Talk:Debian

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Free software portal This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles. B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Debian received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. To see why the nomination failed, see the archived discussion.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives • Edit this box

Name/logo

Can anybody please describre the meaning of the name and logo of the progect?--79.120.12.21 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DCC Alliance

The DCC Alliance article is up for deletion. Those interested may wish to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DCC_Alliance and/or help improve (correct...) the piece as a historical record of past diversions. —Sladen 08:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sid/Lenny screenshot

I added a Debian Sid Gnome-2.20 screenshot in the article before ports.but anonymous(190.144.171.19 as of now) user who deletes this!I hope showing newer Gnome and Debian is definitely a must do.as people's perception will be debian running only old softies+sec.updates and is meant for server.while Debian testing or unstable(Sid) are getting up2date packages and may be even better than ubuntu with sid using upstart and pulseaudio =).so please control this anonymous user deleting the screenshot again and again :x Praka123 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First, OS screenshots are useless. Second, what is the difference between the Etch screenshot and the Sid one? Can you tell the desktop has really "improved"? Third, your screenshots are far from the default installed desktop. Last, what is the copyright situation of the wallpaper on your screenshot? --190.66.184.60 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so.for many people who are new to GNU/Linux and especially Debian,the only distro they can "see" is Debian Stable or Etch as of now.while there are Lenny which is almost stable with much more current packages and Debian Sid contains the latest packages.no wonder there is a distro called sidux made by Debian Sid users(kde esp) just to enjoy the Debian+latest packages.let it be there,dude!I aint doing any harm,I just want to remove the false norm that Debian means Old packages with security fix only.instead urges people to try Sid if you can! Praka123 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What has users' perception to do with Wikipedia? The page is not supposed to be a promo for Debian, is it? -- Adam 213.156.49.141 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FEATURES section

I have tried to introduce a FEATURES section as this page does not provide any useful info about what Debian offers to its users. My contribution here linked[[1]] was trashed because it was too commercial. Can anybody help to modify it for acceptable use? Also include reference about the Xfce version of Debian.

Other wiki pages from other top distros include these types of sections. Why can't Debian?

Even the DISTRIBUTION section was trashed... Ximian99 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Debian bug tracking system

No sufficient notability established for Debian bug tracking system. JASpencer (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And what does this statement have to do with the name of this section? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Suite

What is a Debian suite ? sarge, sarge-volatile, sarge-backports, etch, etch-m68k, etch-volatile, etch-backports, lenny, sid, experimental. --Mac (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

¿ yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

General section additions/edits

It would be great that instead of dropping a line on this discussion forum such as: "We need a section about <something>, can somebody include it" or "<something> has to be changed, can somebody change it", why don't they try and do it themselves. If you don't like something, change it... Google is your friend. VShaka (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because sometimes people don't have the writing skills needed or don't know the whole picture and wait for somebody more knowledgeable to contribute. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

They could research the topic and write something about it. Then, other editors could edit the language. I myself am an amateur webmaster but have written numerous edits in Debian. Like Chris's link states, editors should be bold and at least try to contribute rather than be lazy and expect somebody else to do it for them. VShaka (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than commenting on what other editors are or are not adding to the article, you could be improving it yourself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have written numerous and important edits, whether signed with an IP or with some of my other user names. I created this user name yesterday and have already edited some Debian content. VShaka (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, now the next step is to understand that people contribute here, how and when they want. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

Shouldn't it say it's a GNU/Linux-distribution since that is what its name says? --212.247.27.19 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any Linux distribution out there uses GNU, it's just Debian that mentions it at all. Moreover, Debian also comes with GNU HURD kernel, but it's scarcely used. In everyday speech the term Linux distribution was coined and it's used even by people that bother to mention that Debian is GNU/Linux. All for the sake of brevity. People that read (and know the difference) can see that it's a GNU/Linux, as it's said in the title itself. If they don't understand the GNU/Linux vs Linux case they won't care anyway. Actually this makes Debian comparable to Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora and any other Linux distibution for average Joe (or Jane).Llewelyn MT (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all Linux distributions use GNU, several that I know of use OpenBSD and I know there was a FreeBSD userland and Linux kernel distribution at one point at least. 74.13.39.148 (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For Debian it probably makes sense (from a disambiguation POV) to specify GNU/Linux when talking about the distro that uses the Linux kernel, since there's also GNU/Hurd, GNU/kFreeBSD GNU/NetBSD, which run the Hurd, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD kernels respectively. You also have Nexenta, which could be considered to be GNU/OpenSolaris. Andareed (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article already elaborates on Debian's relationship with GNU. Given that it is implied that all Debian systems are GNU, the most common term ("Linux distribution") can be used without confusion when referring to Debian distributions which use the Linux kernel. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Debian should be described as a GNU/Linux distribution. Chris and a few others do not think so. That is why there is a discussion going on right now at the Linux Talk page Talk:Linux and at Talk:Linux/Referring_to_this_article. There are many editors who think the term GNU/linux is apropriate and it should be used and not removed from wikipedia. Feel free to take part in the discussions and give your comments there.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I think that it's worth including a Criticism section after the recent OpenSSL vulnerability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.134.56 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are poor writing style. The criticisms (IceWeasel and OpenSSL vulnerability, for instance) should definitely be addressed, but not lumped together in a criticism section. Find a neutral way to present the information. — Omegatron (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Epiphany Web Browser

In Debian 'Etch' Isnt there a web browser named Epiphany that replaced Iceweasel? Is it also still a rebranding of firefox? Cbwcjw (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that is false. Epiphany is a web browser for GNOME, and is part of GNOME project. Iceweasel is rebranded Firefox. These are totally unrelated. If I recall correctly, both Epiphany and Iceweasel are installed in default GNOME-based desktop install. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.100.3.251 (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Can we have this back the way it was, please? Per the rationale I gave in my edit summary:

please see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Linux. The intro specifically presents "Debian" before "Debian GNU/Linux" because this article incorporates the non-Linux Debians

I'm fine with taking "Linux" out of the infobox and just leaving it as GNU, given the historical affiliation between the two projects. But the rest was fine as it was, and was worked out carefully in the talk archives. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The big problem you keep running into in trying to systematically censor the phrase "GNU/Linux" is your inconsistent application or emphasis of principles that you espouse when it is convenient for your purpose. The elephant in the room is your regular, unsubstantiated insistence that common usage trumps everything in the case of "Linux", therefore, you reason, get rid of "GNU/Linux". Yet, you conveniently forget this criterion when it comes to, for example, the common usage of "Debian". What do people commonly mean by "Debian"? You know all too well what they mean. But instead of even following your own rules as with "Linux", you rig the very first paragraph with a historical or some other context that allows you to pervert the introductory (thus, most important) placement or order of terms such as "GNU" and "Linux" that most people would use to describe the software commonly meant by "Debian". The purpose being served is your wish to demote or censor language that you personally do not agree with, regardless of whether it deserves its place or even if it is consistent with your very own principles that you espouse when convenient.

Why not just make a page called "Debian Project"? That would be the obvious way to indicate the minor stuff that they do, in addition to the software that people commonly associate with "Debian". Even then, however, "GNU/Linux" would have to be prominent in an introduction, given the overwhelming area of focus of the project, and, uh, the fact that the project itself calls its software "Debian GNU/Linux", in all but the rarest of circumstances.

This, of course, is assuming that "common usage" is all you claim it is. It's remarkable how much leeway you have been granted over this point for so long. Forget about Wikipedia for a moment. Consider "African American" versus "black". "Black" is used far more often, therefore, let's censor "African American", replacing it with "black." That's very shaky reasoning, or maybe you mean something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freed42 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my "censoring" (which incidentally happened ten months ago now, raising the question of why you waited so long to bring it up) then as I say you can bring it up in the appropriate place - shopping around on random articles for an audience which is more sympathetic isn't particularly good form. I've previously argued for this page to be "Debian GNU/Linux", but the consensus has been that because none of the non-Linux Debians are particularly notable it didn't make sense to have separate articles - have a look at a random snapshot from two years ago to see that there's been little change until today. The onus is on you to convince the community that the introductory sentence should refer specifically to Debian GNU/Linux and not Debian-the-OS. And again, I'm not addressing vaguely similar arguments about completely different articles - there's been more than enough said on this particular subject to have no need for random new contrived analogies. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about a concrete suggestion? How about this intro: "According to the Debian Project, 'Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name GNU/Linux.'"? It reads reasonably and it is qualified with "according" for those who doubt that the people of the Debian Project can summarize what it is that they themselves do. Yet another concession to the "Linux" side is that the Debian hyperlinks can be replaced with the Wikipedia links, i.e., links to pages that undergo regular removal or demoted placement of any "GNU/Linux" instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freed42 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with such compromises. Unlike almost any other example, Debian is explicitly a GNU system with a swappable kernel, and I'm happy for such wording to be used. Let's see if we can work on perfecting what we're replacing the current wording with. Firstly, we need to drop "your computer", it's an inappropriate use of second-person. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Two points: first, as an aside, it is quite straightforward to: pick another distribution (Redhat, SUSE, Ubuntu, whatever); find a non-Linux kernel--GNU hurd would be the easiest I think since one can expect the biggest potential hurdle, GNU libc, to already be available in the other distros; and swap Linux for it, and all the while note the obvious presence of the GNU software. Just because the distribution may not advertise these things on its web pages, for example, does not imply that the capability is essentially any different than Debian in those two respects (explicit GNU system and swappable kernel). Indeed, it is predictable that commercial distros have little incentive to advertise such functionality equivalent to Debian, in the interest of minimizing support costs and not suggesting free alternatives to add-ons that they may sell.

Second, thanks for the grammar suggestion. I was looking for the proper device for substituting within a quote: brackets. So we could replace the "your"s with "[a]"s. I suppose some folks might replace a bunch of wording with hyperlinks. I would certainly expect the obvious hyperlinks, but am otherwise content with the wording. Moreover, if it stays a quotation, replacements of words will lead to a load of bracketed hyperlinks which may be ugly. I know very little about the stylistic standards expected on Wikipedia, however. I am sure you know more. Freed42 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither your assertion that it is "straightforward" to swap kernels on an average distro nor your speculation that the reason such things are never carried out is because of hypothetical conflicts with the "commercial add-ons" sold by distro vendors pass the laugh test, and until you can point to something more reliable than your own opinion there's no reason to take such commentary (which has no sway with the mainstream community) into account.

As for the grammar suggestion, I'd missed the single-quote which indicated that the line in question was a quote. I don't believe that a quote is necessary here, and that there's no reason we can't phrase it accurately ourselves.

Anyway, in light of a failure to achieve consensus for the new version of the lead, I'm going to switch this back later. We should work on backporting individual improvements to the old version, which will be less likely to cause disputes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We could continue the discussion of those (not directly related) technical matters in a more appropriate forum. However, I find it bizarre that one day you are happy with the compromise of the intro wording, I agree about the intro (suggesting bracketed expressions within the quote), and then the very next day you declare out of nowhere that there is a failure in consensus. You did not even bother to show a single point of disagreement over the wording of the intro. Where is it? Freed42 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree that the intro can be improved, but first the intro should be restored to the layout which has had consensus for the last two years or so, which gives us an undisputed foundation for editing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging as a self purpose

By methodology, none of the proposals to merge Wikipedia articles refers to a clear expression of purpose. Initially in starting the discussion and finally in the course of contributions the lack of expression is often overriden by the challenge to keep the sizing recommendation. It would be a good approach, beyond merging, to move portions from here to there and generally improve the linking between the texts proposed for merger. Could it be possible to revert the proposal to more productive attempts to improve structures? Please overcome the vanity of authors.Wireless friend (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)