debian and ubuntu
prad
using one or the other.
are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
hardware)?
what's better for use on a server? ubuntu has a server edition (with an
excellent guide), but is it any different from debian?
i personally like debian's slow cycle - i don't like to upgrade if i
can help it. my son, on the otherhand, likes to try the new stuff
whenever possible.
i would like to see some opinions and personal experiences regarding
these 2 excellent systems!
--
In friendship,
prad
... with you on your journey
Towards Freedom
http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website)
Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
ow...@netptc.net
>ebian.org
>>
>>
I teach C programming at the local University. I use and recommend
Debian for my students in a desktop or server environment, primarily
for stability. OTOH I usually recommend Ubuntu for laptops,
primarily because the students have bought them recently and many
have the latest hardware which require the newer drivers that Ubuntu
supports "out of the box" but Debian may not (yet).
larry
Nuno Magalhães
For servers i'd definitely go for Debian. Ubuntu's commercial and you
can't be sure if it'll provide support in the future and how. At least
with Debian you know where you're standing at all times.
I'd still go for Debian over Ubuntu but i'm biased, i'm kind of
allergic to Ubuntu. ;) I'd probably recommend Ubuntu for someone who
was coming from Redmond into GNU/Linux, unless i was doing the
install.
All in all the big issue is probably the drivers: if you want new
and/or proprietary out-of-the-box, then Ubuntu.
HTH,
Nuno Magalhães
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ ascii-rubanda kampajno - kontraŭ html-a retpoŝto
paragasu
if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
Robert Holtzman
> For servers i'd definitely go for Debian. Ubuntu's commercial and you
> can't be sure if it'll provide support in the future and how.
Why do you think Ubuntu's commercial?
--
Bob Holtzman
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
Jeff Soules
Because they offer for-fee professional support?
2009/4/25 Robert Holtzman <hol...@cox.net>:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
>
>> For servers i'd definitely go for Debian. Ubuntu's commercial and you
>> can't be sure if it'll provide support in the future and how.
>
> Why do you think Ubuntu's commercial?
--
Mark Allums
> ubuntu == debian testing,
>
> if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
>
ubuntu = debian unstable
Zhengquan Zhang
> we use (and support) both, but i'd like to establish a rationale for
> using one or the other.
>
> are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
> hardware)?
>
> what's better for use on a server? ubuntu has a server edition (with an
> excellent guide), but is it any different from debian?
>
> i personally like debian's slow cycle - i don't like to upgrade if i
> can help it. my son, on the otherhand, likes to try the new stuff
> whenever possible.
>
> i would like to see some opinions and personal experiences regarding
> these 2 excellent systems!
I have the same problem to persuade my collegues to use debian rather
ubuntu. I told them ubuntu is just fork of debian sid.
--
Zhengquan
Zhengquan Zhang
> ubuntu == debian testing,
>
> if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
The problem is this, debian is definetly stable for server. But after
one or two years after the stable release. The devs on the server will
want the latest ruby, latest blabla...
--
Zhengquan
Paul Johnson
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
>
>> For servers i'd definitely go for Debian. Ubuntu's commercial and you
>> can't be sure if it'll provide support in the future and how.
>
> Why do you think Ubuntu's commercial?
You mean other than it's financial dependence on Canonical, and it being
Canonical's ONLY reason for existing?
Paul Johnson
> we use (and support) both, but i'd like to establish a rationale for
> using one or the other.
>
> are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
All of them.
> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
> hardware)?
That's like asking if Gentoo is ready for the desktop...
H.S.
> paragasu wrote:
>> ubuntu == debian testing,
>>
>> if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
>>
>
>
> ubuntu = debian unstable
>
>
ubuntu = a shapely Debian Unstable with lipstick and makeup
;)
--
Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding
newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just
filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without
ever having been read.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>we use (and support) both, but i'd like to establish a rationale for
>using one or the other.
All that follow is just my opinion, but I've tried to justify it so it may
be the start of a rational process to guide the decision.
If you want a commercial support contract, go with Ubuntu and get support
from Canonical.
I'm not saying you can't get commercial support for Debian, but that the
closest thing to Debian is the a legal entity is SPI, and I don't believe
they provide that support.
If there are packages in Ubuntu's universe or multiverse not available
elsewhere that you need, go with Ubuntu. Even the Debian community probably
will not provide much support for packages that are not in Debian.
DDs and DMs are generally swamped with their packages. Spending cycles on
other packages generally doesn't make sense.
For anything else, go with Debian. Even if you don't like Debian's slow
release cycles, testing/unstable/experimental and pinning allow you to
accelerate the cycle as you need to (mostly).
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Andrei Popescu
> If you want a commercial support contract, go with Ubuntu and get support
> from Canonical.
