Devuan 2 beta released
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Devuan 2 beta released

mkshmksh Member
edited March 11 in General

Actually it's already been 2 week since release but i guess i am not the only one who missed it and it's about fucking time.

https://files.devuan.org/devuan_ascii_beta/

https://files.devuan.org/devuan_ascii_beta/README.txt wrote:

Dear dev1rs

On February 14th 2015, Devuan unveiled a "pre-alpha" Valentine release
of Devuan Jessie [1] just a few months after the Veteran Unix Admins
declared their intention to fork Debian on November 27th 2014 [2].
That was the beginning of our collective journey. Now, three years later,
Valentine's day has more love for the Devuan community. The long-awaited
release of Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta (minor planet nr. 3568) is here!

So what's new in Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta?

  • OpenRC is installable using the expert install path (thanks Maemo Leste!)
  • eudev has replaced systemd-udev (thanks Gentoo!)
  • elogind has been added as an alternative to consolekit (thanks Gentoo!)
  • Desktop users can choose among fully functional XFCE (Default), KDE,
    Cinnamon, LXQT, MATE, and LXDE desktops

  • CLI-oriented users can select the "Console productivity" task that installs
    a fully-featured set of console-based utils and tools.

  • A .vdi disk image is now provided for use with VirtualBox.

  • ARM board kernels have been updated to 4.14 and 4.15 for most boards.

Devuan 2.0 ASCII Stable is on the horizon

Although Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta has been powering thousands of servers and
desktops for the last two years and been extensively tested by the Devuan
community, it is being released as a beta because at Devuan we value
involvement and feedback. So we want even more extensive testing of
Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta to confirm "when it is ready" to be called a Stable
release.

Once Devuan 2.0 ASCII Stable is released, our efforts will turn to Devuan 3.0
Beowulf (minor planet nr. 38086).

Download Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta

Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta at:
http://files.devuan.org/devuan_ascii_beta/

Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta is available for amd64 and i386 in the following flavours:
- installable live CD/DVD
- installation CD/DVD
- NETINST CDROM
- installable minimal live
- qcow/vagrant images

ARM:
https://files.devuan.org/devuan_ascii_beta/embedded/README.txt

Virtual machines:
https://files.devuan.org/devuan_ascii_beta/virtual/README.txt

Upgrade to Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta

Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta provides safe upgrade paths from Devuan 1.0
Jessie, Debian 8.x Jessie, Debian 9.x Stretch. Just follow the
relevant instructions at:
https://devuan.org/os/documentation/dev1fanboy/migrate-to-ascii
https://devuan.org/os/documentation/dev1fanboy/upgrade-to-ascii

Feedback (we love that!)

If you try to install Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta from a DVD or CD setup
please test it offline (i.e., without a network connection and without a
configured mirror). If something goes wrong please try it
online (i.e., with a network connection and a configured mirror).
And then please report your findings to us including the list
of packages as given by dpkg -l | gzip -9 > packagelist.gz
and the output of cat /var/lib/pam/session > pamconfig.txt

Please get in touch with us through one of the community channels
listed below or on freenode #devuan-dev for real-time interaction.

Information and contacts

Web: http://www.devuan.org
Forum: http://dev1galaxy.org
BTS: http://bugs.devuan.org
IRC: #devuan (freenode)

Journalists please note: this announcement of Devuan 2.0 ASCII Beta
release is mainly for internal testing not for wide redistribution.
An announcement for the Devuan 2.0 ASCII Stable release will
hopefully follow very soon.

happy hacking!

The dev1 team

[1] You can find an archive of the pre-alpha Valentine release message here:
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20180213.205150.929bbd85.en.html

[2] https://devuan.org/os/debian-fork/`

Thanked by 2angstrom uptime

Comments

  • @mksh said: Actually it's already been 2 week since release but i guess i am not the only one who missed it

    DistroWatch noted it: https://distrowatch.com/?newsid=10117

    But the real question is when the real thing will appear. I hope that they manage before the one-year mark of Debian 9.

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • mkshmksh Member

    @angstrom said:
    I hope that they manage before the one-year mark of Debian 9.

    Yeah, me too. Lets hope they don't take 5 months from beta to final again and manage to have this out by june. For now i am happy to see they are moving forward and didn't hit a roadblock or something like that. If the beta is the same quality as it was with jessie it should be more than solid already at least.

  • WSSWSS Member

    As much as I really want Devuan to succeed, they're so fucking slow and pointless for a Debian-compatible distribution, even without suckitd.

    I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

  • bapbap Member

    deVuan = Debian + Valentine? definitely made with love.

  • angstromangstrom Member
    edited March 12

    @WSS said:
    As much as I really want Devuan to succeed, they're so fucking slow and pointless for a Debian-compatible distribution, even without suckitd.

    Yeah, in order to stay relevant it would be good if they could release Devuan within (say) six months of a new Debian release. At the moment, this is far from the case. Compare:

    Debian 8: 2015-04-26 vs Devuan 1: 2017-05-25

    Debian 9: 2017-06-18 vs Devuan 2: 2018-??-??

    For Devuan 1, the long delay made sense, but even so, it was over two years.

    My hope is that Devuan 2 will appear before June 18th, in which case the delay would be just under one year, but we'll see.

    Thanked by 1WSS

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    Maybe I'm not the ideal person to judge that as I mainly use BSD but Devuan based distros and Alpine are what I use when I use linux - and I couldn't care less, not even a rats ass, about Devuan being behind debian. What I care about is not having the feces of an insane jerks brain-ersatz controlling my system.

    In fact, I'll wait a couple of months before upgrading to Devuan 2. Just to be sure.

    Thanked by 1Ole_Juul

    My favourite prime number is 42. - \forall cpu in {intel, amd, arm}: cpu->speed -= cpu->speed/100 x irandom(15, 30) | state := hacked

  • mkshmksh Member

    @bsdguy said:
    Maybe I'm not the ideal person to judge that as I mainly use BSD but Devuan based distros and Alpine are what I use when I use linux - and I couldn't care less, not even a rats ass, about Devuan being behind debian. What I care about is not having the feces of an insane jerks brain-ersatz controlling my system.

    In fact, I'll wait a couple of months before upgrading to Devuan 2. Just to be sure.

    Yeah, i am a pretty slow adopter myself. I can only seldom find a good reason to upgrade before oldstable aproaches EOL so usualy i don't care much either as long as they aren't getting stuck.

    Still there are exceptions occationaly. Like with Jessie which actually had some stuff i wanted to have but wasn't all that easy to just build myself (multiarch, arm cross compilation toolchain) so i figure sometimes it's actually beneficial to have bleeding edge stuff.

    Also steady releases are good PR (quality first of course but in general) since i guess a lot of people are still on the edge if Devuan can be taken seriously.

  • How much do you want to bet this project's going to be entirely dead in 3 years time?

  • mkshmksh Member
    edited March 12

    @Crandolph said:
    How much do you want to bet this project's going to be entirely dead in 3 years time?

    Well, you obviously but then it's not like you know shit.

  • omelasomelas Member

    @Crandolph said:
    How much do you want to bet this project's going to be entirely dead in 3 years time?

    They'll make systemd emulator

  • @mksh said:

    @Crandolph said:
    How much do you want to bet this project's going to be entirely dead in 3 years time?

    Well, you obviously but then it's not like you know shit.

    Yeah, because I bet your smarter than all the other people leading all the top distro's that switched for a reason, right?

    Either hop on the wave, or switch to BSD. This project is guaranteed to be dead 3 years tops.

  • mkshmksh Member

    @Crandolph said:

    @mksh said:

    @Crandolph said:
    How much do you want to bet this project's going to be entirely dead in 3 years time?

    Well, you obviously but then it's not like you know shit.

    Yeah, because I bet your smarter than all the other people leading all the top distro's that switched for a reason, right?

    Either hop on the wave, or switch to BSD. This project is guaranteed to be dead 3 years tops.

    You had your chance. Bye, bye.

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @Crandolph said:
    Yeah, because I bet your smarter than all the other people leading all the top distro's that switched for a reason, right?

    Either hop on the wave, or switch to BSD. This project is guaranteed to be dead 3 years tops.

    I'm not impressed by "all the other people leading all the top distro's". Someone going shitd is incompetent, simple as that.

    As for pissing at @mksh: good luck with that. I've seen that guy consistently knowledgeable and knowing what he talks about. Besides, his username suggests some insight, too.

    Re. your bet, I guess you are wrong. For one devuan isn't just any weird guys distro but debian w/o shitd, so there will be lots of interest for a long time. Moreover, now that the groundwork is done and the team is in gears it won't go away anytime soon.

    Thanked by 2Ole_Juul mksh

    My favourite prime number is 42. - \forall cpu in {intel, amd, arm}: cpu->speed -= cpu->speed/100 x irandom(15, 30) | state := hacked

  • @Crandolph said:
    How much do you want to bet this project's going to be entirely dead in 3 years time?

