Voice of the Masses: Is the Debian release cycle too long?
Congratulations to the Debian team for getting Jessie out of the door. If the distro’s history is anything to go by, however, the next release will be around two years away – by which time, so much of the software in the “stable” branch will be very dated. So as we gear up to record our next podcast, we want to hear from you: is the Debian release cycle too long?
Should the project aim for more rapid, time-based releases like Ubuntu and Fedora? Or should Debian simply focus all-out on stability and only release when the distro is ready, regardless of timeframes? Let us know what you think and we’ll read out your musings in our podcast.
Related Posts
About The Author
Mike Saunders
Mike stores his data by printing out hex dumps and laminating the sheets. He's the author of The Haynes Linux Manual and the creator of MikeOS, an operating system hand-built from assembly language.
I fear that for desktop users, driver compatibility becomes more and more difficult with such a release model – however, since Debian’s primary market is servers (where the hardware manufacturers seem to care more), that’s not too bad. And, well, every distribution of GNU/Linux has it’s own focus. If Debian changed to a faster release pace, it would leave all those users orphaned that want/need maximum stability. And Debian had to fight against Ubuntu, openSUSE and Fedora, who cover that part of the market sufficiently.
Because you know I’m all about that choice
‘Bout that choice, no one size fits no one Windows 8.1
If you like your distro, you can keep your disto
Debian is focused on longer term support. Even non-LTS releases last for 2+ years. (I imagine) People that use Debian do so because of this and switching to a quicker schedule would probably lose these people/companies. Anyone that does want something faster can just switch to testing/unstable if they really wanted to.
First off, a correction – Ubuntu LTS releases suit those of us who prefer stability to “toys”. Although I really must get this laptop upgraded from 12.04LTS to 14.04LTS asap.
Debian IS famed for it’s stability, and I’ll argue that a shorter release cycle would hurt that badly. EspadaV8 said it for me – if you want bleeding edge then go “testing”.
Two years between milestone releases is fine for me, especially if there’s the option to do rolling upgrades for major improvements.
A release cycle depends on what’s being offered. Fedora offers cutting edge software so there’s an element of instability being offered by the distro.
Debian though offers stability for both the Server and Desktop (I’m a desktop and server user – spend more time on the desktop though!) and it has never once let me down. Fedora did, several times.
So while it does take a long time, I think the benefits of such a cycle outweigh the impatience of waiting so long for major releases.
Surely not.
The careful release management is the reason you have been able to dist-upgrade without breakage for ages – and the basis for the original rolling release distribution: Debian Testing.
Debian is solid on the servers and desktops, and we should be grateful the project lives. If one wants to go the desktop route, I recommend PointLinux, which is fairly close to Debian basics.
Everytime Debian does an official stable release people start asking this. Linux Voice loses credibility by joining the chorus. If you want true stability, Debian stable is where it’s at b/c it is truly stable (unlike some other distros purporting to be stable). Anyone can run fairly close to bleeding edge by running Debian unstable. Want something in between? Debian testing is there for you (and me since that’s what I’ve run for years without incident).
Stop spreading nonsense.
How long is a piece of string.
The length of release cycles is reflected by the resource and the quality of the result. There are other distributions with faster cycles and differing levels of quality, reliability, stability.
Too slow for what? For me? Yes, at least on the computer I use most of the time – I like new toys and subscribe to the cult of the new. Which is why I don’t currently have it installed. However, I am looking at setting up a box which I want to be stable and just sit there, reliably working. For that it would be perfect, and the release cycle would have little to no impact.
Overall, I think as with most of these Voice of the Masses subjects, the answer seems to head to towards choice. You can choose the type of distro you want for any given situation, that choice is one of the main strengths of Linux as I see it.
Without wanting to sound too much like I’m sat on the fence, the Debian release cycle is perfect for those that want it (and judging on the comments I think there are plenty of people who do like it as it currently it), and the Arch release cycle is also perfect, and when someone forks Arch to provide the two-speed rolling distro I think was mentioned in the last podcast, that will also be perfect – depending on the use case in question.
No. The release cycle is fine as it is. I run Debian on both my server and laptop. The server runs ‘stable’ with a few packages from ‘testing’ and the laptop runs ‘unstable’. I never worry about the server being unstable and installing apt-listbugs on my laptop means I never feel in the dark about an update they may break my system. I find I can get the best of both worlds and using the same base for both server and laptop means the skills I have learnt for one system applies to the other. Having spent much of the early 2000’s distrohopping and maintaining different Linux varieties I now find the ease of maintaining one Distro that has works on so many platforms and systems a relief.
No.
Yes, it is. For all of Debian’s famed stability, if you actually try using it for any length of time you can and surely will encounter bugs – with the added problem that unless they’re related to security you’ll have to wait a couple of years for the next update.
At the time of writing, Debian’s own website tracks 967 release-critical bugs, 111 of which “affect the current stable release”. That’s just release critical. If you’re going to encounter that many bugs you may as well just use a reasonably up to date distro.
