Base Alternitive: Aptosid ?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I have been trying out the distribution Aptosid. It's based on Debian
Unstable. It's cutting edge, rolling release but most of the time it's
_*stable*_. I have been using if for a month now and not had any
problems. So apps like Tribler -The future of bit-torrent.- are in the
repos :). So with this as the base you get latest goodies even more up
to date than ubuntu.
Could this make for a good base for Trisquel?
They have good documentation. They encourage non-free. Most of the
technical work is done unlike ubuntu! No non-free kernal blobs by
default. The non-free repo does not seam to be kept separate, The is not
non-free repo to disable in the package manager.
I guess work that would need to be done is:
* Anti non-free encouraging doc.
* IceWeasel anti non-free addons/plugins ("you need to install adobe
trash...")
* Exterminate (remove) the non-free repo.
* Put doc licensed under the GNU FDL back in the main(free) repo instead
of the non-free repo.
* Gnome iso image.
This could be a good idea for a derivative of Trisquel but not to be used as default. Something like Parabola Gnu/Linux but for the Debian/Ubuntu side could be done, and could even be a good idea... Something to think about indeed :D
On 02/12/12 18:11, name at domain wrote:
> but not to be used as default.
What was your thinking? Is the problem exiting X to install upgrades?
Which I forgot to mention.
It is a problem of stable vs rolling, the old story. I personally think that the future is with the rolling distributions rather than with the stable distributions, but not a rolling-on-the-second, just a simple rolling-close-to-stable. Something that doesn't require reinstalation, format etc...
But for this we need to change a lot of things first and we will face the same problems as always :
- How often will we update the Installation ISO ?
- Is the base prepared to repair itself in case of upgrade problem (which normally is handled by the user since he knows what he is doing or else he wouldn't install a rolling distribution).
- Can the same base be updated not when the update is out but (for example) every 5 years ? Would this corrupt anything ?
- How to handle new technologies ? Like Unity... if Ubuntu was Rolling how Ubuntu would make Unity default and use lightdm instead of GDM without asking the user to do anything (or even choose) ?
Only after those questions are asked correctly we will start to see rolling distributions used in enterprises. I have myself a server running Parabola, but I never updated it fully (only partially if any security issue is going on) because I know that something could lead to an important change that I can't predict and this could ruin my whole installation.
But I'll be honest with you.. I am more of a Rolling Distribution Guy... I just started to adapt myself (again) into the stable distributions (since I can't get Parabola to recognize my printer every time I updated cups) but a totally Free Rolling Distribution based on debian (since they solve those kind of questions directly when packaging) could be really awesome... If I knew how to build my how distribution based on aptosid (or even Ubuntu or Trisquel) I would have already made one :D
On 07/12/12 04:31, name at domain wrote:
> It is a problem of stable vs rolling, the old story. I personally think
> that the future is with the rolling distributions rather than with the
> stable distributions, but not a rolling-on-the-second, just a simple
> rolling-close-to-stable. Something that doesn't require reinstalation,
> format etc...
>
> But for this we need to change a lot of things first and we will face
> the same problems as always :
> - How often will we update the Installation ISO ?
> - Is the base prepared to repair itself in case of upgrade problem
> (which normally is handled by the user since he knows what he is doing
> or else he wouldn't install a rolling distribution).
> - Can the same base be updated not when the update is out but (for
> example) every 5 years ? Would this corrupt anything ?
> - How to handle new technologies ? Like Unity... if Ubuntu was Rolling
> how Ubuntu would make Unity default and use lightdm instead of GDM
> without asking the user to do anything (or even choose) ?
>
> Only after those questions are asked correctly we will start to see
> rolling distributions used in enterprises. I have myself a server
> running Parabola, but I never updated it fully (only partially if any
> security issue is going on) because I know that something could lead to
> an important change that I can't predict and this could ruin my whole
> installation.
>
> But I'll be honest with you.. I am more of a Rolling Distribution Guy...
> I just started to adapt myself (again) into the stable distributions
> (since I can't get Parabola to recognize my printer every time I updated
> cups) but a totally Free Rolling Distribution based on debian (since
> they solve those kind of questions directly when packaging) could be
> really awesome... If I knew how to build my how distribution based on
> aptosid (or even Ubuntu or Trisquel) I would have already made one :D
Sorry, I forgot to say that I have been thinking about the problem of
bad upgrades. What about having a system that held backup risky
upgrades. Like xorg, glib, linux etc. Those how want too can install
them to test/conform that the are no problems and then the risky
upgrades get feed to the stabler installs of users. This way we get two
in one. Rolling and tested release based and unlike ubuntu the current
Libreoffice and Firefox versions!
It would be a compromise.
Now, How to keep upgrades back? Separate repo? Does that mean we would
need to have our own mirrors? Or a package that sets up the
excluding/delaying of upgrades according to a list on the Trisquel server?
Le 2012-12-07 14:51, Alexander Stephen Thomas Ross a écrit :
> Sorry, I forgot to say that I have been thinking about the problem of
> bad upgrades. What about having a system that held backup risky
> upgrades. Like xorg, glib, linux etc. Those how want too can install
> them to test/conform that the are no problems and then the risky
> upgrades get feed to the stabler installs of users. This way we get
> two in one. Rolling and tested release based and unlike ubuntu the
> current Libreoffice and Firefox versions!
>
> It would be a compromise.
>
> Now, How to keep upgrades back? Separate repo? Does that mean we
> would need to have our own mirrors? Or a package that sets up the
> excluding/delaying of upgrades according to a list on the Trisquel
> server?
I believe what you're describing is exactly what Linux Mint has been
doing for years with their Level1/Level2/.../Level5 upgrades. Risky
packages are classified as Level4 or Level5. By default, the Linux Mint
updater only shows Level1 to Level3 upgrades. You can enable Level4 or
Level5 upgrades if you really need them. For instance, kernel updates
are hidden by default, if I'm not mistaken.
On 02/12/12 17:49, Alexander Stephen Thomas Ross wrote:
> The non-free repo does not seam to be kept separate, The is not
> non-free repo to disable in the package manager.
>
> I guess work that would need to be done is:
> * Exterminate (remove) the non-free repo.
What a load of rubbish. Just rechecked. I was completely wrong. Stupid
me! The non-free repo is not even included in commented-out form in the
sources list by default!
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires