also realizes the controversy of "non-free" software, which is why it is not "set" in it's configurations--An operator of Debian needs to "manually" set the non-free repository settings on post-install. This also upholds the validity that Debian realizes the controversy of the software in it's repositories are not all "free". GNU, having much a right as Debian, has a right to say that the repositories Debian "hosts" contains the "non-free" software, mentions "Debian" as not a totally free software, and "distributions" are well related to the the repositories they hold ^Also there was a removal of the GNU citation that indicates its position on this, right after "Debian hosts non-GPL software in it's repositories, explaining why the GNU organization does not endorse Debian."(citation 12,13) ^The mentioning of "manually" setting non-free, also acts as a compensation to Debian's "seemingly" of discaring what GNU's claims are, by "Debian tries its best to separate free and non-free repositories whereby the latter is not set automatically by its installer, and would rather need to be set manually. " I believe the purpose of the introduction for Debian is to uphold itself, but not to convolute positions especially since "GNU" is indicated in "Debian GNU/Linux" already in its introductory.. It is very controversial to include Debian as in "philosophies of free software" overwhelmingly on top of GNU's saying of things-- as GNU has been a formative opensource movement in free software much before Debian, and by which Debian calls itself a Debian GNU/Linux distribution. "1.4 Does Debian just do GNU/Linux?" (x) "http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-basic_defs.en.html#s-non-linux" The expression I use "Debian is one of the most influential open source projects known as a Linux distribution, and contains repositories with over 29,000 software packages ready for installation." over "Debian is known for relatively strict adherence " is something of higher relevance for today over anything else, also than any other distribution. The exclamation of the expression allows to stress Debian as an important project more than just for itself but also to more than just "Linux"-- Debian is stressed as "secured" and "stable" as "security" comes from Debian's dedicated DSA (Dedicated Security Advisory, which is a member to cve, "Vulnerabilities that appear in different codebases (i.e., "by vendor;" however, this also includes vendors who share the same code such as Linux/Unix vendors)" http://cve.mitre.org/about/faqs.html#a1 )-- this also helps non-Linux open source projects. And I wouldn't need to elaborate into it because it is simple to keep the introductory strictly implicative to focus on the 'Linux' aspect of Debian.. The message the other paragraph form(prior my edit) tries to convey tries to set Debian as a widely supported on hardware. This can be simplified to the first paragraph to simply "personal" and "Internet" server machines-- as it is becoming more evident that debian isn't the only distro multi-device capable.. From (x) "Currently, Debian is only available for Linux, but with Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian on BSD kernels, we have started to offer non-Linux-based OSes as a development, server and desktop platform, too. However, these non-linux ports are not officially released yet." ^ Since it is not officially released yet, there's no point in talking about it in it's introduction, but guess who's caring more about a Hurd kernel than Debian? GNU. ^ So it's all round-robin. It only makes sense to not put the saying of GNU any lower than Debian when it comes to quoting "philosophy" for "free software". The sentence " Debian is seen as a solid Linux and has been forked many times ("Debian derivatives"), although the same repositories are oftenly still referenced" is needed in order to justify Debian's vitality in the health of open source and Linux ecosphere, because the fact is "derivatives" often use Debian's own repositories-- and without getting into too much detail. The second paragraph prior my proposed edit, doesn't uphold an introductory and conclusive sentence for it's second paragraph, if you compare these two (and I believe you have the right to object it's length, but it wouldn't justify using the prior edit as it is biased) The article is medium-long, and so the introduction in any case should not be too long but adequate enough. If it's too long, then there should be a new section to use part of it because there is no clear understanding on the GNU+Debian connection other than reading way deep into the article about the 'Hurd'. Also the rest of the article has no "overview" notion of what Debian is in any of it's few lines of any section-- And the form before my edit is very lacking. (Wikipedia isn't meant to be used as a manual with mere just point-by-point factoid lines) The Hurd kernel is not yet to be considered a "feature" as it is in the "Features" section. Even if it was permissible, it would render the introduction invalid solely based on terminology "GNU Debian/Linux". The reality is "Hurd" is not in "stable" repositories, and even at the bottom of the article it is mentioned in "unstable". The rest of the article needs revisal..but I agree with the majority of it, there's just a few pockets that need patching-- especially with the introduction, and some areas where there needs to beat least some continuity about portraying Debian in a readable light(will refrain it's too "technical"/manual looking, which is what Wikipedia doesn't strive to be). There are things that are out of place like the 'Hurd', "Hurd" is not a feature of Debian yet(nor any time soon) but it can remain in another place where it is already mentioned in the "Unstable ports" heading and it can be mentioned elsewhere where suitable. After having explained these points, I wouldn't think I need to emphasize what I see wrong on the current page but you would be wondering, so I'll say what's wrong with it(latest as of date) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debian&oldid=550345590
 * The most important thing to do when revising an article is the continuity of things. Let's not play games here.
 * Debian GNU/Linux is GNU + the Debian projects whereby GNU has just a much right a say as Debian does. You're only speaking on the side for Debian. The editing of the page I did can be seen from,
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debian&oldid=550289338 (proposed edit, the page I'm upholding)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debian&oldid=550280317 (prior proposed edit)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debian&oldid=550280317 (prior proposed edit)
 * ^ The reality that Debian can be said to be "stability and security" is not a focus but this is what all Linux distros strive-- so it is kind of jumble because there's no emphasis on why it is stable and secure. I address this shortfall by applying this outcome with Debian's "strict" policies.
 * GNU/Linux naming controversy will be linked to 'GNU/Linux', so as to help reinforce less bias on the introduction of using any form of "philosophy" for free software, free Linux, opensource, "free Linux distribution" (Which GNU does not campaign Debian as a free Linux distribution), etc
 * The citation you gave for your sentence "philosophies of free software" is invalid as it talks about GNU's "GPL" -- so immediately it's self-contradictory
 * "Debian GNU/Linux, which includes the GNU OS components and the Linux kernel,[6] is a popular and influential Linux distribution."

"Linux kernel" comes from kernel.org. "Linux distribution" does not come from kernel.org. People who are not knowledgable on Linux (majority of people on personal computing devices are not Linux users), can't tell the difference between a "Linux distribution" and "Linux kernel". Also since I mentioned sooner, and there's even more "confusion" within the article itself because Debian mentions non-Linux kernels. An emphasis of separating kernel from Linux, as in "kernel from the Linux project" is more more reflective not for Debian's future but also for it's other current sections. This emphasis grants the user in easily connecting later that Debian's current focus is primarily on the kernel as from the Linux project as 'Linux kernel', whereby kernel is not strictly set to "Linux"-- and the user can more easily see why "Debian GNU/Linux" is labelled in it's way, and how other kernels can be fit to Debian, rather than to "Debian GNU/Linux" with "Linux" therein. The Debian article's introductory is to be treated more special than other Linux distributions, as other "Linux distributions" in their current efforts have no plans of adopting a non-Linux kernel at all (except of just 1 other as mentioned by the GNU site, and Arch Linux is not as close as Debian to provide the Hurd kernel for experimenting with -- ) http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html I will make the change because it's current form is very inadequate for describing what Debian is and why it's an important Linux distribution. The latest current form of the article (| 550345590) has no hyperlink for GNU/Linux(to Linux naming controversy ), and for many of the reasons described above completely disregards Debian's rest of article of highlighting non-Linux kernels-- the "Linux project" leads to less ambiguity and increases comprehension of 'kernel'. Linux kernel is a choice, though it's a primary focus-- it's becoming more of a choice for the Debian distribution in it's working efforts (Just as GNU's site mentioned it's the only so far workable one, but it definitely still needs more work before passing the unstable branch) .Though currently not by large, but by sincere announcement by the Debian's team efforts of making Hurd more possible with Debian, there should not be a proposal to detracting Debian as a Debian GNU/Linux in it's introductory any time soon, how soon, I don't know -- but the article needs a more fitting introduction and needs to be lifted to reduce confusion for all readers There are many other Linux distribution articles on wikipedia, but Debian is more than just a "Linux project", by which this term as used can elaborate in itself the simplicity of understanding the parts made for Debian-- along with the other parts of the article that has "no" overview nor definition of the Debian project as a whole. (If the introduction is found to be too lengthy, there should be room to merge content but under a more introductory overview about the largeness of Debian-- which is why the emphasis of 29,000+ packages has been described in it's introductory in past versions) Swestlake (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I think Debian's focus on stability should be mentioned in the lead section because this is an important aspect of Debian. This fact cannot be deduced from the statement that Debian has "strict policies" because Debian has strict policies on many things: software quality, software licenses, decision-making, ...
