Talk:Debian/Archive 5

"point releases"
What is the policy (or accepted reasons) for making a "point release"? Which packages are "allowed" to get updates and why? --RokerHRO (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do-ocracy
The Debian project is sometimes branded as a Do-ocracy. Since I do use the Debian operating system but I do not participate in the Debian project, how good does the term match the reality? If it fits, the term should be somewhere in the article. Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction could be better. I tried a bit around, but this should be done by a native speaker. IMO most important points of debian in the short introduction are: Currently there are 36,500 packages available. Notable packages being:
 * it's an operating system developed/maintained by the Debian project
 * composed of free and open source software meeting the DFSG. (I dunno how much % of the packages are GPL. The FreeBSD kernel is not. I would not mention GPL in the introduction.)
 * this software is packaged into software packages for easy/comfortable/apt/lazy/clever/you-name-it:
 * installation and de-installation
 * upgrading (... of the entire operating system, i.e. of all packages installed on your system and not just your browser)
 * configuration (consecutive usage of system-file-paths, then
 * documentation: manual pages
 * system integration (leads to a smaller install size, results in better security) Since Debian programs little but integrates already programmed software into an working operating system, I think the package management system can't be praised enough. We should also be mentioned, that this exists since ... dunno, almost the beginning of the project? This is especially worth mentioning, since apple brought apps to the world. Which, to me, is just another word for packages software.
 * available as source code, easy to be pulled from the internet also with the package management system and easy-to-be-compiled by the end-user through the integrated build-system
 * available pre-compiled through the Architecture ports
 * the Debian installer: CD/DVD/USB-Stick/Netinstall/Netboot/PXE/you-name-it; please also see the Debian Pure Blends, e.g. the installation of Debian Edu/Skolelinux on a thin-client or on a thin-client-server, etc.
 * available Kernels: Linux kernel (thus, Debian is a Linux distribution or even the Linux distribution. but in the first place, it aims to be an operating system.), FreeBSD kernel, GNU/Hurd kernel
 * all/notable available GUIs in the repositories: GNOME, KDE SC, Xfce, LXDE, Enlightment, Sugar, etc. (not available are Cinnamon, MATE, etc.) Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read a bit about the Debian project, and the commitment for the cause by projects members, and the adoption of Debian by different organizations, i.e. free software, fruitful cooperation, do-ocracy(?), etc. it looks a bit like a movement. You could then see Debian as the result of all of this effort. It is just an operation system, but prepared by people who look at longer time periods. Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

@Semsi Paco Virchow
 * The changes you'd like to place in the introduction would not way be short. It has been previously tried and disputed in the past. The idea is to keep it as simple as possible that is relevant to the reader.


 * If you read about wikipedia's committment to it's participants on provision of guidance, you'll notice that the style of writing encouraged is not talk-points on it's introduction. I would believe alot of computer tech people favor this style by reading up about a digital product by seeing an immediate feature list of it, but it's not the way wikipedia encourages (Please see  Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)
 * If you see things like number of packages or other features that can be updated and cited, that wouldn't cause a disruption to anyone's agreement...


 * I can tell you're not really into Debian/Linux but I think you should really be sure about certain things. The other kernels are experimental and not highly usable in their current forms. This is why they're slightly mentioned but with the 'Linux kernel' as emphasized: Features section "Debian is one of the most influential open source projects known as a Linux distribution,".. emphasizes that Debian allows the possibility of using 'experimental' non-Linux kernels (though not immediately usable for the majority; described further on paragraph 2)


 * The do-acracy.. this is called crowdsourcing (and there would be relative links to it from open source). If people would like to read about it, they'll eventually will by clicking on hyperlinks such distribution, Linux, or open source.


 * Documentation/manualpages, upgrading is implied already throughout. Operating systems, applications, anything computer software all have manual pages and really wouldn't set Debian apart.. but Debian has a strict policies towards development and documentation so it's mentioned.


 * Debian Edu/Skolelinux. Debian derivatives are in the hundreds, and there's minor links and a few strong reminders that Debian plays a crucial role to opensource and derivative projects.. Mentioning a Debian derivative really doesn't substantiate to the only one Debian project referenced to debian.org. If debian.org wants to create derivatives, then there would have to be emphasis about it (but it doesn't, so there's no point talking about derivatives). You would see "derivative" and different commentaries in "http://wiki.debian.org", but these are commentary outsiders of the Debian task force where anonymous users can provide their opinion on outside activities. Users acquainted with debian.org understand that the wiki doesn't warrant the viewpoints of the Debian project while http://debian.org/doc provides the official documentation (it's like this with other distros as well. There's online wiki's that aren't the viewpoints of that distro's taskforce, and there's the distro's official documentation edited/coordinated by their developers)


 * the Debian installer: CD/DVD/USB-Stick/Netinstall/Netboot/PXE/you-name-it.. There's many different "network" methods.. but it really wouldn't surmount to clarifying all the methods..(debootstrap, distribution auto-installation, tftp, ... ), the list would become unnecessary but simply saying network-installable would suffice while keeping it readable.


 * "composed of free and open source software meeting the DFSG. (I dunno how much % of the packages are GPL. The FreeBSD kernel is not. I would not mention GPL in the introduction.)"


 * FreeBSD kernel isn't mentioned in the introduction. Emphasis on GPL is needed for Debian's focus on opensource. It's unofficial repositories are implied loosely on it's introduction, but Debian's stance on free software is honouring GPL, and keeping non-free software outside official repositories.(such as non-free and contrib repositories)


 * The official status of Debian is to give it's meaning of free software granted with the GPL license. Non-free license software are included in non-official repositories, so the term 'open source' reflects Debian's commitment to this policy (if you read down in the article, it'll be mentioned).