>
> I'm not saying you can't get commercial support for Debian, but that the
> closest thing to Debian is the a legal entity is SPI, and I don't believe
> they provide that support.
They don't, but others do:
http://www.debian.org/consultants/
(Hint: there are even Debian Developers in that list, but they are not
allowed to use the @debian.org address as it would be unfair to the
others.)
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
Thorny
> paragasu wrote:
>> ubuntu == debian testing,
>>
>> if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
>>
>>
>
> ubuntu = debian unstable
Ubuntu=(a snapshot of Debian unstable at the time)!=Debian unstable.
Johan Grönqvist
> we use (and support) both, but i'd like to establish a rationale for
> using one or the other.
>
> are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
> hardware)?
>
I prefer debian whenever I want to use packages that (in ubuntu) belong
to the universe category. I find that in my personal experience,
packages in debian main seem more reliable than ubuntu universe.
I find that I rather often want to have some package installed that does
not belong to ubuntu's main repository, but do belong to debian's main
repository.
/ johan
Robert Hodgins
> Slightly OT-ish, but if i want to install an Ubuntu package on Debian.
> should i use dpkg -i or alien?
I wouldn't try to install an Ubuntu package on Debian.
Nuno Magalhães
> I prefer debian whenever I want to use packages that (in ubuntu) belong to
> the universe category. I find that in my personal experience, packages in
> debian main seem more reliable than ubuntu universe.
>
> I find that I rather often want to have some package installed that does not
> belong to ubuntu's main repository, but do belong to debian's main
> repository.
Slightly OT-ish, but if i want to install an Ubuntu package on Debian.
should i use dpkg -i or alien?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ ascii-rubanda kampajno - kontraŭ html-a retpoŝto
Jeff Zhang
2009/4/26 Johan Grönqvist <johan.g...@gmail.com>:
> I prefer debian whenever I want to use packages that (in ubuntu) belong toSlightly OT-ish, but if i want to install an Ubuntu package on Debian.
> the universe category. I find that in my personal experience, packages in
> debian main seem more reliable than ubuntu universe.
>
> I find that I rather often want to have some package installed that does not
> belong to ubuntu's main repository, but do belong to debian's main
> repository.
should i use dpkg -i or alien?
rebuild the deb files using foo.dsc and so on from ubuntu
Miles Fidelman
> On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 16:11 +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
>
>
>> Slightly OT-ish, but if i want to install an Ubuntu package on Debian.
>> should i use dpkg -i or alien?
>>
>
> I wouldn't try to install an Ubuntu package on Debian.
>
I'd try:
1. look for the Debian version of the package
2. install from the upstream source
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
John Hasler
> install from the upstream source
I'd try installing from the Ubuntu source.
--
John Hasler
Stefan Monnier
> using one or the other.
> are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
> hardware)?
I my mind, the difference between the two is:
- Ubuntu doesn't care as much about Free Software, so it is prefectly
happy to encourage the use of proprietary software (e.g. drivers).
So if care about Free Software, you may prefer Debian (or GNewSense
of course, which is a cleaned up version of Ubuntu).
- Ubuntu has a short release cycle, so you do get "releases" (like
Debian "stable"), but with more cutting-edge versions (like Debian
"unstable"). Depending on your point of view, this means you get the
best of both worlds, or it means you get the worst of both worlds.
I personally hate "releases" and don't need/want cutting edge code
(other than the one I write), so I much prefer Debian "testing".
-- Stefan
Raquel
prad <pr...@towardsfreedom.com> wrote:
> we use (and support) both, but i'd like to establish a rationale for
> using one or the other.
>
> are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
> hardware)?
>
> what's better for use on a server? ubuntu has a server edition
> (with an excellent guide), but is it any different from debian?
>
> i personally like debian's slow cycle - i don't like to upgrade if i
> can help it. my son, on the otherhand, likes to try the new stuff
> whenever possible.
>
> i would like to see some opinions and personal experiences regarding
> these 2 excellent systems!
>
> --
> In friendship,
> prad
I think that as this thread has digressed, it can be seen that either
camp, Debian/Ubuntu, has their own beliefs. The takeaway seems to be
that you have to tailor your response to your clients. Do they seem
to be the kind that would favor one belief over another? Then you
make your recommendation fit them rather than try to mold them into
your dogma.
--
Raquel
http://www.byraquel.com
============================================================
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
--Albert Einstein
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>Slightly OT-ish, but if i want to install an Ubuntu package on Debian.
>should i use dpkg -i or alien?
Not alien.
dpkg -i is a start, but it might fail. If it does, use the .dsc to build
new .deb. If that doesn't fail, the resulting package will most likely
install.
(Ultimately, there are no guarantees that Debian packages will work on
Ubuntu or vice-versa, just like a random RPM might or might not work on a
distribution other than the one it was built on.)
