3 ms·

...through extensive vetting and rigorous testing... I wanted to upvote your comment, but then I almost died laughing when I read that. Most Linux distributio

...through extensive vetting and rigorous testing... I wanted to upvote your comment, but then I almost died laughing when I read that. Most Linux distributions are better about it now than they were many years ago, but I still remember being absolutely floored when RedHat had packaged a Perl module with a syntax error some years ago. Same goes for Debian; some of the more "fringe packages" (those of upstream projects that haven't been updated in a while) tended to rot (compilation option changes to dependencies that silently broke parts of the program), and packages from upstream projects that changed rapidly tended to have dependency issues. I'd also like to point out that while Debian may have had "app stores" before anyone else so to speak. The implementation left much to be desired compared to today. Today a user simply selects an application and it gets installed. There's no prompts about whether I want the 37 additional dependencies, no text-based prompts about the configuration of some obscure package, and certainly the presentation was sorely lacking. So yes, Debian may have had the concept early on, but as usual, Apple made something only a geek could love into something usable by everyone.

jey 14y ago
Usually there's a few tiers of packages, with the first tier packages being extensively tested and maintained, and the second tier packages mostly just provided as a convenience. I believe Debian calls the first-tier "main" and the second-tier "contrib" (and Ubuntu calls them "main" and "universe").
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  Yep, I'm aware of that. Although not every Linux distribution makes that distinction and the person to whom I replied certainly didn't leave room for that. But in the past, even the packages in the "first tier" were often pretty busted. But even for that tier, Linux distributions are not performing "extensive vetting and rigorous testing". They don't generally test beyond relying that other components that use it work as expected, and for many components, those are only as well tested as the tests that are included with the component. Yes, some distributions do run security analysis tools or other things on the components they integrate, but that still doesn't count as "extensive vetting and rigorous testing".
- marcosdumay 14y ago
  The main repository is for free software, the non-free repository is for non free software, and the contrib repository is for free softwre that you must agree to some non-free license to actualy use (because they depend on non-free software, they are just installers, or for any other reason). Those are not different tiers of software stability. Debian has the unstable, testing and stable distros, that move on different speeds and are subject to different amounts of testing.
- jzwinck 14y ago
  I've had breakages in Cygwin's emacs (missing GNUTLS dependency), Fedora's node.js (mismatched version of v8), GCC 4.7 (C++11 ABI regression, widely reported), Fedora 17's sssd (broke network login after upgrade), and perhaps most galling, Fedora 16's cron (which completely failed if you upgraded from 15). That's just in the past year. I don't think any of those packages are particularly niche or stale. I used to think maintainers were making miracles...now I think they're doing just OK.
dman 14y ago
If you know of any commercial operating systems where those "fringe packages" receive greater testing than they do in debian I would love to hear about them.
nitrogen 14y ago
The LindowsOS app store was user friendly and based on apt/dpkg long before Apple got into the game.
npsimons 14y ago
Maybe I should have clarified, as some people obviously have forgotten that testing does not indicate the absence of bugs, and vetting is for many things. I had hoped the addition of "not every line of code" would have made clear that I make no claim that every package in Debian is bug free. But I still insist, Debian extensively tests packages, mostly for compatibility and dependencies, not to mention bug squashing parties. They are also very careful about what's allowed in (due to being license sticklers). Of course, all of this strays from my main point: the Debian maintainers are highly unlikely to let in crapware, as opposed to some stores that have had viruses. And that's just the stuff they (eventually) got rid of; don't start me on all the officially approved software that tracks users. As for your opinion of the ease of use, well, you're entitled to it but it doesn't make it true. What's so hard about using apt-get or, if you can't use a keyboard, one of the graphical managers? So it asks you if you really want to install dependencies instead of just filling up your hard drive, and that's a bad thing? Does the Apple or Google way of "managing" packages even track dependencies, or are they still forcing every vender to include their own (possibly filled with security holes) copy of a library with their apps? I haven't had to answer a configuration question for years, and I've never had a dependency issue with Debian. I say this as a daily user of, developer on, and administrator of machines running Debian for the past twelve years.

jey 14y ago

Usually there's a few tiers of packages, with the first tier packages being extensively tested and maintained, and the second tier packages mostly just provided as a convenience. I believe Debian calls the first-tier "main" and the second-tier "contrib" (and Ubuntu calls them "main" and "universe").

binarycrusader 14y ago
Yep, I'm aware of that. Although not every Linux distribution makes that distinction and the person to whom I replied certainly didn't leave room for that. But in the past, even the packages in the "first tier" were often pretty busted. But even for that tier, Linux distributions are not performing "extensive vetting and rigorous testing". They don't generally test beyond relying that other components that use it work as expected, and for many components, those are only as well tested as the tests that are included with the component. Yes, some distributions do run security analysis tools or other things on the components they integrate, but that still doesn't count as "extensive vetting and rigorous testing".
marcosdumay 14y ago
The main repository is for free software, the non-free repository is for non free software, and the contrib repository is for free softwre that you must agree to some non-free license to actualy use (because they depend on non-free software, they are just installers, or for any other reason). Those are not different tiers of software stability. Debian has the unstable, testing and stable distros, that move on different speeds and are subject to different amounts of testing.
jzwinck 14y ago
I've had breakages in Cygwin's emacs (missing GNUTLS dependency), Fedora's node.js (mismatched version of v8), GCC 4.7 (C++11 ABI regression, widely reported), Fedora 17's sssd (broke network login after upgrade), and perhaps most galling, Fedora 16's cron (which completely failed if you upgraded from 15). That's just in the past year. I don't think any of those packages are particularly niche or stale. I used to think maintainers were making miracles...now I think they're doing just OK.

dman 14y ago

If you know of any commercial operating systems where those "fringe packages" receive greater testing than they do in debian I would love to hear about them.

nitrogen 14y ago

The LindowsOS app store was user friendly and based on apt/dpkg long before Apple got into the game.

npsimons 14y ago

Maybe I should have clarified, as some people obviously have forgotten that testing does not indicate the absence of bugs, and vetting is for many things. I had hoped the addition of "not every line of code" would have made clear that I make no claim that every package in Debian is bug free. But I still insist, Debian extensively tests packages, mostly for compatibility and dependencies, not to mention bug squashing parties. They are also very careful about what's allowed in (due to being license sticklers). Of course, all of this strays from my main point: the Debian maintainers are highly unlikely to let in crapware, as opposed to some stores that have had viruses. And that's just the stuff they (eventually) got rid of; don't start me on all the officially approved software that tracks users. As for your opinion of the ease of use, well, you're entitled to it but it doesn't make it true. What's so hard about using apt-get or, if you can't use a keyboard, one of the graphical managers? So it asks you if you really want to install dependencies instead of just filling up your hard drive, and that's a bad thing? Does the Apple or Google way of "managing" packages even track dependencies, or are they still forcing every vender to include their own (possibly filled with security holes) copy of a library with their apps? I haven't had to answer a configuration question for years, and I've never had a dependency issue with Debian. I say this as a daily user of, developer on, and administrator of machines running Debian for the past twelve years.