• f00f/eris@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    If you’re using Debian stable, hopefully you fully expect and want not to get major software updates until long after they release, in exchange for a more predictable system.

    I’m excited for Plasma 6 but I’m very willing to wait for it, and stick to 5.27 as a daily driver for the next year.

    • bisby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      They might include it. Or they might not. If they don’t have time to test it, they just won’t, and you may wind up with 5.27 for longer than just the next year if you’re waiting for debian’s stable repos.

      debian’s neovim is on version 0.7.2 (even in trixie/sid, you have to go to experimental to get to 0.9.5, which is the current). If there are any bugfixes between 0.7.2 and 0.9.5 that aren’t security backported… too bad. You aren’t getting it any time soon, because it’s not landing in Trixie, and it’s not guaranteed to land in whatever is after that either.

      Debian’s “stable” refers to “predictable” like you said. Which includes bugs being predictable. Not resolved. Predictable. And if you have a bug that crashes your system, that bug will stay there unless it’s a “security” issue. Predictable crashing. NOT the “doesn’t crash” that people seem to think “stable” means.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    In about 2 years. By that time it will actually be stable and pretty much bug free. For me Debian is the only distro that provides a reliable experience.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean, the point of Debian is stability. If I’m running Debian then I’m not even gonna want to try and install the thing until after I’ve seen 100 people use it. I don’t think they’ll be looking for it in repos.

    • bruhduh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Can confirm, after 8 years of distro hopping i stopped at Debian, Debian is for home servers and tired ass mothafuckers

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I tried Debian for my very first Linux install very long ago. Its installer formatted my windows partition despite me explicitly telling it not to.

      Never touched it after. Not out of resentment, but because I just don’t need it for anything.

  • megabat@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Oh how quickly people forgot about Plasma 4. When a Debian stable is released with Plasma 6 then I’ll know it’s ready for me. I don’t rush into major KDE releases anymore.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      4 is two major versions back. For this statement to be fair, you should have evaluated it against 5. (Spoiler alert: that release was super smooth)

      • megabat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        My point was more that it was a very rough release even for a .0 and the distros should have waited a bit longer before shipping it as a default. All said I <3 KDE and have been using it since 0.9.6 I think

        • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          As said: yes, 4.0 wasn’t ready. But 5.0 was, so I think it’s fair to assume that they learned from their mistake and 6.0 is fine too.

  • neonred@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    Debian sid user here. If it appears now or in two weeks in the repo does not change anything for me as I don’t depend on the changes for my workflows. For Debian Stable I actually demand them to come much later, in a mostly bugfree version. What’s the rush when it probably needs more field-testing?

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Haha those stupid idiots are big dumb for not knowing about the incredibly niche thing.

      • SolidGrue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        You can license anything you want. Question is whether you can afford to assert it when it comes time to.

        ©solidgrue@lemmyworld, 2024

            • SolidGrue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Its not a very funny joke, sadly.

              The FOSS community was doing fine with BSD and GNU v1 & v2, maybe the odd MIT licenses for decades. Or, decade. Or both. Or neither, if thats your bent. They were substantially similar: here’s the code, this is the license. You may modify the code hut not the license, and any derivative code must contain the original license. Oh and it has to include the code. Some allowed for commercial use, some did not. Not everybody liked that.

              Then one day someone, I think it was Apache, decided no these terms don’t work for us, we don’t like to release the code and we want commercial use and to sell support. So they cut a new license. Not everybody cared, and Apache was happy.

              Likewise, GNU foundation decided they wanted to compete in commercial space and allow for commercially supported releases, allowing .COMs to make money using and supporting what used to be FOSS. GNUv3 license got issued. Most of everybody who cared didn’t like that, but at least IBM, Oracle and Amazon are happy.

              And then suddenly everyone was cutting their own licenses, and people who cared kinda gave up on it and went with what works.

              Eventually, the people behind Wikipedia and the mediawiki software decided the People needed a license, so the Creative Commons license was born. I’m not well read in it, but I gather it us favorable for content producers, and is aaserted in “arenas of public discourse” (my own term) where content derives from individual contributors mostly as prophylaxis against trawlers, scrapers, aggregators and (to be tested,) LLMs.

              Of course, asserting the license and defending against contrary use of the content is incumbent on the licensor, and must be defended in civil court. Not everybody can afford a lawyer, and EFF and the Open Source Initiative aren’t rich enough to litigate everything pro bono.

              Any or all of the preceding might or might not be bullshit, but its my good faith read of the license shenanigans the last 10 years as I’ve bothered to pay attention to them.

              EFL-2.0 just to be a dork about it.

      • anti-idpol action@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I mean I get it might be because of being afraid of it being used to train LLMs. But I doubt that it would work, either because they won’t be used regardless or because of how federation works, i.e. literally it’d be more efficient if all of the known network instances’ operators somehow agreed to include/Lemmy, kbin and all of the microblogging platforms that can federate with Lemmy shipped a robots.txt that blocks known AI crawlers. Probably what would be more useful would be something that e.g. Akkoma and some other AP implementers offer, i.e. message autodeletion.

        Also terrible if you want to retain any anonymity even if more people did it, because of stylometry.