I think you’re confusing the two different uses of stable. 🙂 Debian never claimed to be bug-free; no distribution is.
The point of so-called stable distributions over against bleeding edge (or worse, rolling release) distributions is that changes are only made when they are necessary for the continued safe operation of the system (e.g. security or data corruption bugs).
As a general rule, the more systems you are responsible for, the more likely you are to prefer a stable distribution, since they’re generally less work to keep running.
Having just rescued two ex-Microsoft Users, one from XP and the other from Vista, they may feel a two year release cycle to be a bit racy!
Incidentally, both computers had initially start up times of five minutes plus and shut down eventually. After installing Linux Mint both were ready for work in less than a minute and closed down in about ten seconds.
Running Windows OS computers is good for the soul, I then realize just how lucky we are in the Linux eco-system regardless of how old our distribution is.
The gap between releases has no correct answer as such. The ideal balance depends entirely on your use case.
For example in my company we have some servers with an expected life time of 5-8 years, their function and role will not change during this period. On these servers we are looking for a distribution that will only fix security flaws and bugs for 5-8 years no new features or shiny new code that could break our long running stable application. On other servers we are looking to evaluate new technology and move much more rapidly as we develop an new service. So we want a distro that keeps moving to new libraries etc.
So there is no right or wrong answer for Debian on this, there is just a period that will suit some and one that will suit others.
No – Debian relied upon by lots of people – including other distro maintainers – as the most stable gratis OS around. I’d say they’ve got it about right.
P.S. I happen to have a piece of string right here on my desk. It is 73mm long.
I believe what Philipp and EspadaV8 said – it’s what people want Debian for.
Debian is in the same category as RHEL and CentOS, whose release cycles are very slow. Stability and long term support is crucial for many – ISS for example chose a not current release of Debian to power their workstations (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/10/iss_linux_debian_deployment/). Debian’s release cycle is this long because this is how long it takes to make what Debian’s users need.
If you ask me, it’s too short. Well, that’s not quite true, but John Brown above said it much better than I can, so I won’t add any more…
No. I use Debian because of its stability (not changing, always realiable). We’re lucky that we have Debian and were lucky that we have other distros as well.
For desktop use, yes, the Debian Stable release cycle is definitely too slow. It is not for nothing that Ubuntu pulls its packages from Debian Unstable. Take for example XFCE’s Weather Update panel plugin. Last year it broke because the data provider changed. My 70-year old father nagged me several weeks about it because he had grown dependent on this app. Luckily, a release upgrade from Xubuntu LTS 12.04 to 14.04 resolved this issue. Had he run Debian Stable, he would still be waiting. Pinning Unstable packages would not have been a solution because the plugin is highly integrated with XFCE and even depends on a specific version of it. So, that is about the lenght of string over here.
Definitely not. Debian is an enterprise grade operating system, not a toy, It is a fact of life that programs both improve and regress over time. No responsible sysadmin wants to deploy tens,hundreds ot even thousands of systems just to have an application break because it wasn’t fully tested.
Surely Debian has done more for the linux community than just about any other distro (with the possible vague exception of Ubuntu) in regards to establishing successful alternatives, and the demand that operating systems be free and open. The very strong insistance upon a working stable OS has always been one of it’s strengths, and the fact that so many distros now consider implicitly it’s basis for their version is enough of a recognition that it has always been strong and dependable. So decisions about its release cycle should remain in their hands, and it’s a tad unfair of us to complain about it.
Not only that, but to keep in mind that they have arrived at their decision based on what has been essentially successful throughout it’s life, and continues to this day, so I reckon they probably have no real reason to change it. Of course, I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by everyone else. I’m just saying that they’re pretty good at dependable releases, so we maybe ought to acknowledge their choices are probably for good reason, and anyway we always have other breakfast cereal to choose from.
I’d prefer they remain true to stability than to encourage a move away from what has always seemed to be a good policy. That’s my 2c worth.
Thanks, and I just am chewing through issue 10 and 14, excellent work as always. I don’t imagine you would consider a change in your relaease cycle for LV magazine and you would be right not to feel obliged to do so. Quality would suffer, though I must say that Ben is incredibly prolific with about 3 or 4 in-depth articles each issue plus a few tutorials as well, where does he find the energy?
Best regards,
Michael
For me, the releases come too often. My home server is a little ARM-based sheevaplug device. ARM devices don’t get the LTS security bugfixes. This pushes me into a cycle of upgrading whenever a release becomes oldstable. Upgrading these ARM devices isn’t as straightforward as with i386 and usually requires a full reinstall. At present, there isn’t a simple way to install Jessie on the device. Obsolescence looms.
Debian is the black Labrador in the Linux family of distros. It’s stable, dependable, friendly and faithful as in its ethical standpoint. Did I mention it’s also stable. This makes it perfect for its target user group. The lengthy release cycle is perfect. For people who want a more exciting Debian experience, go Testing or Sid.