    I think you might be right
    I was reminded of Mandrake which would come out after a Redhat release. I loved it but it just couldn't keep up. Mandriva just wasn't the same as Mandrake either.

  • mkshmksh Member
    edited March 13

    @risharde said:

    @Crandolph said:
    How much do you want to bet this project's going to be entirely dead in 3 years time?

    I think you might be right
    I was reminded of Mandrake which would come out after a Redhat release. I loved it but it just couldn't keep up. Mandriva just wasn't the same as Mandrake either.

    Of course it's not possible to predict the future but i am not that scared there. If the project needs more people i am quite positive it won't take long to recruit those. After all a good part of Devuans userbase consists of people who know how stuff works and how to build it (which is one of the major reasons of not wanting anything to do with systemd). Also there is literally dozens of distributions based on Devuan already. None of those are likely to just sit by and watch their upstream disappear.

    Besides @Crandolph seriously doesn't seem to have much of a clue. Does he really think that if Linux in it entirety becomes infected and assimilated by the systemd virus it would simply not affect BSD at all? That's naive at best. Sure on a superficial level what happens in the Linux world is irrelevant to BSD but on a closer look that's not completely true. BSD and Linux share a lot of software and the invasive nature of systemd serverly threatens software compatibility. So everyone is in the same boat here pretty much. The less resistance there is in the Linux world the worse it looks for every other unix(-like) system and the other way around too of course.

    TL;DR: You can rest assured people are passionate about the issues that led to Devuans creation, there are quite a few of them and many are the same guys that build stuff. I am quite positive things will just work out nicely.

  • omelasomelas Member

    Wouldn't they merged into Debian main repo if they succeed enough? Am I miss something?

  • mkshmksh Member
    edited March 13

    @omelas said:
    Wouldn't they merged into Debian main repo if they succeed enough? Am I miss something?

    As far as the main goals (removing systemd) are concerned Devuan pretty much has succeeded already (at least for this release). Also OpenRC seems to be officially supported now besides SysV so thats a nice bonus (and truly the spirit of an universal operating system - which Debian can no longer honestly claim to be). Who knows maybe at some point in the far future Debian is going to realize the damage they have done but how much of a system worth saving is left by then is an entirely different topic.

    Take a look here: https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd thats been about 2 years ago and systemd is continously growing and eating formerly independant OS parts left and right. Ask your self how would you merge anything into such a frankenstein monster as the one being created by systemd?

    Besides i don't think anyone involved cares that much about merging with Debian. Don't get me wrong. If someone likes using Debian that's their thing but as far as i am (and a bunch of other people too i am sure) concerned i don't give a shit about Debian anymore after all the pseudo descissions and underhanded bullshit they have done over the last years and stabilitywise Devuan wins easily (no surprise without systemd) anyways.

    Edit: Iirc it was even officially stated that the Devuan team sees no point in merging with Debian on grounds of technical and policy reasons. Besides even if it might have cooled down a bit by now at least in the beginning Debian was pretty hostile torwards Devuan (suprise... quite a few fed up developers had left them to work on Devuan).

    Thanked by 1Ole_Juul
  • rm_rm_ Member

    I guess this project will get a boost when you can no longer remove systemd in Debian itself. For now, I just do that on all machnes, and see no reason to migrate to Devuan.

  • omelasomelas Member
    edited March 13

    ignore this

  • @rm_ said:
    I guess this project will get a boost when you can no longer remove systemd in Debian itself. For now, I just do that on all machnes, and see no reason to migrate to Devuan.

    I think that less technically inclined users don't want to try to remove systemd on their own.

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • @mksh said: Also there is literally dozens of distributions based on Devuan already.

    This may be an exaggeration. Could you name the top three distributions based on Devuan?

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • rm_rm_ Member

    angstrom said: I think that less technically inclined users don't want to try to remove systemd on their own.

    Less technically inclined users won't care if systemd is there in the first place, so won't choose Devuan either.

    Thanked by 1saibal
  • @rm_ said:

    angstrom said: I think that less technically inclined users don't want to try to remove systemd on their own.

    Less technically inclined users won't care if systemd is there in the first place, so won't choose Devuan either.

    But it's not 'either or'. There are at least three groups:

    1. Those (expert-level) users who remove systemd from Debian themselves.

    2. Those users who don't mind systemd or who aren't aware of it and use Debian as given.

    3. Those users who don't like systemd but who like Debian but who don't belong to group 1.

    Devuan could be a real selling point for group 3. Presumably, you belong to group 1, but group 1 isn't representative.

