When will Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x be Released?

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

Hi,

I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As we
all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.

When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x release
seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already have the latest
Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play
around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).

Debian developers, please speed up! I love Ubuntu and Debian Linux!!! I
am already using Debian wheezy with my Samsung Intel Atom N455 1.6 GHz
netbook, with Shorewall Firewall configuration.

Thank you very much.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Johan Grönqvist]

2012-03-27 07:04, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) skrev:
> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As we
> all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>
> Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play
> around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
>
> Debian developers, please speed up!

I would recommend debian testing, wheezy (to become debian 7), even
before it is formally released. I use debian testing (currently wheezy)
as my primary os, and in my experience it is more reliable than
(non-LTS) releases of ubuntu.

It might require more knowledge, but if your aim is defined as "playing
around", I do not think that should be a hindrance.

Advice will vary a lot, and the above is only my personal opinion.

Debian 7 is expected to be frozen this summer, and I think people expect
a release sometime in late autumn or winter, perhaps early next year.

Regards

Johan

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 14:38, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
> 2012-03-27 07:04, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) skrev:
>> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As we
>> all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>>
>> Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play
>> around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
>>
>> Debian developers, please speed up!
>
> I would recommend debian testing, wheezy (to become debian 7), even
> before it is formally released. I use debian testing (currently
> wheezy) as my primary os, and in my experience it is more reliable
> than (non-LTS) releases of ubuntu.
>
> It might require more knowledge, but if your aim is defined as
> "playing around", I do not think that should be a hindrance.
>
> Advice will vary a lot, and the above is only my personal opinion.
>
> Debian 7 is expected to be frozen this summer, and I think people
> expect a release sometime in late autumn or winter, perhaps early next
> year.
>
> Regards
>
> Johan
>
>
Dear Johan,

I am living in Singapore, where it is summer all year round. I do not
know when it is summer, autumn or winter. Are you saying Debian 7 will
only be released early next year? So slow!

Btw I am already using Debian testing/wheezy on my Samsung Intel Atom
netbook.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 27 March 2012 11:50:16 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> Are you saying Debian 7 will
> only be released early next year? So slow!

Good. Slow and steady not only wins the race, it also leads to stable and
reliable software.

Lisi

[Richard Hector]

On 27/03/12 19:38, Johan Grönqvist wrote:

> Debian 7 is expected to be frozen this summer,

And here was me thinking it would be this winter.

Hint: This is an international list. Seasons aren't good for
international representation of dates :-)

Richard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@walnut.gen.nz

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 28 mar 12, 22:11:42, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 27/03/12 19:38, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
>
> > Debian 7 is expected to be frozen this summer,
>
> And here was me thinking it would be this winter.
>
> Hint: This is an international list. Seasons aren't good for
> international representation of dates :-)

Depends on the calendar used: according to ddate(1) wheezy is due to
freeze in Confusion :p

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 17:11, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 27/03/12 19:38, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
>
>> Debian 7 is expected to be frozen this summer,
> And here was me thinking it would be this winter.
>
> Hint: This is an international list. Seasons aren't good for
> international representation of dates :-)
>
> Richard
>
>
I agree totally.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[didier gaumet]

Le Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:04:57 +0800,
"Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)" <***@gmail.com> a écrit :

[...]
> Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because
> I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
[...]

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think you need another kernel than the
squeeze stock kernel. Take a look at:
http://wiki.debian.org/Xen
and particularly:
http://wiki.debian.org/Xen#Note_on_kernel_version_compatibility

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 15:17, didier gaumet wrote:
> Le Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:04:57 +0800,
> "Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)"<***@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> [...]
>> Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because
>> I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
> [...]
>
> Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think you need another kernel than the
> squeeze stock kernel. Take a look at:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Xen
> and particularly:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Xen#Note_on_kernel_version_compatibility
>
>
>
Dear didier,

Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel 2.6 in
Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 27 mar 12, 18:53:20, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>
> Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel
> 2.6 in Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.

You can have 3.2 on squeeze from squeeze-backports. Not sure if it has
the Xen bits though.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 20:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 18:53:20, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel
>> 2.6 in Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.
> You can have 3.2 on squeeze from squeeze-backports. Not sure if it has
> the Xen bits though.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
I am already using the latest Linux Kernel 3.3.0 with Xen dom0 and domU
support all compiled in.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Tom H]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 18:53:20, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>
>> Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel
>> 2.6 in Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.
>
> You can have 3.2 on squeeze from squeeze-backports. Not sure if it has
> the Xen bits though.

You don't *need* backports. linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64,
xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64, and xen-utils-4.0 will do. It's Ubuntu that
doesn't have precompiled dom0 support.

[Miles Fidelman]

Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 18:53:20, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>> Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel
>>> 2.6 in Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.
>> You can have 3.2 on squeeze from squeeze-backports. Not sure if it has
>> the Xen bits though.
> You don't *need* backports. linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64,
> xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64, and xen-utils-4.0 will do. It's Ubuntu that
> doesn't have precompiled dom0 support.

Isn't upstream up to 4.1.2 now?



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 23:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Tom H wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 18:53:20, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>>> Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel
>>>> 2.6 in Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.
>>> You can have 3.2 on squeeze from squeeze-backports. Not sure if it has
>>> the Xen bits though.
>> You don't *need* backports. linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64,
>> xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64, and xen-utils-4.0 will do. It's Ubuntu that
>> doesn't have precompiled dom0 support.
>
> Isn't upstream up to 4.1.2 now?
>
>
>
I am using Xen 4.2-unstable already!!!