Dotan Cohen
Extreme devotion to FOSS ideals, environments where security and
stability are most important.
> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
> hardware)?
>
Installing for new Linux users, hardware that does not have good FOSS
drivers, very tolerant community
> what's better for use on a server? ubuntu has a server edition (with an
> excellent guide), but is it any different from debian?
>
hahahaha... Debian! While Ubuntu might not be bad for a server,
Ubuntu's advantages have no bearing here.
> i personally like debian's slow cycle - i don't like to upgrade if i
> can help it. my son, on the otherhand, likes to try the new stuff
> whenever possible.
>
You: Debian. Your son: (don't hate me) Fedora. Really! In any case, it
will get some knowledge of OS diversity in the house. And give you
guys something to debate over dinner.
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
Petrus Validus
> these 2 excellent systems!
I used to use Ubuntu back in the 5.10 and 6.06 days for about a year or
so as a desktop. I liked it and it was alright but Debian's stability
and performance won me over!
I never really paid attention to Ubuntu's package selection, however,
since I used a stock configuration most of the time. Does anyone know
if Ubuntu has the same vast package selection as Debian? Just
wondering...
--
Petrus Validus
Petrus....@gmail.com
AIM: Petrus Validus
www.unix-interest.net
Mark Allums
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:40:47 -0500, Mark Allums posted:
>
>> paragasu wrote:
>>> ubuntu == debian testing,
>>>
>>> if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
>>>
>>>
>> ubuntu = debian unstable
>
> Ubuntu=(a snapshot of Debian unstable at the time)!=Debian unstable.
Note, I used an assignment operator, not an equivalence operator.
:)
Kent West
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:40:47 -0500, Mark Allums posted:
>
>
>> paragasu wrote:
>>
>>> ubuntu == debian testing,
>>>
>>> if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ubuntu = debian unstable
>>
>
> Ubuntu=(a snapshot of Debian unstable at the time)!=Debian unstable.
>
>
>
>
I don't know if it's been said in this particular thread or not (I
haven't been paying that close of attention), but it's been said before:
"Ubuntu" is an African word meaning "I can't figure out how to install
Debian".
--
Kent
明覺
<zhang.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 07:32:43PM -0700, paragasu wrote:
>> ubuntu == debian testing,
>>
>> if you think debian outdated, try debian unstable.
>
> The problem is this, debian is definetly stable for server. But after
> one or two years after the stable release. The devs on the server will
> want the latest ruby, latest blabla...
>
> --
> Zhengquan
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
My platform is debian-sid-amd64 gnome kdevelop.
Chris Jones
[..]
> "Ubuntu" is an African word meaning "I can't figure out how to install
> Debian".
After all, there is such a thing as miracles.. at long last s/o is
bringing a bit of sense to this nonsense.
And, I really mean..
Thanks,
CJ
Mark Allums
>> i would like to see some opinions and personal experiences regarding
>> these 2 excellent systems!
>
> I used to use Ubuntu back in the 5.10 and 6.06 days for about a year or
> so as a desktop. I liked it and it was alright but Debian's stability
> and performance won me over!
>
> I never really paid attention to Ubuntu's package selection, however,
> since I used a stock configuration most of the time. Does anyone know
> if Ubuntu has the same vast package selection as Debian? Just
> wondering...
>
More or less, yes.
Dotan Cohen
> since I used a stock configuration most of the time. Does anyone know
> if Ubuntu has the same vast package selection as Debian? Just
> wondering...
>
That depends more on your needs than anything. Ubuntu does have a vast
amount of software available, that is for sure. What specific unusual
applications do you need?
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
Thorny
[...]
> :)
;)
Paul Johnson
>> are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
>
> Extreme devotion to FOSS ideals, environments where security and
> stability are most important.
>
>> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
>> hardware)?
>>
>
> Installing for new Linux users, hardware that does not have good FOSS
> drivers, very tolerant community
I can't say the situation is any better for Windows users in this
regard, especially video drivers. At least Linux users are somewhat
less screwed in that they still have a machine functional enough to
complain about it on the internet without having working graphics.
You should see some of the problems users of OpenGL on Windows face.
The Second Life forums at http://forums.secondlife.com/ have many
threads from Windows users trying to get the latest nvidia and ATI
drivers working with OpenGL on Windows. At least for gamers and Second
Life users, Linux is downright cuddly by comparison.
Dotan Cohen
>> drivers, very tolerant community
>
> I can't say the situation is any better for Windows users in this
> regard, especially video drivers. At least Linux users are somewhat
> less screwed in that they still have a machine functional enough to
> complain about it on the internet without having working graphics.
>
> You should see some of the problems users of OpenGL on Windows face.