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • rm_rm_ Member

    angstrom said: Devuan could be a real selling point for group 3. Presumably, you belong to group 1, but group 1 isn't representative.

    You don't need to be "expert-level" to remove systemd. At least for now. If you even know what systemd is, it should be no issue for you to follow a step-by-step process from a webpage as linked above.

  • @rm_ said:

    angstrom said: Devuan could be a real selling point for group 3. Presumably, you belong to group 1, but group 1 isn't representative.

    You don't need to be "expert-level" to remove systemd. At least for now. If you even know what systemd is, it should be no issue for you to follow a step-by-step process from a webpage as linked above.

    Okay, fine. Perhaps you could do the Devuan developers a service by informing them that all of their work up until now has been in vain because every user can just remove systemd if they want to (so there's no point in having Devuan for the time being).

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • rm_rm_ Member
    edited March 13

    angstrom said: Okay, fine. Perhaps you could do the Devuan developers a service by informing them that all of their work up until now has been in vain because every user can just remove systemd if they want to (so there's no point in having Devuan for the time being).

    I bet deep down they know :)

    That's why it's also taking so long, because nobody actually cares all that much.

  • @rm_ said:

    angstrom said: Okay, fine. Perhaps you could do the Devuan developers a service by informing them that all of their work up until now has been in vain because every user can just remove systemd if they want to (so there's no point in having Devuan for the time being).

    I bet deep down they know :)

    That's why it's also taking so long, because nobody actually cares all that much.

    You really should tell them that all they have to do is to follow the instructions on that page. They probably don't know about that page! Devuan 2 could have been released a few days after Debian 9 if the Devuan developers had known about that page and simply followed the instructions! What a loss of time and effort that they didn't choose an easy solution instead of a difficult one!

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • mkshmksh Member

    @angstrom said:

    @mksh said: Also there is literally dozens of distributions based on Devuan already.

    This may be an exaggeration. Could you name the top three distributions based on Devuan?

    https://devuan.org/: Scroll down to "Distributions based on Devuan". Also there is https://dev1galaxy.org/viewforum.php?id=9. Atmittedly i don't know much about all of those but yeah there are quite a lot.

    Thanked by 1angstrom
  • rm_rm_ Member

    angstrom said: tell them that all they have to do is to follow the instructions on that page

    Don't be silly. Preparing a distro is a different process than removing systemd from an already installed single machine.

    angstrom said: They probably don't know about that page! Devuan 2 could have been released a few days after Debian 9 if the Devuan developers had known about that page and simply followed the instructions! What a loss of time and effort that they didn't choose an easy solution instead of a difficult one!

    And you seem to have a burning hole in a chair under you.

  • mkshmksh Member

    @rm_ said:

    angstrom said: Devuan could be a real selling point for group 3. Presumably, you belong to group 1, but group 1 isn't representative.

    You don't need to be "expert-level" to remove systemd. At least for now. If you even know what systemd is, it should be no issue for you to follow a step-by-step process from a webpage as linked above.

    Well, yeah those steps do work but it's kind of a hack though. Sure the pinning will take care of packages trying to bring in systemd as a dependency but at what price? A semi broken packaging system. Afaik as i know it's not even mandatory for Debian packages to ship SysV scripts anymore so if services work out of the box it's basically luck. Also noone is going to care if those apt preferences render a bunch of packages non-installable for having broken dependencies as what you are doing is not supported.

    You are right in that it's possible to archive a systemd free installation by other means but it's not entirely fair to say that all what's Devuan doing. It's providing a clean and supported way to avoid systemd that goes beyond simple removal of a bunch of packages.

    I guess you are right that those people who actually care about systemd will usually have no problem hacking their way out of it's stranglehold but it's no long term solution imo. I don't want a system where first thing i have to do is deinstall large parts of it and clean up the resulting artifact mess just to be left with a non supported way of operation. What i want is a clean and supported solution i can recommend to random users.

    Of course my motivation is somwehat political too. I actively want to take an anti-systemd stance as strong as possible. Thinking that as long as one can keep it out of it own surroundings everything is fine is shortsighted.

    Thanked by 3rm_ angstrom vimalware
  • @rm_ said:

    angstrom said: tell them that all they have to do is to follow the instructions on that page

    Don't be silly. Preparing a distro is a different process than removing systemd from an already installed single machine.

    angstrom said: They probably don't know about that page! Devuan 2 could have been released a few days after Debian 9 if the Devuan developers had known about that page and simply followed the instructions! What a loss of time and effort that they didn't choose an easy solution instead of a difficult one!