 * You are saying that "Using "relatively strict adherence to the philosophies of free software" is unclear and controversial": I agree that the meaning of it is not totally clear, but I think that is OK in the lead section because it's only supposed to give an overview of the topic - details should be explained in the article body. And I REALLY don't think that talking about "relatively strict adherence" is controversial. Anyhow, would you be satisfied with a different wording? Probably we cann call it rather strict adherence. --Marko Knoebl (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@Marko Knoebl
 * "relatively strict" is more than slightly strict.. but this does not matter which form you use here because the argument is biased and does not uphold up with the terminology "Debian GNU/Linux".You're also making it more complex than it has to be since I use reference directly to gnu.org for people to read more details about it under Richard Stallman's words. In order to support "relatively strict adherence to the philosophies of free software", one should not debate the readability, but the supportive position for both GNU and Debian. GNU does not support Debian as a completely "free" distribution. You cannot argue with gnu.org, as even Linus Torvalds is quoted (and on video) of calling "Richard Stallman" as a "grand philosopher" of the free and open source movement. You cannot dismiss Richard Stallman's stance on the definition of free. This is why that link to that GNU/Linux controversial naming article is sufficient and simplifies of any interpretation of the word "free" by letting people read up about it, but not curtailing from the mention that Debian separates non-free software and free into separate repositories-- and DFSG does not at all have any value into the discussion since Linux distributions are defined with their repository servers, and the "non-free" repository is hosted/"STORED" on Debian owned servers-- to which gnu.org is correct. non-free repository directories sit right side-by-side with the free repositories right on the servers themselves.
 * Swestlake (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Debian's adherence to the philosophies of free software is only "slighly strict"? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree! These are some indications of Debian being more than slightly strict when it comes to free software philosophies:
 * Only FOSS software in the main archive, no binary blobs in the default installation: This is already pretty unique when it comes to Linux distributions as most other distros include binary blobs
 * Open development: The development happens in the public; this is different from eg Ubuntu where Mir was developped without the public knowing about it
 * Decision-making by the community: This also contrasts it with Ubuntu, where one company decides
 * So I think one could say that Ubuntu's adherence to free software philosophies are "slightly strict", but Debian's is definitely more than that.
 * You are also saying that there is a problem with respect to the terminology "GNU/Linux". Well, not according to the Free Software Foundation, the initiator of the GNU project. According to the Debian website: "The FSF explicitly requested that we call our system "Debian GNU/Linux"" - and that was when Debian still had binary blobs in its kernel. --Marko Knoebl (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Marko Knoebl "relatively strict" is political euphemism compared to merely saying what it is from an arbitrary point. You're very politically aligned to looking at only one viewpoint. Richard Stallman's viewpoint still stands but, this does not mean it's bolded on interpretation for the article-- to which you think it is. "Arbitration", since you don't know what this means-- it means "middle ground"-- compensating two parties unbiasly. Debian and GNU are given their slight interpretations about their position of a totally free Linux distribution, where each side is not overly emphasized. It is 100% "wrong" to refer to "philosophical" concepts of "free" software without taking the position of "GNU". Wikipedia is a platform dedicated for unbias viewpoints, and to find middle-ground as to maintain the fairness in truth and accuracy of articles. Neutral_point_of_view. Marko said: "Well, not according to the Free Software Foundation, the initiator of the GNU project." "Development of GNU was initiated by Richard Stallman in 1983." Taken from Wikipedia page of GNU "Q&A: Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation" http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/128513,qa-richard-stallman-founder-of-the-gnu-project-and-the-free-software-foundation.aspx "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a non-profit organization founded by Richard Stallman." Taken from Wikipedia page of FSF

Evidently you are wrong on your assumptions on who founded the GNU as well as the FSF foundation, and both from the same man.. Richard Stallman himself. Educate yourself and learn to listen to other people's viewpoints. Have a nice day. Swestlake (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Editors "The Debian, or Debian GNU/Linux operating system is, at its core, made up of opensource software from the GNU project and of a kernel from the Linux project[6]" is written as such, and can be disputed for the expressive word 'core' (kernel is more of the core than the basic GNU utilities provision). The reason "Debian GNU/Linux, which includes the GNU OS components and the Linux kernel,[6] is a popular and influential Linux distribution." is lacking resides on the confusion of "GNU OS". GNU's Operating system is currently using the Mach kernel rather than Hurd, as Hurd is still in development, and one cannot segregate that the term "GNU OS" can relate to including it's own kernel, and by-all-means "GNU OS" being an operating system of choice as defined by gnu.org Swestlake (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)