> The Second Life forums at http://forums.secondlife.com/ have many
> threads from Windows users trying to get the latest nvidia and ATI
> drivers working with OpenGL on Windows. At least for gamers and Second
> Life users, Linux is downright cuddly by comparison.
>
I must have misunderstood. I thought that the OP was asking about
comparing Debian to _Ubuntu_, not Windows. Sorry.
Bret Busby
>
> we use (and support) both, but i'd like to establish a rationale for
> using one or the other.
>
> are there situations where debian is preferable (eg older hardware)?
> are there situations where ubuntu is preferable (eg picking up newer
> hardware)?
>
> what's better for use on a server? ubuntu has a server edition (with an
> excellent guide), but is it any different from debian?
>
> i personally like debian's slow cycle - i don't like to upgrade if i
> can help it. my son, on the otherhand, likes to try the new stuff
> whenever possible.
>
> i would like to see some opinions and personal experiences regarding
> these 2 excellent systems!
>
> --
> In friendship,
> prad
>
>
In the responses that I have seen so far in this thread, the thread has
apparently degenerated into a one-upmanship battle; where the main
response sems to be "I know better and more than anyone else".
Well, I do not know better and more than anyone else.
I am a Linux User, and I will not pretend to be an expert (Definition:
"An expert is a drip under pressure").
I use both Ubuntu 8.04 and Debian 4.0.
I have been using Debian 3.0, 3.1, and 4.0. I have also got Debian 5.0
installed on my laptop.
I have tried Ubuntu 8.10, then upgraded it to 8.04 (yes, 8.04, not
9.04).
I have been using Linux since Red Hat 4.0 (I think it was, and I
definitely remember having 5.0 and later that I was using, until Red hat
went the same way as Microsoft, and ended up putting out a version that
simply would not run on the software that its said it would run on
(version 9.0, I think), and that version of Slackware that was current
at that time.
When I started using Linux, it was the first derivative of UNIX that I
had used, with a GUI. before that, I had used BSD v4.2, and SCO UNIX VR2
(or R3).
With the question above, that involves Debian and Ubuntu, we have a LAN
that uses Debian on the servers (a gateway firewall server, and, a
mailserver), and Debian and Ubuntu on the nodes, which include this
desktop, and some laptops.
The gateway/firewall server runs a Smoothwall (Express, I think)
installation which has its underlying OS as Debian 3.0 or Debian 3.1 .
Due to the way that it is, I do not know how to properly upgrade it - it
is a "blackbox" kind of thing, and is basically left alone, as it is
neither clear nor simple, how to update and upgrade it to the latest
version of Debian stable, if it can be so upgraded.
The mailserver runs Debian 4.0. That runs fetchmail and postfix.
Updating that, is easy and simple, using apt-get update, and apt-get
dist-upgrade.
On this computer, a desktop, I usually run Debian 4.0. I find it more
convenient, for most things, and I do not like the sudo that Ubuntu
uses; I prefer su - root. Before people start criticising that
preference, it it my preference, and, it is up to each individual, to
choose the person's preference, for whatever reasons that person makes
the choice. That is one reason for preferring Debian for the servers;
the requirement of a root password, for sysadmin, rather than being able
to do sysadmin using a user password is preferable, for me.
On this desktop computer, I also dual boot into Ubuntu 8.04. Ubuntu 8.04
can do things that I have been unable to do with Debian 4.0, such as
viewing .wmv files.
Each of the two distributions has its advantages on a desktop computer.
On my laptop computer, I multi-boot, between Windows XP, Ubuntu 8.04,
and now Debian 5.0 (previously Debian 4.0).
My laptop computer is an HP NX5000. It has a wireless network card
(a\nasty things - I would get rid of it, if I knew how). When we
initially installed Debian 3.1 on that laptop, which was purchased with
Windows XP installed, we had to use Mandriva to repartion it (Mandriva
had a dynamic (?) partitioning utility), then install Ubuntu on it, then
unistall Ubuntu and install Debian, as the wireless network card had an
interrupt conflict with the wired network card, and it was a problem
that was automatically (or, easily) resolved with Ubuntu, whereas Debian
simply would not work with it. I think that was done with Ubuntu 7.04.
When Debian 4.0 was installed on that laptop, it would not resolve the
interrupt conflict, and Ubuntu had to be used again, to solve the
interrupt conflict.
With installing Ubuntu on that laptop, having a 10GB partition free, I
finally decided to install Ubuntu into that partition, and, installed
8.10, as the latest Ubuntu version.
Like the Split Enz song said, "That was my mistake". It ran okay, until
I did an update on it, and, basically, Ubuntu killed itself. Everything
broke. So, in response to a query posted on a mailing list, and as
Ubuntu 8.10 seemed to conform to the Debian Sid principle - from
http://www.debian.org/releases/unstable/ ; "Use it at your own risk!",
and, from http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives#s-sid ; "Sid was
the boy next door who destroyed toys", I upgraded Ubuntu 8.10, to Ubuntu
8.04.
One very good justification for that, is the 8.04 was then, and, still
is, the latest Ubuntu LTS version.
>From http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu ,
"Ubuntu is designed with security in mind. You get free security
updates for at least 18 months on the desktop and server. With the Long
Term Support (LTS) version you get three years support on the desktop,
and five years on the server."
So, if the user of a Ubuntu Linux system wants stability, the person is
best using the latest Ubuntu LTS version, in this case, 8.04.
With the Debian 5.0 on the laptop, I go and look at it, from time to
time, aund, update it from time to time, but, on the laptop, I generally
use the Ubuntu 8.04 instalation. It simply works better (apart from the
sudo thin, which I do not like), and is better with dealing with
instalation and use of applications, on that computer.
On this desktop computer, if I want to use Opera 9.2x, I reboot into
Ubuntu. Opera went wonky, when they released the later versions o Opera,
and it appears to be no longer supported by Opera, and does not have the
functionality that 9.2x has. And, Opera versions later than 9.2x, cannot
be properly removed from Debian 4.0, without a full, clean, operating
system installation, due to some nasty things that Opera appear to have
included in its later versions.
And, as I use Opera 9.2x, when I need a secure web browser, I then use
Ubuntu, whether on the laptop, or, rebooting this desktop.
Debian 4.0 runs okay (for the most part) on this desktop computer, which
does not have any horrible wireless stuff. It operates, like Ubuntu, as
"plug and play", if I plug something into it, like an external hard
drive, or, a Logitech webcam (which, unfortunately, only "partly" works
with Linux - it apparently works okay with Ekiga (which should be what
Linux users should be using, instead of skype), but I cannot record
video clips with it, othern than in the .wmv format, and, using the MS
Windows software for it.
I think that the major difference betwen Ubuntu and Debian, is that
Ubuntu is a bit more adaptable than Debian, and can better deal with
some hardare (especially the horrible wireless stuff).
And, I think that Ubuntu has later versions of packages, than Debian
stable - in some ways, Ubuntu LTS is, I think, halfay between Debian
stabl and Debian testing, and, Ubuntu STS (?) (the latest non-LTS
version of Ubuntu), is the equivalent of Debian testing. And, no, I do
not say that Ubuntu <any version> is equal to, or, exactly the same as,
any version of Debian. Similarities, not equal, I think.
Some people have made an issue of Debian being not so easy to install,
but Debian 4.0 and Debian 5.0, are easy enough to install, from an
intallation disk (thence downloading what is not on the disk, acros the
Internet).
One disadvantage, in that, is that the Debian "Live" disk, is not
installable; the Ubuntu one is installable. So, in demonstrating th OS
to someone, only one disk is needed, to install Ubuntu - the "Live"
isk", and, with Debian, two disks are needed - the "Live" disk, to
deminstrate, and, the installable disk, to install.
It sounds a bit like the feminist thing, that men can't multitask - the
Debian disks are single use - either "Live" or installable, but not
both, whereas the Ubuntu "Live" disk, does both.
I think that the answer to the question, in terms of the computers that
are not servers, depends on the intended uses of the system. Debian has
its advantages, and, Ubuntu has its advantages.
For the inital installation of the operating system (apart from the
wireless isue, my preference is for Debian 4.0 (better for the system
type/use setup), but, for some other things, Ubuntu is better.
But, unless the system user(s) will be inclined to deal with system and
application failures, if Ubuntu is to be used, I strongly recommend
using the LTS version.
For a server, I recommend Debian, (and making sure that it does not
allow sudo - a server should not be allowd to be stuffed up by a user,
inadvertently or deliberately) - to me, Debian is a bit more stable, for
the most part.
But, as I said above, I am no expert.
I am a Linux user; pure and simple.
And, no doubt, many people will say, "quite simple".
:)
--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............
"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of Book 1 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
....................................................
Christofer C. Bell
On this computer, a desktop, I usually run Debian 4.0. I find it more convenient, for most things, and I do not like the sudo that Ubuntu uses; I prefer su - root. Before people start criticising that preference, it it my preference, and, it is up to each individual, to choose the person's preference, for whatever reasons that person makes the choice. That is one reason for preferring Debian for the servers; the requirement of a root password, for sysadmin, rather than being able to do sysadmin using a user password is preferable, for me.
--
Chris
Nate Bargmann
folowing command has worked for me on the various 'buntus:
`sudo su'
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
Chris Jones
Nice mini-howto - did that.. couldn't get used to that sudo thing myself
on ubuntu :-)
Changed "Subject:" .. may make it easier to google for.
CJ
Bret Busby
Thank you for that.
Before I try it, please advise whether, in removing the sudo facility
for users, the package management (both adding/removing packages, and,
downloading and installing updates, and using synaptic) will work by
entering only the root password.
Thank you in anticipation.
Christofer C. Bell
Thank you for that.
Before I try it, please advise whether, in removing the sudo facility for users, the package management (both adding/removing packages, and, downloading and installing updates, and using synaptic) will work by entering only the root password.
Thank you in anticipation.
--
Chris
Andrei Popescu
> And for anyone that wants a root prompt without disabling sudo, the
> folowing command has worked for me on the various 'buntus:
>
> `sudo su'
Why not 'sudo -i' (I'm trying to keep it simple and no involve two
programs if avoidable)?
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
John Hasler
> Before I try it, please advise whether, in removing the sudo facility for
> users, the package management (both adding/removing packages, and,
> downloading and installing updates, and using synaptic) will work by
> entering only the root password.
The package management software just needs root privileges. It doesn't
care how it got them.
Nobody is suggesting anything exotic here. Sudo is intended to be
configured by the system administrator. That's you.
--
John Hasler
Douglas A. Tutty
> Bret Busby wrote:
> > Before I try it, please advise whether, in removing the sudo facility for
> > users, the package management (both adding/removing packages, and,
> > downloading and installing updates, and using synaptic) will work by
> > entering only the root password.
>
> The package management software just needs root privileges. It doesn't
> care how it got them.
>
> Nobody is suggesting anything exotic here. Sudo is intended to be
> configured by the system administrator. That's you.
However, does the package management software (as aptitude does) store
user preferences in the home directory? If, for example, you always run
aptitude as yourself then give it the root password when prompted, it
stores your preferences in your home directory. If you later run
aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active. Also, vis-versa.
Doug.
Nuno Magalhães
> aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active. Also, vis-versa.
So copy them?
Raquel
"Douglas A. Tutty" <dtu...@vianet.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 07:29:07AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Bret Busby wrote:
> > > Before I try it, please advise whether, in removing the sudo
> > > facility for users, the package management (both
> > > adding/removing packages, and, downloading and installing
> > > updates, and using synaptic) will work by entering only the
> > > root password.
> >
> > The package management software just needs root privileges. It
> > doesn't care how it got them.
> >
> > Nobody is suggesting anything exotic here. Sudo is intended to be
> > configured by the system administrator. That's you.
>
> However, does the package management software (as aptitude does)
> store user preferences in the home directory? If, for example, you
> always run aptitude as yourself then give it the root password when
> prompted, it stores your preferences in your home directory. If
> you later run aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active.
> Also, vis-versa.
>
> Doug.
>
I don't think that aptitude will run as $user, Douglas. It always
runs as root. At least, that's what it's always told me when I've
mistakenly tried to run it as $user.
--
Raquel
http://www.byraquel.com
============================================================
They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you
made them feel.
--Carl W. Buechner
Mark Allums
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 10:18:49 -0400
> "Douglas A. Tutty" <dtu...@vianet.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 07:29:07AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>>> Bret Busby wrote:
>>>> Before I try it, please advise whether, in removing the sudo
>>>> facility for users, the package management (both
>>>> adding/removing packages, and, downloading and installing
>>>> updates, and using synaptic) will work by entering only the
>>>> root password.
>>> The package management software just needs root privileges. It
>>> doesn't care how it got them.
>>>
>>> Nobody is suggesting anything exotic here. Sudo is intended to be
>>> configured by the system administrator. That's you.
>> However, does the package management software (as aptitude does)
>> store user preferences in the home directory? If, for example, you
>> always run aptitude as yourself then give it the root password when
>> prompted, it stores your preferences in your home directory. If
>> you later run aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active.
>> Also, vis-versa.
>>
>> Doug.
>>
>
> I don't think that aptitude will run as $user, Douglas. It always
> runs as root. At least, that's what it's always told me when I've
> mistakenly tried to run it as $user.
>
It runs as user (in GUI mode), but it won't attempt to make changes to
the system until you authenticate as root (become root).
In command-line, I guess you must be root. But you can use sudo -c
"exec aptitude", I think, or something similar, if you are weird enough.
Mark Allums
Adrian Levi
> Raquel wrote:
>> I don't think that aptitude will run as $user, Douglas. It always
>> runs as root. At least, that's what it's always told me when I've
>> mistakenly tried to run it as $user.
>
> It runs as user (in GUI mode), but it won't attempt to make changes to the
> system until you authenticate as root (become root).
>
> In command-line, I guess you must be root. But you can use sudo -c "exec
> aptitude", I think, or something similar, if you are weird enough.
>
> Mark Allums
In CLI mode it will run as user for no changes to the system.
Adrian
--
24x7x365 != 24x7x52 Stupid or bad maths?
<erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to
ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my
apartment it is.
Andrei Popescu
> However, does the package management software (as aptitude does) store
> user preferences in the home directory? If, for example, you always run
> aptitude as yourself then give it the root password when prompted, it
> stores your preferences in your home directory. If you later run
> aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active. Also, vis-versa.
It's a bit more weird than this (I thought about filing a whishlist
bug): when you start aptitude as user it uses his preferences, but as
soon as you switch to root (via the menu items or when prompted)
aptitude also switches to root's preferences. Kinda' confusing.
Osamu Aoki
> On Sun,03.May.09, 10:18:49, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>
> > However, does the package management software (as aptitude does) store
> > user preferences in the home directory? If, for example, you always run
> > aptitude as yourself then give it the root password when prompted, it
> > stores your preferences in your home directory. If you later run
> > aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active. Also, vis-versa.
>
> It's a bit more weird than this (I thought about filing a whishlist
> bug): when you start aptitude as user it uses his preferences, but as
> soon as you switch to root (via the menu items or when prompted)
> aptitude also switches to root's preferences. Kinda' confusing.
It is not just aptitude, but generic problem for becoming root and
chosing home directory:
$ env|grep HOME
HOME=/home/osamu
$ sudo env|grep HOME
HOME=/home/osamu
$ su -c env|grep HOME
Password:
HOME=/root
$ sudo -H env|grep HOME
HOME=/root
sudo reset most environment variable but $HOME.
Any softwares which use $HOME to decide configuration needs to be
careful about this thing.
Osamu
Harry Rickards
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:51:28AM +0300, Andrei Popescu <andreim...@gmail.com> was heard to say:
>> On Sun,03.May.09, 10:18:49, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>
>>> However, does the package management software (as aptitude does) store
>>> user preferences in the home directory? If, for example, you always run
>>> aptitude as yourself then give it the root password when prompted, it
>>> stores your preferences in your home directory. If you later run
>>> aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active. Also, vis-versa.
>> It's a bit more weird than this (I thought about filing a whishlist
>> bug): when you start aptitude as user it uses his preferences, but as
>> soon as you switch to root (via the menu items or when prompted)
>> aptitude also switches to root's preferences. Kinda' confusing.
>
> There's a long and fairly tortured history behind which configuration
> aptitude uses when. Basically: if aptitude uses $HOME instead of
> changing to /root, then it'll end up sticking root-owned files inside
> the user's home directory, including files the user might not be able to
> read and/or delete.
>
But if they can run aptitude in the first place, surely they could
either su to root or use sudo to read or delete the files. Just my opinion.
- --
Many thanks
Harry Rickards (a.k.a l33tmyst)
- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT/GCM/GCS/GCC/GIT/GM d? s: a? C++++ UL++++ P- L+++ E--- W+++ N o K+
w--- O- M- V- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t 5 X R tv-- b+++ DI D---- G e* h! !r y?
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkn+/YIACgkQ1kZz3mRu0GqMnQCfYkMEPo6sgtxTWxvTQnbLH4Am
yI4AoN+Aikaa65Ch3r7Ipn+A4jLHgXSw
=goWH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Daniel Burrows
>
> > However, does the package management software (as aptitude does) store
> > user preferences in the home directory? If, for example, you always run
> > aptitude as yourself then give it the root password when prompted, it
> > stores your preferences in your home directory. If you later run
> > aptitude as root, those prefernces won't be active. Also, vis-versa.
>
> It's a bit more weird than this (I thought about filing a whishlist
> bug): when you start aptitude as user it uses his preferences, but as
> soon as you switch to root (via the menu items or when prompted)
> aptitude also switches to root's preferences. Kinda' confusing.
There's a long and fairly tortured history behind which configuration
aptitude uses when. Basically: if aptitude uses $HOME instead of
changing to /root, then it'll end up sticking root-owned files inside
the user's home directory, including files the user might not be able to
read and/or delete.
Daniel
Paul Johnson
> But if they can run aptitude in the first place, surely they could
> either su to root or use sudo to read or delete the files. Just my opinion.
Aptitude doesn't need root to run. I tell my users to check aptitude if
they want to find out if I'm willing to install it (largely because I'm
lazy and running a hobby system). You only need root to commit changes.
Harry Rickards
Hash: SHA1
Sorry, yeah I was thinking of aptitude as in 'aptitude install bash',
not aptitude as the gui-based tool.
- --
Many thanks
Harry Rickards (a.k.a l33tmyst)
- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT/GCM/GCS/GCC/GIT/GM d? s: a? C++++ UL++++ P- L+++ E--- W+++ N o K+
w--- O- M- V- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t 5 X R tv-- b+++ DI D---- G e* h! !r y?
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkn/L6QACgkQ1kZz3mRu0GoqJACgkk3wPoK9knuRtAktr8L4F97C
8WoAnRwwA7Bbzpy6OAT6C8l8KjxFUA8i
=IWLE
Harry Rickards
wrote:
> On Mon,04.May.09, 19:10:44, Harry Rickards wrote:
>
>> Sorry, yeah I was thinking of aptitude as in 'aptitude install bash',
>> not aptitude as the gui-based tool.
>
> aptitude search interesting_package
>
>
Yeah, there's that as well.
Many thanks
Harry Rickards (a.k.a l33tmyst)
Lisi Reisz
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Harry Rickards wrote:
> >> But if they can run aptitude in the first place, surely they could
> >> either su to root or use sudo to read or delete the files. Just my
> >> opinion.
> >
> > Aptitude doesn't need root to run. I tell my users to check aptitude if
> > they want to find out if I'm willing to install it (largely because I'm
> > lazy and running a hobby system). You only need root to commit changes.
>
> Sorry, yeah I was thinking of aptitude as in 'aptitude install bash',
> not aptitude as the gui-based tool.
This applies just as much to the CLI. Aptitude will run for any user, but
only root can commit changes. I frequently run aptitude at at the CLI as an
ordinary user to use e.g. search, and then change to root if I decide to
install.
Lisi
Celejar
Bret Busby <br...@busby.net> wrote:
...
> On this desktop computer, I also dual boot into Ubuntu 8.04. Ubuntu 8.04
> can do things that I have been unable to do with Debian 4.0, such as
> viewing .wmv files.
I can view wmv files fine on my Debian Sid; can you provide an example
of a problematic wmv?
Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Alex Samad
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:51:28AM +0300, Andrei Popescu <andreim...@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> >> On Sun,03.May.09, 10:18:49, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
[snip]
>
> But if they can run aptitude in the first place, surely they could
> either su to root or use sudo to read or delete the files. Just my opinion.
how can you create files in $HOME that the owner of $HOME can't delete
?
[snip]
>
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>how can you create files in $HOME that the owner of $HOME can't delete
>?
bss@monster:~$ sudo mkdir data
[sudo] password for bss:
bss@monster:~$ sudo touch data/file
bss@monster:~$ rm -rf data
rm: cannot remove `data/file': Permission denied
bss@monster:~$ ls -ld data
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 72 2009-05-05 23:07 data
bss@monster:~$ rmdir data
rmdir: failed to remove `data': Directory not empty
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Alex Samad
> In <20090506023...@samad.com.au>, Alex Samad wrote:
> >how can you create files in $HOME that the owner of $HOME can't delete
> >?
>
> bss@monster:~$ sudo mkdir data
> [sudo] password for bss:
> bss@monster:~$ sudo touch data/file
> bss@monster:~$ rm -rf data
> rm: cannot remove `data/file': Permission denied
> bss@monster:~$ ls -ld data
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 72 2009-05-05 23:07 data
> bss@monster:~$ rmdir data
> rmdir: failed to remove `data': Directory not empty
yes, had a brain fart, forgot you have to do a depth first deletion
--
"Let me just first tell you that I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."
- George W. Bush
09/12/2006
Washington, DC
said to journalists in the Oval Office (as reported by the National Review)
Joseph Rawson
> There's nothing special about how Ubuntu does it. In fact, when you
> install Etch you can have the Ubuntu behavior at installation time (when it
> prompts for a root password, select Cancel, then in the installer menu,
> select the option for configuring user accounts and select "No" when it
> asks if you want to allow root to have a password). It's all pretty
> self-explanatory in the installer. This option was removed in Lenny's
> installer.
Actually, it's still in the installer. The debconf priority was lowered, but
you can still set the option in a preseed file, or by telling the installer
to lower the priority of debconf, or by passing priority=low to the
installer.
>
> Anyway, again, not criticizing your desire to have a root password, I'm
> simply pointing out that there's nothing special about what Ubuntu is doing
> and if you want to have a root password on Ubuntu and use Ubuntu, you can.
I had to figure that out on my own, long ago. What they did do, that wasn't
always trivial is modify many of the graphical "su" programs to use sudo
instead of "su", which helps bypass the need for a root password. Also, the
default for Aptitude::Get-Root-Command on debian is "su", while it's "sudo"
on ubuntu.
Also, the sudo on ubuntu seems to have its authentication timestamps tied to
the terminal/shell (I don't know which) that originally authenticated. So,
if you are using sudo in one terminal, then quickly start another terminal
and use sudo in that terminal, you will have to authenticate again.
--
Thanks:
Joseph Rawson