The Debian Experience

Intrepid · 2010-07-14 18:33:18

After using arch for nearly 5 years, I had to temporarily leave due to certain issues I had. The catalyst drivers did not work as recent as a few months ago, and while the open source drivers were nice, they did not fit my uses. Some software just started crashing regularly (such as lmms). I also had trouble with my firewire devices (such as my firebox recording interface) which I need for music production. It seems like the transition to a newer kernel with the new firewire stack has been a huge issue.

That said, first I tried Linux Mint. It was nice and simple, everything seemed to work. However, it didn't allow me to do a dist-upgrade, which I thought was silly. So I tried Arch again. Still a lot of the same problems were recurring. One could say that for certain packages, Arch may be more bleeding edge than a lot of software. Then I thought, I should try Debian testing. Best choice I've made in a long time!

Debian testing is sort of a rolling release distribution. The packages are not usually "frozen" until the next stable release comes out (when you can switch to the next testing). Even though it's testing, nothing has broken for me yet. It's still somewhat less updated than the Arch core/extra repos. It seems like they really care about providing working packages even with regular updates. Using checkinstall to do a sort of "makepkg" type thing is more cumbersome than Arch, but it still works nonetheless. To me, Debian testing is the best of both worlds: the Ubuntu automatic install type world with a lot of the control that Arch provides. For example, Debian does not use Pulseaudio by default, but--like arch--you CAN add it in. Getting rid of pulseaudio on linux mint was a complete pain! These kinds of decisions are what makes me admire their KISS principles as well as their "don't let it break" principle.

I definitely find myself missing the ABS as well as (sometimes) the updated nature of the Arch repositories. However, for my hardware, I don't miss the breakage. I've also successfully made several of my own debian packages, so I know it's doable. Anyone else have any experiences they would like to share about Debian Testing?

ablepharus · 2010-07-14 18:42:48

I was always annoyed of these -dev packages i had to install and i was never able to like apt or aptitude. But the most awful thing was the sources list stuff. Putting different sources in and controlling which kind of package can be installed by it was really annoying.

Intrepid · 2010-07-14 18:55:56

I definitely agree with you, ablepharus. The -dev packages are annoying, but I always keep track of them when I'm building a new package. I immediately remove them when I'm done and keep them documented in my gnotes. I guess this is the tradeoff I had to make. One that I don't really like very much. Apt/aptitude is more complicated than pacman, but it seems to provide most of the same functions.

Misfit138 · 2010-07-14 21:12:36

I always found Debian to be high quality.

Intrepid wrote:

..These kinds of decisions are what makes me admire their KISS principles as well as their "don't let it break" principle...

I do not view Debian as the slightest bit 'KISS'. I would describe it as anything but.
Example 1:

root@debian:~# echo $EDITOR
vim

Ok...so..

root@debian:~# visudo

  GNU nano 2.0.7                   File: /etc/sudoers.tmp                                             

# /etc/sudoers
#
# This file MUST be edited with the 'visudo' command as root.
#
# See the man page for details on how to write a sudoers file.
#

Defaults        env_reset

# Host alias specification

# User alias specification

# Cmnd alias specification

# User privilege specification
root    ALL=(ALL) ALL

# Uncomment to allow members of group sudo to not need a password
# (Note that later entries override this, so you might need to move
# it further down)
%sudo ALL=NOPASSWD: ALL

                                          [ Read 22 lines ]
^G Get Help      ^O WriteOut      ^R Read File     ^Y Prev Page     ^K Cut Text      ^C Cur Pos
^X Exit          ^J Justify       ^W Where Is      ^V Next Page     ^U UnCut Text    ^T To Spell

$EDITOR is vim, as exported from ~/.bashrc, yet visudo grabs nano. FAIL.
Why?
Example 2:

root@debian:~# ls -l /usr/bin/editor 
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 2010-02-13 14:44 /usr/bin/editor -> /etc/alternatives/editor
root@debian:~# ls -l /etc/alternatives/editor
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2010-02-13 14:44 /etc/alternatives/editor -> /usr/bin/nano

/usr/bin/editor, a symlink pointing to /etc/alternatives/editor, another symlink pointing to /usr/bin/nano.
A nice system. But definitely not KISS.

anonymous_user · 2010-07-14 22:46:37

@Intrepid - Have you tried Debian Unstable/Sid?

Inxsible · 2010-07-14 23:09:15

I used Debian along with Arch, when I first moved over from Ubuntu. The main reason for me moving from Ubuntu was that my old machine simply couldn't run Gnome or xfce. So I started minimalizing and tried ubuntu minimal, debian basic install and Arch. I made Arch my primary system soon after. But the time I used Debian, I had no problems with it.

Apt/aptitude was pretty easy to understand, although I wasn't very sure why they had two apt-get and aptitude and at that time -- was new to linux - - so I didnt bother to find out either.

fsckd · 2010-07-15 00:14:52

I use Squeeze at home and Lenny at you-know-where. Between Squeeze and Arch, my workflow is identical. In fact the desktops are identical with just different wallpapers and Debian's swirl in place of the Arch logo in conky.

Some of my experiences:

1. Squeeze shuts down in ~ 2 seconds and Arch takes ~ 10 seconds.
2. Squeeze is fairly stable and I have not had any serious problems.
3. Updating on Squeeze is far more bandwidth intensive than on Arch. Especially if updates are done every few days or once a week instead of every day, I am so glad I stopped using dialup.
4. Debian logo is my favorite.
5. Apt vs Aptitude is unnecessarily confusing.
6. Management of multiple repos is also confusing but very effective.
7. It's fun to mix and match packages from different distros.

Misfit138 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
..These kinds of decisions are what makes me admire their KISS principles as well as their "don't let it break" principle...
I do not view Debian as the slightest bit 'KISS'. I would describe it as anything but.

I think he meant it's simpler than systems like Ubuntu, which can't even be installed on my desktop anymore.

ngoonee · 2010-07-15 02:37:54

Multiple repos turned me off Ubuntu and .deb-based distros for good. When my repo list grew longer than the height of my screen I knew something was wrong.... not to mention all those self-compiled packages (checkinstall was just confusing).

Having used Arch for quite a while now I think if I decided to go try debian-testing or something I'd find it much easier to understand. Not till I have lots of free time on my hands to mess things up though, this machine does do 'real work' sometimes

s1gma · 2010-07-15 11:06:21

Last week, I wanted to update my Debian server.

$ sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade

Apache update, OK, no problem. Except that httpd daemon was restarted, without asking me !
I don't know if this is the defaults behaviour or if I'm missing something, but I was really disapointed. What if the SSH server was updated, restarted, and something went wrong ? No more SSH access, not really cool on a server...
On the same level, installing a service actually launches the service... ("apt-get install openssh" opens port 22 on your machine, no prompt). What if I just want to look at the man pages, the conf files ?

Maybe I've been using Arch for too long to use anything else (too long actually means less than a year !).

Last edited by s1gma (2010-07-15 11:10:37)

ablepharus · 2010-07-15 11:27:14

But I have to admit that i am not soo happy with aur either. It's a great idea etc. but there are too many packages which are complete crap.

Inxsible · 2010-07-15 14:13:20

ablepharus wrote:

But I have to admit that i am not soo happy with aur either. It's a great idea etc. but there are too many packages which are complete crap.

True, but that's the reason that they are in AUR and not in core, extra or community. Also, using AUR is optional. So your hand is not forced.

Nonetheless, you do find quite a few apps in AUR that are packaged correctly and are very useful to people.

tjwoosta · 2010-07-15 14:32:27

Even if theyre not packaged correctly, although most are, its a user repository so you can easily just modify the PKGBUILD and re-upload with a slighly changed name if you think something should be done differently and the current maintainers are unresponsive. I find that the maintainers are usually pretty good though with fixing packages when someone points out a problem.

ablepharus · 2010-07-15 15:31:30

I think the aur is also a big chance for little projects. Because it makes it pretty easy to install the software of a small project and so also the lazy can try it out.

And I want to say, even if the aur isn't perfect i think it's a eally pro for archlinux which makes it unique.

nixpunk · 2010-07-16 17:08:08

I used Debian for many years before Arch. Considering the Debian "helper apps," amongst other things, I wouldn't consider the distro to be KISS at all.

Still a fine distro no doubt.

faelar · 2010-07-17 12:27:08

I can't say anything against debian stability but... KISS ? No way !

Intrepid · 2010-07-17 18:50:32

Well by KISS I meant that I can still tweak everything how I like it. With ubuntu-based distros, it was basically impossible (and quite frustrating). Like as I mentioned, the pulseaudio junk that was included. It was a nightmare getting rid of things like pulseaudio!

@anonymous_user: no I haven't tried debian sid. I don't really have any need to at this moment, but the concept is very interesting!

I don't really use the helper apps much, just debian_config (which can be done via console and it's very handy). Aptitude is also lovely, and I wouldn't mind seeing someone develop something like that for pacman. Just an ncurses queue-based frontend that allows searching with / (highly convenient).

For me the only serious problem with debian is the lack of an AUR type system. Debuilds, as was mentioned, are harder to use, but checkinstall makes things easier. Checkinstall seems like a hacked up version of writing a PKGBUILD, but the only issue is that you have to manually install and remove the -dev packages. However, as of now I have the system down to an art, having installed quite a few of my own packages.

I really want to move back to arch at some point, but as of now I have no compelling reason to. Hopefully when ATI, the kernel devs, and software devs are more synchronized, distros won't have to be by overcompensating with stability (like debian). As a musician/firewire user/gamer, right now having things more "stable" works out very well. I think if I get an Nvidia card, I may move back to Arch and maybe I'll develop something in ncurses using libalpm.

Last edited by Intrepid (2010-07-17 18:53:32)

Intrepid · 2010-07-17 18:57:08

s1gma wrote:

Last week, I wanted to update my Debian server.
$ sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade
Apache update, OK, no problem. Except that httpd daemon was restarted, without asking me !
I don't know if this is the defaults behaviour or if I'm missing something, but I was really disapointed. What if the SSH server was updated, restarted, and something went wrong ? No more SSH access, not really cool on a server...
On the same level, installing a service actually launches the service... ("apt-get install openssh" opens port 22 on your machine, no prompt). What if I just want to look at the man pages, the conf files ?
Maybe I've been using Arch for too long to use anything else (too long actually means less than a year !).

Right, you get used to the behavior. For me it's very convenient to have things automatically start like that, but the httpd behavior should probably change. And I've been using Arch for 5 years.

Conversely, it is kind of a pain to disable services (you have to run an ncurses app and deselect what you don't want). But it makes starting some of the more odd/tricky ones (like mythtv) somewhat easier. I probably would like something in between what Arch does and what Debian testing does.

shetland_breeder · 2010-07-17 19:48:14

For me one of the best things (and there are many) about Arch is pacman.

I used to run Ubuntu, but I once tried to work out (on a 3-year old installation) exactly what top-level packages i had installed and when they were installed.

Completely impossible - the apt logs have no timestamps and there is nothing (at least I couldn't find it) to allow you to find which packages were explicitly installed and which were dependancies.

And of course Ubuntu just gets more and more bloated and it's just too painful to remove the stuff you don't want.

Debian is not so bloated, but still doesn't have the granularity that Arch does. And of course Ubuntu inherits its package system from Debian.

And Debian is oriented to System V in its structure rather than BSD, and since I came to Linux via BSD I like the BSD-ness of Arch.

Pete

anonymous_user · 2010-07-17 19:57:10

shetland_breeder wrote:

Completely impossible - the apt logs have no timestamps

Don't the dpkg logs have timestamps?

shetland_breeder wrote:

And of course Ubuntu just gets more and more bloated and it's just too painful to remove the stuff you don't want.

This is not to convince you to come to Ubuntu, but you should be aware of Ubuntu's minimal ISOs:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Insta … /MinimalCD

Last edited by anonymous_user (2010-07-17 19:58:35)

fsckd · 2010-07-17 20:40:45

anonymous_user wrote:

shetland_breeder wrote:
Completely impossible - the apt logs have no timestamps
Don't the dpkg logs have timestamps?

Maybe

# head dpkg.log
2010-02-20 03:34:54 startup archives install
2010-02-20 03:34:55 install base-files <none> 5.1
2010-02-20 03:34:55 status half-installed base-files 5.1
2010-02-20 03:34:55 status unpacked base-files 5.1
2010-02-20 03:34:55 status unpacked base-files 5.1
2010-02-20 03:34:55 install base-passwd <none> 3.5.22
2010-02-20 03:34:55 status half-installed base-passwd 3.5.22
2010-02-20 03:34:55 status unpacked base-passwd 3.5.22
2010-02-20 03:34:55 status unpacked base-passwd 3.5.22
2010-02-20 03:34:55 configure base-passwd 3.5.22 3.5.22

# head -n 50 apt/term.log
Log started: 2010-02-20  03:48:37
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Log ended: 2010-02-20  03:48:42

Log started: 2010-02-20  20:32:48
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Log ended: 2010-02-20  20:32:59

Log started: 2010-02-20  20:40:01
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Log ended: 2010-02-20  20:40:05

Log started: 2010-02-20  20:55:05
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Log ended: 2010-02-20  20:56:02

Log started: 2010-02-20  22:59:41
(Reading database ... 12791 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace e2fslibs 1.41.9-1 (using .../e2fslibs_1.41.10-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement e2fslibs ...
Setting up e2fslibs (1.41.10-1) ...
(Reading database ... 12791 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace e2fsprogs 1.41.9-1 (using .../e2fsprogs_1.41.10-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement e2fsprogs ...
Processing triggers for man-db ...
Setting up e2fsprogs (1.41.10-1) ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/mke2fs.conf ...
(Reading database ... 12791 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libcomerr2 1.41.9-1 (using .../libcomerr2_1.41.10-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libcomerr2 ...
Setting up libcomerr2 (1.41.10-1) ...
(Reading database ... 12791 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libss2 1.41.9-1 (using .../libss2_1.41.10-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libss2 ...
Setting up libss2 (1.41.10-1) ...
(Reading database ... 12791 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace procps 1:3.2.8-2 (using .../procps_1%3a3.2.8-7_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement procps ...
Processing triggers for man-db ...
Setting up procps (1:3.2.8-7) ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/sysctl.conf ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/procps ...
Setting kernel variables ...done.
Log ended: 2010-02-20  22:59:56

shetland_breeder · 2010-07-19 20:05:27

anonymous_user wrote:

shetland_breeder wrote:
Completely impossible - the apt logs have no timestamps
Don't the dpkg logs have timestamps?

Hmm, yes they do. I must admit I thought it a bit odd that they didn't, but I was looking for a way of doing the equivalent of 'pacman -Qte' and one of the things I came across said that dpkg didn't log the times. Shows not to believe everything you read. As an aside that's not the first bum steer I've come across on the Ubuntu forums. Yet to find one on Arch forum though

anonymous_user wrote:

shetland_breeder wrote:
And of course Ubuntu just gets more and more bloated and it's just too painful to remove the stuff you don't want.
This is not to convince you to come to Ubuntu, but you should be aware of Ubuntu's minimal ISOs:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Insta … /MinimalCD

Actually I did try that. Can't remember which version (probably 10.04 but maybe not). It still seemed to want to install a load of stuff I knew I didn't need. Since I'd just come across Arch I just gave it up as a bad job.

Not to knock Ubuntu though - Canonical have done a good job of making a distro that's (nearly) accessible to the non-technical person. After all, it was what I chose when Vista came out and I decided to get away from Windows since there was no way I was going to pay money for that sort of rubbish. But now I find Arch much more to my liking than Ubuntu since it's easier to make it the way I want. A sort of happy medium between Gentoo and Ubuntu/Debian.

But I will do an install of Debian testing just to try it out.

Pete

Intrepid · 2010-07-22 17:56:54

My advice to an Archer who would ever consider Debian is to first and foremost try to understand the packaging. Because there are several versions of programs included, Debian sometimes has multiple versions of software/libs installed. Because of this, the biggest issue people have is "I don't know how to compile this!"

Then they have a messy system because (at least in Ubuntu) old packages are sometimes not removed. I have not observed this strange behavior in Debian, but I had no idea what I manually or did not manually install when I used Ubuntu. It seems like Ubuntu-based distros borked Debian's efficiency. For example, in Ubuntu I had 5 different kernel versions of 2.6.31 but I could not get any of them uninstalled. If not doing a safe-upgrade, Debian removes old kernel versions that are no longer necessary.

Not only that, but for packages not in the repo, checkinstall is very nice and comparable in easiness to PKGBUILDs. Build dependencies have to be tracked, but it's a matter of opening your favorite text editor and typing which -dev packages should be uninstalled later as you are figuring out what the package depends on. Also, the equivalent of the Arch Build System is fantastic. It's a matter of apt-get source "packagename" and apt-get build-dep "packagename". Then just edit the rules file (a la PKGBUILD's build section) and--actually--most packages figure out the depends line automatically. You have to keep track of the -dev packages once again, but it's relatively trivial. Makepkg does not remove makedepends that are not included automatically as depends either, so if there were no -dev packages, it would be very similar and your system can still become cluttered.

For me, the SysV init is actually very fast, and I have become very accustomed to it.

ngoonee · 2010-07-22 23:55:54

Intrepid wrote:

Not only that, but for packages not in the repo, checkinstall is very nice and comparable in easiness to PKGBUILDs.

Nice writeup. For myself, when I tried to 'learn' checkinstall I couldn't get my head around it. It may in fact be easy, but I don't think you can compare it to PKGBUILDs which are basically just bash....

Intrepid · 2010-07-27 04:44:13

ngoonee wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Not only that, but for packages not in the repo, checkinstall is very nice and comparable in easiness to PKGBUILDs.
Nice writeup. For myself, when I tried to 'learn' checkinstall I couldn't get my head around it. It may in fact be easy, but I don't think you can compare it to PKGBUILDs which are basically just bash....

You're right, you would have to manually make your own scripts to use checkinstall like PKGBUILDs. For example, suppose you have the build { } section of a PKGBUILD. You can put that in a script in the source directory (with some minor alterations) and write checkinstall -D ./scriptname.sh as fakeroot. It's a much more manual process than makepkg, admittedly.

Vamp898 · 2010-07-27 07:33:46

I tried Debian for 1 year and it was sad

These "rolling" Release is just a bad joke at least. I had so much problems with "broken packages" in case of not-matching package versions.

Sometimes debian unstable + experimental was even older than Ubuntu and much older than Arch so...

The only System i can accept beside Arch is Gentoo. If something breaks every you have such awesome nice features like reverse-dependency-checking + build.

so you have libxy and package xy and package xy needs xy

now libxy updates and package xy doesnt work anymore. This tool detects that and rebuilds xy

on debian you would have to build your own deb package... fail

try that for 100 dependencys which get broken (like on libjpeg) and you will hate debian for years.

Like the joke says, Debian is aviable in 3 Version

rusty, stale, broken

Arch Linux

#1 2010-07-14 18:33:18

The Debian Experience

#2 2010-07-14 18:42:48

Re: The Debian Experience

#3 2010-07-14 18:55:56

Re: The Debian Experience

#4 2010-07-14 21:12:36

Re: The Debian Experience

#5 2010-07-14 22:46:37

Re: The Debian Experience

#6 2010-07-14 23:09:15

Re: The Debian Experience

#7 2010-07-15 00:14:52

Re: The Debian Experience

#8 2010-07-15 02:37:54

Re: The Debian Experience

#9 2010-07-15 11:06:21

Re: The Debian Experience

#10 2010-07-15 11:27:14

Re: The Debian Experience

#11 2010-07-15 14:13:20

Re: The Debian Experience

#12 2010-07-15 14:32:27

Re: The Debian Experience

#13 2010-07-15 15:31:30

Re: The Debian Experience

#14 2010-07-16 17:08:08

Re: The Debian Experience

#15 2010-07-17 12:27:08

Re: The Debian Experience

#16 2010-07-17 18:50:32

Re: The Debian Experience

#17 2010-07-17 18:57:08

Re: The Debian Experience

#18 2010-07-17 19:48:14

Re: The Debian Experience

#19 2010-07-17 19:57:10

Re: The Debian Experience

#20 2010-07-17 20:40:45

Re: The Debian Experience

#21 2010-07-19 20:05:27

Re: The Debian Experience

#22 2010-07-22 17:56:54

Re: The Debian Experience

#23 2010-07-22 23:55:54

Re: The Debian Experience

#24 2010-07-27 04:44:13

Re: The Debian Experience

#25 2010-07-27 07:33:46

Re: The Debian Experience

Board footer