    And you seem to have a burning hole in a chair under you.

    No burning hole in my chair.

    Essentially, we have the following:

    • I say P.
    • You say not-P.
    • I say not-P for rhetorical purposes.
    • You say P.

    You backtracked, so I won, c'est tout.

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • rm_rm_ Member

    angstrom said: You backtracked, so I won, c'est tout.

    Yes yes, you are the greatest winner.

    Thanked by 1angstrom
  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    I beg to differ. Devian is not just "debian w/o shitd". It's also a team with a certain worldview and spirit and people who actually worked for what they consider the right thing (TM) while debian fucked up big time (and not the first time).

    Being asked to trust debian I have a hard time to see that justified. With Devuan I see a basis for hope and some trust.

    Thanked by 1Ole_Juul

    My favourite prime number is 42. - \forall cpu in {intel, amd, arm}: cpu->speed -= cpu->speed/100 x irandom(15, 30) | state := hacked

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    Hetzner partly offline. Reason: another debian fuckup. Hahaha!

    https://www.hetzner-status.de/en.html

    My favourite prime number is 42. - \forall cpu in {intel, amd, arm}: cpu->speed -= cpu->speed/100 x irandom(15, 30) | state := hacked

  • @bsdguy said:
    Hetzner partly offline. Reason: another debian fuckup. Hahaha!

    https://www.hetzner-status.de/en.html

    I know that you're delighted to see this, but based on those notices, it's far from clear what exactly happened. For one, it was Debian 8, but for two, what packages were being updated, etc. is simply not said, so it's hard to know what conclusion to draw, esp. for someone like you who claims to follow logical methods and draws conclusions based on proofs.

    (That said, it's possible that Debian 8 messed up here.)

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @angstrom said:

    @bsdguy said:
    Hetzner partly offline. Reason: another debian fuckup. Hahaha!

    https://www.hetzner-status.de/en.html

    I know that you're delighted to see this, but based on those notices, it's far from clear what exactly happened. For one, it was Debian 8, but for two, what packages were being updated, etc. is simply not said, so it's hard to know what conclusion to draw, esp. for someone like you who claims to follow logical methods and draws conclusions based on proofs.

    (That said, it's possible that Debian 8 messed up here.)

    Well, that's all I said. They fucked up.

    As for me being (allegedly) delighted: no, I'm not delighted when millions of people are victimized by whomsoever. In fact, maybe I care more about the people than debian and some of their more hardcore fans.

    I'm laughing about it because in one of my last posts I just mentioned that the "worldview and spirit" of a team are important and that going shitd tells a lot about the worldview and spirit of a team (and its incompetence) - and now debian graciously delivers an example of what I was talking about.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - \forall cpu in {intel, amd, arm}: cpu->speed -= cpu->speed/100 x irandom(15, 30) | state := hacked

  • @bsdguy said: @angstrom said:

       @bsdguy said: Hetzner partly offline. Reason: another debian fuckup. Hahaha!
    
       https://www.hetzner-status.de/en.html
    

    I know that you're delighted to see this, but based on those notices, it's far from clear what exactly happened. For one, it was Debian 8, but for two, what packages were being updated, etc. is simply not said, so it's hard to know what conclusion to draw, esp. for someone like you who claims to follow logical methods and draws conclusions based on proofs.

    (That said, it's possible that Debian 8 messed up here.)

    Well, that's all I said. They fucked up.

    And my point is that we can't be certain based on what was reported: perhaps it was Hetzner who fUcked up. Perhaps they were using an unofficial repository for a package or two, perhaps they were pinning certain packages, etc. -- we simply don't know based on what was reported. And especially a person like you who demands proofs should be less reluctant to accept such things at face value in the absence of more compelling data. (But you too, like the rest of us, are selectively biased.)

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @angstrom

    Hetzner isn't running their business since yesterday and quite professionally. Their operation - incl. debian updates, no matter their repos or package pinning - is running in rather good quality since quite some years. So, chances are that not Hetzner but debian fucked up. fucked up as in "enhancing" - and utterly breaking - ssl or as in going shitd. Mindset, as I said.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - \forall cpu in {intel, amd, arm}: cpu->speed -= cpu->speed/100 x irandom(15, 30) | state := hacked

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Provider, Top Provider

    Hi LET readers, You can see our Hetzner Status page for updates on this issue: https://www.hetzner-status.de/en.html We apologize for the inconvenience and ask you to write a support ticket if you have any specific questions. Our team is working at top speed on this issue. --Katie, Marketing

  • mkshmksh Member
    edited March 14

    @bsdguy said:
    fucked up as in "enhancing" - and utterly breaking - ssl or as in going shitd. Mindset, as I said.

    Haha, yeah, the Debian OpenSSL desaster is a timeless classic. Scary to think that was even before Debians quality standarts started shrinking.

    @Hetzner_OL would it be possible to name the affected packages? I don't want to pester support just to satistify my curiousity and a quick search for recent debian bugs that might be related turned up nothing.

    @all Without further information all i can say is that none of my Devuan Jessie installs had any problems updating whatsoever.

  • angstromangstrom Member
    edited March 14

    @bsdguy said:
    @angstrom

    Hetzner isn't running their business since yesterday and quite professionally. Their operation - incl. debian updates, no matter their repos or package pinning - is running in rather good quality since quite some years. So, chances are that not Hetzner but debian fucked up. fucked up as in "enhancing" - and utterly breaking - ssl or as in going shitd. Mindset, as I said.

    Something went wrong in a Debian 8 update on Hetzner's shared hosting and managed servers -- this is all that was reported ("some packages were uninstalled from the servers during a routine update"). How general or particular this problem is is anyone's guess based on this limited information, and drawing a comparison with the ssl incident (years ago) is simply unjustified free association, as well as bringing systemd into the picture. (I really expected more from a person who claims to rely on facts and proofs for drawing conclusions.)

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Provider, Top Provider

    @mksh said:
    @Hetzner_OL would it be possible to name the affected packages? I don't want to pester support just to satistify my curiousity and a quick search for recent debian bugs that might be related turned up nothing.

    I can't give you further information on this. --Katie, Marketing

  • mkshmksh Member

    @Hetzner_OL said:

    @mksh said:
    @Hetzner_OL would it be possible to name the affected packages? I don't want to pester support just to satistify my curiousity and a quick search for recent debian bugs that might be related turned up nothing.

    I can't give you further information on this. --Katie, Marketing

    It's OK. It's not like really need to know and i figured asking wouldn't hurt.

  • @mksh said:

    @Hetzner_OL said:

    @mksh said:
    @Hetzner_OL would it be possible to name the affected packages? I don't want to pester support just to satistify my curiousity and a quick search for recent debian bugs that might be related turned up nothing.

    I can't give you further information on this. --Katie, Marketing

    It's OK. It's not like really need to know and i figured asking wouldn't hurt.

    You didn't really think that they would tell you, did you?

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • mkshmksh Member

    @angstrom said:

    @mksh said:

    @Hetzner_OL said:

    @mksh said:
    @Hetzner_OL would it be possible to name the affected packages? I don't want to pester support just to satistify my curiousity and a quick search for recent debian bugs that might be related turned up nothing.

    I can't give you further information on this. --Katie, Marketing

    It's OK. It's not like really need to know and i figured asking wouldn't hurt.

    You didn't really think that they would tell you, did you?

    Of course. I mean how could you ignore nosey LET users? Coming back to reality, well, not really.

  • @mksh said:

    @angstrom said:

    @mksh said:

    @Hetzner_OL said:

    @mksh said:
    @Hetzner_OL would it be possible to name the affected packages? I don't want to pester support just to satistify my curiousity and a quick search for recent debian bugs that might be related turned up nothing.

    I can't give you further information on this. --Katie, Marketing

    It's OK. It's not like really need to know and i figured asking wouldn't hurt.

    You didn't really think that they would tell you, did you?

    Of course. I mean how could you ignore nosey LET users? Coming back to reality, well, not really.

    I suspect (and suspected -- see above when I was arguing with bsdguy before he left us) that the problem was dependent on something in Hetzner's setup and doesn't affect Debian 8 installations more generally.

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • mkshmksh Member

    @angstrom said:
    I suspect (and suspected -- see above when I was arguing with bsdguy before he left us) that the problem was dependent on something in Hetzner's setup and doesn't affect Debian 8 installations more generally.

    Yeah, as much as i value Hetzner and like to spin this into a win for Devuan it's for sure a possibility and staying vague as to the actual packages involved could easily be seen as supporting this theory but then it might as well just come down to policies of not talking about their internal setup. I guess we'll never really know what happend.

Sign In or Register to comment.