stable-testing-unstable (Re: Newest kde onto stable)
Hi Matthew
Thanks for all the suggestions. I really appreciate it. I am
forwarding the reply to debian-user since there are some issues that I
am not very confident.
Matthew Exon wrote:
> Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
>
>> I have written a HOWTO describing the choices one need to make when
changing the flavour (stable/testing/unstable) of debian distribution.
It is hosted at
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html
>
>
> There is a desperate need for a document like this to be tightly
integrated into the main Debian site. It doesn't need to be shoved down
the user's throats, but in a few crucial places there should be links to
it so that users can find out what all this "unstable"/"testing"
nonsense is all about. It also needs to be "officialed up", and the
bits that are opinion marked as such to distinguish them from those that
are policy.
My idea was to first host it on a private website and correct all the
mistakes. Once it becomes good enough, we can integrate it to the Debian
website.
> "proper debian distribution": capitalise "Debian" (and throughout)
I corrected this. But when it points debian-user mailing list, I
retained the smaller case letter instead of Debian-user. I dont know
which one is correct. Can someone tell me what is the correct way to
refer to debian-user mailing list?
>
> "Read this debian FAQ": why? There's no more information there than
there is in your FAQ. The place it points, by the way, is precisely
where your FAQ should be incorporated, or rather linked to. Unlike that
page, however you should be avoiding talking about "dists directory",
since that means nothing to an average user.
The idea behind this link is that If a new user happens to stumble upon
my FAQ (say through google search etc.,), I wanted to point out where
the real Debian FAQ is. Ofcourse the hint is subtle, but in one of the
feedbacks I received, one user told me that the link was very useful.
>
> When talking about Woody, Sarge and Sid, it'd be good to have a more
in-depth description of why there's a bunch of independent names and
where they come from (particularly the fact that Sid is special and
invariant while Woody and Sarge are not).
>
This is answered in Q. 5.3 of the official Debian FAQ. This is another
reason for the link to official Debian FAQ. I did not want to duplicate
information in both the places.
>
> "there are also crucial differences": like what? Give an example:
for example, "Knoppix is a distribution designed to be booted as a live
CD, unlike Debian which is designed to be installed on a hard-disk".
Also, each name should be a link to the appropriate distribution's website.
> "I know that Knoppix is based on Debian system": "based on *the* Debian"
>
> "disk, Can I": lower case "Can"
>
I incorporated these suggestions.
> "pointing the sources.list to": Should be "sources.list file",
although "/etc/apt/sources.list file" would make things more clear. But
at this stage you've already lost a bunch of newbies, who wouldn't know
where to find a sources.list file, what to do with it if they did, and
what it might do to their system if they did do something with it. Find
the bit of real documentation for that feature and link to it. This is
not the page for such technical details.
Can someone familiar with Knoppix provide me such a link? All I can find
through google is a link to a wiki. But a wiki is subjected to change
over time and I would prefer not to link to a wiki. Is there any other
good link?
>
> "They are not same.": "They are not *the* same"
>
> "If you want Debian, install Debian the first time itself": "If you
want Debian, it's best to install Debian in the first place" or "from
the get-go".
>
> "install Debian right in the begining.": "install Debian right *from*
(or *at*) the beginning"
>
incorporated.
> "Asking in debian forums will not be of any help. Remember "knoppix
is not debian" and now say that 10 times.". Yeessss... because any new
user trying to install Debian must be an idiot, right? It sounds like a
funny line to you and me, but to a new user it's just telling them to
fuck off. Not a good way to encourage use of the system. Instead of
"You have to", say "You should". If they wander into the Debian lists
by mistake, that's understandable and they shouldn't be punished for it.
Provide just a single link to the Knoppix website, instead of that
utterly confusing links page which doesn't answer anything.
>
I had not thought of it from a newbie point of view. Thanks for the
suggestion. BTW, does anyone know a good link for knoppix mailing lists?
The current link is actually suggested by one of the knoppix user. If
there is a better link, I would be happy to incorporate.
> "The best solution would be to ask a friend who runs Debian". And if
none of their friends run Debian, they should install Windows, right? It
should never, *ever* be necessary to "ask around" in order to
successfully install Debian: it should all be documented. It should be
documented in this very document in fact.
In an FAQ of this nature, all we can do is give pros and cons of each
process. We cannot obviously say for sure which is the wrong/correct
decision. A local Debian guru would be able to give a solid decision for
a newbie.
The idea behind the above statement is that the newbie actually finds
some debian buddies among his friends. In case there are any problems,
they can always turn to them. Most of my friends come to me first when
they have a Debian related problem instead of going to the mailing lists
or reading documentation. I dont blame them for it, it just happens that
way.
> You directly contradict yourself:
>
> "Testing and Unstable are for experts who know what they do"
>
> "Usually people working on a single desktop prefer having the latest
and modern set of packages. Unstable is the solution for this group of
people."
>
> I think the right structure here would be to have question 5 be a
summary, based on particular use cases, with further questions pretty
much like you've got them. Readers looking for a quick answer will get
to question 5 and learn what they need to know, readers who need more
depth will read on. Like this:
>
> "
> 5. Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?
>
> First of all, if security or stability are at all important for you:
install stable.
>
> If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with
stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy
environment to work in. You can easily switch to the more modern
unstable distribution once you're a little more confident.
>
> If you are a desktop user who's already had some experience with
Linux and doesn't mind facing the odd bug now and then, use unstable.
It has all the latest software, and bugs are usually fixed swiftly.
>
> If you are running a server, especially one that has strong security
requirements, install stable. This is by far the strongest and safest
choice.
>
> The following questions provide more detail on these choices...
> "
I actually could not think of better way to explain. So I just took your
exact words and patched my original html file. I hope that is fine.
> "old versions of the package": "old versions of packages"
>
> "But this package is well tested and (99.999999%) will not have any
bugs.": not a joke: don't write this unless it's true! I'm 99% sure it
does indeed have many bugs, like all software.
changed to "less likely to have any bugs."
>
> "different versions of apt package": "different versions of *the* apt
package *in the various distributions*" (since there are certainly many
more versions of apt than just those three floating around)
>
> "Man! the stable": "Man! Stable" or "Man! The stable distribution"
>
> "Just look at the kde": "Just look at kde"
>
> "You are infact correct": "You are in fact correct"
>
> "The packages in the stable": "The packages in stable" (by the way,
"*a* stable" (noun) is a building for storing horses, while "stable"
(adjective) means unlikely to fall over. The grammatical mistake here
is jarring because it completely changes the meaning of the word)
>
> "not be working as it is intended": "not be working as intended"
>
> "the latest and modern set of packages": "the latest and most modern
set of packages"
incorporated all the above changes.
>
> "is a one way process. You can go from stable --> testing -->
unstable. But the reverse direction is not "possible". So better be sure
if you are planning to install/upgrade to unstable.": is this factually
correct? Surely it's quite easy to go from unstable to testing and vice
versa.
Not easy enough for a newbie. You need to spend some time just to make
sure that everything is fine. The main issue is with the configuration
files. Read the second paragraph in the answer.
>
> Question 10 appears to be extremely controversial. I bet there's an
alternative point of view somewhere on the web that you could link to.
>
Yes and that is why the answer starts with "My personal order of
preference...." The word personal is very important here :-)
> "(ex:- http, ftp, cvs)": "(for example, with web, FTP or CVS servers)"
>
> "where security is of utmost important": "where security is of utmost
important*ance*"
>
> "strongly adviced": "strongly advised"
incorporated.
raju
Reply to: