Why is Debian developed slowly?

zenlunatic · Guru Joined: 09 Apr 2003 Posts: 312

Debian is classicaly known for it's extremely slow development process. On the other hand, BSD and other source-based operating systems like Gentoo GNU/Linux are known to have the newest code out as it is released. I have never been involved with a software development project, but I do have a general understanding of how the whole system works, like using CVS, filing bug reports, etc....

One always hears how the Debian developers like to "stamp out all the bugs". Do any of you who are active in OS development really believe this claim. Or is Debian really slow because it such a large project with so many different people maintaining packages? I don't consider myself an expert, but the whole framework of the Debian development system seems really backwards to me, sort of like the U.S.S.R was in political structure (I thought that was a good analogy).

I don't mean to libel the Debian operating system or its developers. I am simply interested in the structure that it is being developed. Why do you think that Debian is so slow to be maintained and developed? Is their any justification for such a huge, slowly developed, operating system, or is Debian being developed in a backwards model?

aethyr · Veteran Joined: 06 Apr 2003 Posts: 1085 Location: NYC

just picked out this newly released software as an example:

http://packages.debian.org/unstable/gnome/gaim.html

seems pretty up to date to me.

I think people that complain about Debian are the same people that have never used it.

"But," you say, "they take so long to put out stable distributions." This is also true, but mostly due to their rigorous package testing.

I suggest you read:
http://www.debian.org/devel/testing

Mind you, I use Gentoo, but you shouldn't put down a distro when you haven't tried it, especially one that's as thoroughly organized and community based as Debian.

gsfgf · Veteran Joined: 08 May 2002 Posts: 1266

debian stable is slow to make surte packages are jkust that, stable. Debian unstable is at least as up to date as a commercial distro. gentoo is so up to date since it's so easy to add a package. The biger problem w/ debian imo is they have too many devs and users that are too damn political. Don't they have some version that has no non-gnu pkgs or something?
_________________
Aim:gsfgf0

zenlunatic · Guru Joined: 09 Apr 2003 Posts: 312

I wasn't putting down Debian at all, at least that wasn't my intentions. I have immense respect for all the Debian users and developers. I admire thier militant stance on free software amoung other things. I was just curious about what others thought about the effectivness about the developmental structure of Debian GNU/Linux, and whether anyone else see's any misuse or flaws in thier huge, heirarchiel approach to package management. Again, I greatly admire what the Debian project has accomplished, and I think they have demonstrate the remarkable feat in, not just technology, but in how human beings can accomplish something without the interfernce of some coersive heirarchiel structure, namely irrelevant software companies such as Microsoft, although I admit partial legitimacy to corporatized software expenditures, namely in developing highly specialized software, such as "defense" technolgy and health-industry technology. That is totally another posts, and perhaps one day a manifesto/book on my part!

Mindstab · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:42 am Post subject:

Ok... So I've run debian. Does that give me the right to knock it?

Seriously tho, the link you posted, to the unstable branch. People don't nececarily want to run something that is designateldly unstable, and I had a hell of a time mix and matching (or simply not) and debians stable branch should simply be renamed "stale". Not only were all the packages ages old, all the supporting libs were so old I couldn't even *compile* software under debian. It was crippled. Maybe one day I should give debian unstable or anothe chance but I dont see why when there is stable and bleeding edge gentoo. I mean seriously. Its the only distro that still uses the 2.2 kernl in its "MAIN STABLE CURRENT USE THIS WHATEVER" branch. To have a 2.4 kernel you MUST use something called unstable or testing. That just doesn't sound like fun or nice. Untill that at lest give me a disclamer that the unstable branch is actually stable, I don't see why not just use shomething stable like gentoo. And I'm pretty sure that gentoo might just be able to keep ahead of their testing whatever branch for up to dated-ness, although maybe by a mch smaller margin. But if only testers and developers are using it in a non
main box capacity, who really cares?

This kind of was meant more as libel because I was increadibly disappointed with debian and it has left a lasting bad taste in my mouth

aethyr · Veteran Joined: 06 Apr 2003 Posts: 1085 Location: NYC

Evangelion · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:50 am Post subject:

modal · Apprentice Joined: 02 Oct 2002 Posts: 277

I have used debian for almost 2 years now, and I honestly think it's a great server os...but, I have trouble running it as my desktop, since it's not the latest and greatest (i care about stability on my desktop). That's what gentoo is for, I get the latest and greatest. I don't care that debian doesn't have stable gnome2, kde3.1 or whatever...it just works, is stable, and secure. 'nuff said.