4 ms·

Is this the end of Debian being available in a manner that fully boots from the install media without requiring installation, or just the end of a project calle

by gkop 11y ago

Is this the end of Debian being available in a manner that fully boots from the install media without requiring installation, or just the end of a project called "Debian Live"? ("live" installers are widely useful; eg. Kali and Ubuntu I believe are based on Debian and I can't imagine either of these projects abandoning the possibility of a "live" boot) Edit: thanks for answering, Wilya and maheart! If you two are right, then maybe this topic really isn't important enough to merit the front page of HN (I mean, Debian drama is nothing new)?

maheart 11y ago
My understanding of the issue, is that the rift is caused by the Debian team creating their own "live" system (see: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315) instead of using "Debian Live"
Wilya 11y ago
Reading the bugs and threads linked, the biggest issue seems to be that some people from the debian installer team decided to write their own live cd and declared that Debian Live was obsolete, without ever speaking to the people from Debian Live. So, it is probable that a live-cd will still exist, but it won't be the one called "Debian Live".
chris_wot 11y ago
FWIW, the last time I saw a team act like this was the OpenOffice.org team completely reinventing the solver module, even after the incredible hoops they made Kohei jump through in his attempts to get it integrated. On the plus side: I'd say that was the tipping point where OpenOffice jumped the shark and the LibreOffice project was the ultimate outcome.
geofft 11y ago
I'll also note that Daniel has for some time not been a Debian Developer (there was some drama there, the details of which I wouldn't want to recall even if I remembered), and "Debian Live" has been not an official Debian project for a while -- it's running on live.debian.net (not .org), it's running on servers personally run by Daniel (not by the Debian sysadmin team), etc. That said, IMO the distinction of "not an official Debian project" is less about where the service is running (it's a volunteer project, anyway) than about how integrated it is with the rest of Debian. For a while, Debian Live has been showing strong signs of being Daniel's personal project -- with a lot of users, to be fair -- and not really working with other Debian teams or developers. I think that's what came to a head here. It's been a while since I worked on this, but IIRC Ubuntu's live image is based on Casper, which is a separate system from live-build (though live-build supports using Casper). Also, bear in mind that the specific reason this happened was that there were features live-build didn't support, like UEFI boot, that the Debian project needed. This entire kerfuffle came about because Debian wanted a better live boot system.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by gkop 11y ago

maheart 11y ago

My understanding of the issue, is that the rift is caused by the Debian team creating their own "live" system (see: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315) instead of using "Debian Live"

Wilya 11y ago

Reading the bugs and threads linked, the biggest issue seems to be that some people from the debian installer team decided to write their own live cd and declared that Debian Live was obsolete, without ever speaking to the people from Debian Live. So, it is probable that a live-cd will still exist, but it won't be the one called "Debian Live".

chris_wot 11y ago

FWIW, the last time I saw a team act like this was the OpenOffice.org team completely reinventing the solver module, even after the incredible hoops they made Kohei jump through in his attempts to get it integrated. On the plus side: I'd say that was the tipping point where OpenOffice jumped the shark and the LibreOffice project was the ultimate outcome.

geofft 11y ago

I'll also note that Daniel has for some time not been a Debian Developer (there was some drama there, the details of which I wouldn't want to recall even if I remembered), and "Debian Live" has been not an official Debian project for a while -- it's running on live.debian.net (not .org), it's running on servers personally run by Daniel (not by the Debian sysadmin team), etc. That said, IMO the distinction of "not an official Debian project" is less about where the service is running (it's a volunteer project, anyway) than about how integrated it is with the rest of Debian. For a while, Debian Live has been showing strong signs of being Daniel's personal project -- with a lot of users, to be fair -- and not really working with other Debian teams or developers. I think that's what came to a head here. It's been a while since I worked on this, but IIRC Ubuntu's live image is based on Casper, which is a separate system from live-build (though live-build supports using Casper). Also, bear in mind that the specific reason this happened was that there were features live-build didn't support, like UEFI boot, that the Debian project needed. This entire kerfuffle came about because Debian wanted a better live boot system.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]