 * The concept of Debian_Pure_Blend has been articled since 2006. It's been available under a different title, but it doesn't brand as the parent project. If you'd like to improvise about it, there's it's wikipage for it.


 * The placement of the 'experimental' directory, is documented as a distribution branch, and is disputable if it should be included where 'unstable' and 'sid' are mentioned, as it will be too confusing for readers.(especially with the other branches 'testing' and 'sid', experimental' almost seem equivalent). There was also a lingering inaccuracy in the article that 'experimental' was not a distribution branch but according to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-ftparchives it is, and so the article needs correction.
 * Swestlake (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Timetable
Hi, I think timetable should be updated (include 6.0.8 release - http://www.debian.org/News/2013/20131020), but I can't do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.45.197 (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

First Image
Is it really necessary, to repeat it three times? "only the first optical iso image of any of its downloadable sets is sufficient. Debian requires the first installable image, but uses online repositories for additional software. Debian's basic installation requires only the first CD or DVD of its release in order to have a working desktop ex" 141.39.13.45 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New GA nomination
Someone may have noticed a. I expect editors to cooperate constructively. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Replying to this, anyone may nominate any article. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The review has started. I remind that the nominator is not in a special position. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. I will wait one more day and then I will edit the article to address the reviewer's concerns. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Did you know" process
As far as I know, the Debian article is now eligible for the Did you know process. I will not participate in the process, but I will wait at least one week before improving the article further, just in case other editors are interested. On the one hand, nominations can take weeks or months to reach the main page. On the other hand, this is a Top-importance Linux article. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've nominated it at Template:Did you know nominations/Debian. Jamesx12345 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

binary compatibility
I added thumb|Even though they share the same code base and implement the same APIs, derivatives of Debian, such as e.g. Ubuntu, are not [[Binary code compatibility|binary compatible with Debian. This, and the general lack of a long-time stable Linux ABI raises the bar for ISVs who want to sell proprietary software for Linux.]] to the section derivatives. I think binary compatibility and work regarding a long-time stable Linux ABI in LSB or x32 ABI deserve some more attention.


 * I would like ScotXW to notice that there is an effort to bring this article to the Featured status. Material must be verifiable and sources are required. There could be a sentence about Debian's position regarding LSB, but not in the Derivatives section. Binary compatibility is more than Debian-based distributions. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Plonk User:ScotXW t@lk 22:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Multimedia support
I would like to turn "Third-party repositories" into a "Multimedia support" section. Current paragraph is targeted at deb-multimedia.org. The Wheezy announcement and release notes mention the improved multimedia support. Debian asked Marillat to stop using the name "debian" and the official blog announced the end of debian-multimedia.org. This repository was interfering with official maintenance. As I see it, Debian has warned users more against deb-multimedia than against non-free software. I am not aware of any other unofficial repository in this situation.

The bit about libdvdcss would go in this section.

This is not the time for a dispute resolution. If anyone is against this change, please say so and I will desist. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Release managers section
As, the release manager is an important role but there are more: e.g. the technical committee. The release management is carried by a team. Debian maintains a list of leaders and a list of releases, but does not seem to maintain a list of release managers.

I will drop the list and merge the section. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Development flowchart
I ask an able editor to upload this SVG flowchart that will replace the one in "Development procedures". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Internal communications
debian-private is a major fact. Krafft wrote about it ("Other uses include the discussion of problems related to individuals, or financial and organisational issues"); I wonder about the justification "I am mentioning it here for completeness". Coleman wrote about too ("some of the more interesting discussions unfold there [...] I have been told about many such conversations").

debian-private is used in the retirement process. I already talked about expulsion or equivalent, and list bans. It is natural that people start to ask questions. Why a General Resolution for such a harmless list? Why some developers deny the importance of these channels that are used for more than announcing vacations? Debian has no intention of declassifying.

When I read about lack of volunteers and problems processing a mailing list, I remember the different spam clean teams. Are the issues technical? Giacomo A. Catenazzi admits that they do not want to show all world "about personal issues we have with other people".

Developers say that issues relevant to the user base are not discussed in debian-private. The problem is that the private discussions are not mere rants, they translate into people getting out of the project. An important part of Debian is the people behind Debian. When human resources are discarded, the project has a problem.

Why cannot we use this kind of material? Zacchiroli mentioned TINC in his platform, why cannot we say "cabal"? It is a recurrent topic with a mix of joke and fear. I find the anecdote about Raul Miller's existence an interesting one.

"Sometimes the divisiveness spills out into the larger Debian community in unpleasant ways." Indeed, the departure of Matthew Garrett in 2006 was noted. According to Bruce Byfield, Garrett claimed that decisions were made in "poorly advertised (or even secret) IRC channels used by smaller groups [...] to get work done"; as I read it, somewhere more private than debian-private. Frustration existed and Benjamin Mako Hill summed up the attitude: "This is the Debian project. We run on fear. Grow a skin or get out."

Internal communications are important in Debian. This article cannot claim to be comprehensive without a single reference to debian-private. That is my opinion. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The SL saga (take two)
On the grounds that consensus can change, I would like to explain the following. In 2009, Wikipedia Signpost published a review of a book that examines how authority works on Wikipedia. This book is of interest to this article:

The chapter starts with an event related to Debian Women's origin. Later, O'Neil mentions the encyclopedic nature of Debian, as well as perfectionist: "Debian is the Mary Poppins of operating systems". He talks about the SL case, SL being the author of this message.

Sven Luther was the reason for a topic in the 2006 election. According to Anthony Towns, Luther's conflict surely escalated: "Sven's conflict with Frans, the d-i team and others is probably the most extreme example of a problem we've had to resolve."

I still believe that one of "the most extreme" social problems Debian had to deal with is a major fact. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)