4 ms·

Xscreensaver Author: “Please Remove XScreenSaver from Debian Linux”

31 points by djvdorp 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081
jmount 11y ago
I like how they argue it would be less work to patch around the "out of date" message (and then maintain a fork) than to just update XScreenSaver. By Debian logic wouldn't they have to wait forever to take their own patch? Or better you why don't they claim they have already patched it out- but it isn't in the distro just yet!
- awinder 11y ago
  Nope, because patch code written by a bunch of package maintainers is obviously more trustworthy than code written by the original author. DUH! /sarcasm
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    Yup https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Actually, the Debian maintainer that made the buggy patch is also a member of the OpenSSL dev team, so technically they are just as trustworthy :)
- icebraining 11y ago
  No, a very small and inconsequential patch is much more likely to be accepted into Stable than a full package upgrade. Remember that the purpose of Stable is not to be bug-free, it's to avoid introducing uncertainty into the system - not only new bugs, but also new features or changed behaviors - hence why packages are usually frozen except for security bugs, or as in this case, stuff that is (practically) guaranteed to avoid introducing uncertainty.
JetSpiegel 11y ago
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081
ajnin 11y ago
The message is perhaps a bit rude but the proposed patch is a real dick move, it would remove the warning while keeping all the contact info etc inviting users to send bug reports to upstream for this outdated version (which is what prompted him to add the warning in the first place). Debian needs to realize that this is their problem too, often packages that are included as part of a new Debian release are already several month or even years out of date. I know Debian values stability above all but come on.
jstewartmobile 11y ago
It's not until message #245(!) that anyone sounds even remotely reasonable: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819703#245 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819703#245. The whole thread really makes me wary of using Debian.

31 points by djvdorp 11y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081

I like how they argue it would be less work to patch around the "out of date" message (and then maintain a fork) than to just update XScreenSaver. By Debian logic wouldn't they have to wait forever to take their own patch? Or better you why don't they claim they have already patched it out- but it isn't in the distro just yet!

awinder 11y ago
Nope, because patch code written by a bunch of package maintainers is obviously more trustworthy than code written by the original author. DUH! /sarcasm
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  Yup https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Actually, the Debian maintainer that made the buggy patch is also a member of the OpenSSL dev team, so technically they are just as trustworthy :)
icebraining 11y ago
No, a very small and inconsequential patch is much more likely to be accepted into Stable than a full package upgrade. Remember that the purpose of Stable is not to be bug-free, it's to avoid introducing uncertainty into the system - not only new bugs, but also new features or changed behaviors - hence why packages are usually frozen except for security bugs, or as in this case, stuff that is (practically) guaranteed to avoid introducing uncertainty.

JetSpiegel 11y ago

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412081

ajnin 11y ago

The message is perhaps a bit rude but the proposed patch is a real dick move, it would remove the warning while keeping all the contact info etc inviting users to send bug reports to upstream for this outdated version (which is what prompted him to add the warning in the first place). Debian needs to realize that this is their problem too, often packages that are included as part of a new Debian release are already several month or even years out of date. I know Debian values stability above all but come on.

jstewartmobile 11y ago

It's not until message #245(!) that anyone sounds even remotely reasonable: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819703#245 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819703#245. The whole thread really makes me wary of using Debian.