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Tom H]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Miles Fidelman
<***@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> Tom H wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU
>> <***@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 18:53:20, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>>> Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel
>>>> 2.6 in Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.
>>>
>>> You can have 3.2 on squeeze from squeeze-backports. Not sure if it has
>>> the Xen bits though.
>>
>> You don't *need* backports. linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64,
>> xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64, and xen-utils-4.0 will do. It's Ubuntu that
>> doesn't have precompiled dom0 support.
>
> Isn't upstream up to 4.1.2 now?

Wheezy and Sid too.

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 22:19, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 18:53:20, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>> Only Linux 3.0 has Xen dom0 and domU support. Unless Linux kernel
>>> 2.6 in Debian 6.0 squeeze has special Xen dom0 patches.
>> You can have 3.2 on squeeze from squeeze-backports. Not sure if it has
>> the Xen bits though.
> You don't *need* backports. linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64,
> xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64, and xen-utils-4.0 will do. It's Ubuntu that
> doesn't have precompiled dom0 support.
>
>

Noted.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Jon Dowland]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x.
> As we all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel
> 2.6.

The 2.6 → 3.0 leap was not that large.

> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> required).

So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's virtualisation
technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt, virt-manager…

Besides, the 2.6 series kernels in 6.0 carry the Xen patches, e.g.
<http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-686>

> Debian developers, please speed up! I love Ubuntu and Debian
> Linux!!! I am already using Debian wheezy with my Samsung Intel Atom
> N455 1.6 GHz netbook, with Shorewall Firewall configuration.

Perhaps you could help? <http://www.debian.org/intro/help>


--
Jon Dowland


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@debian

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 16:51, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x.
>> As we all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel
>> 2.6.
> The 2.6 → 3.0 leap was not that large.
>
>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
>> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
>> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
>> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
>> required).
> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's virtualisation
> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt, virt-manager…
>
> Besides, the 2.6 series kernels in 6.0 carry the Xen patches, e.g.
> <http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-686>
>
>> Debian developers, please speed up! I love Ubuntu and Debian
>> Linux!!! I am already using Debian wheezy with my Samsung Intel Atom
>> N455 1.6 GHz netbook, with Shorewall Firewall configuration.
> Perhaps you could help?<http://www.debian.org/intro/help>
>
>
Dear Jon,

libvirt and virt-manager are not virtualization solutions/hypervisors.
They are virtualization management tools.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[Jon Dowland]

On 27/03/12 11:55, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> libvirt and virt-manager are not virtualization solutions/hypervisors.
> They are virtualization management tools.

I am of course absolutely aware of that. I could have simply said that
Debian 6.0 supports KVM, but offered the management tools as further
evidence that 6.0 was a good platform for a virtualisation solution, in
the hope of being helpful.

Here's further (perhaps futile) effort to try and be helpful: 6.0 (and
earlier) also have Ganeti: <http://packages.debian.org/ganeti>

IMHO the management tools are MUCH more important than the underlying
technology. If I could only choose either the base VM tech or the
management tool, I'd always opt to have control over the latter.


--
Jon Dowland

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 16:34, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On 27/03/12 11:55, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> libvirt and virt-manager are not virtualization solutions/hypervisors.
>> They are virtualization management tools.
>
> I am of course absolutely aware of that. I could have simply said that
> Debian 6.0 supports KVM, but offered the management tools as further
> evidence that 6.0 was a good platform for a virtualisation solution, in
> the hope of being helpful.
>
> Here's further (perhaps futile) effort to try and be helpful: 6.0 (and
> earlier) also have Ganeti: <http://packages.debian.org/ganeti>
>
> IMHO the management tools are MUCH more important than the underlying
> technology. If I could only choose either the base VM tech or the
> management tool, I'd always opt to have control over the latter.
>
>
Dear Jon Dowland,

Debian 6.0 Squeeze also supports Xen virtualization but you have to
apt-get install linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64.

How user friendly and GUI pretty is Ganeti when compared to Virtual
Machine Manager/libvirt? I know VMM has a very simple GUI interface.

Thank you very much.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Jon Dowland]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:22:09PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> Debian 6.0 Squeeze also supports Xen virtualization but you have to
> apt-get install linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64.

Thank you yes, I mentioned that myself two messages earlier in this thread:

> Besides, the 2.6 series kernels in 6.0 carry the Xen patches, e.g.
> <http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-686>

> How user friendly and GUI pretty is Ganeti when compared to Virtual
> Machine Manager/libvirt? I know VMM has a very simple GUI interface.

They operate at different levels of abstraction so they are quite hard to
compare in this regard. I'd recommend trying it.

[Aaron Toponce]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> > When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> > release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> > have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> > Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> > required).
>
> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's virtualisation
> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt, virt-manager


How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology? It's fully supported by
Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the basis of their xVM
solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of theirs as well (both
of whom were purchased by Oracle).

Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM. After being a RHEL and
Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with both the commercial
RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and virt-manager(1), I think I agree. I've
had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with KVM that I haven't seen
with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I just wish it had a bit
more stability.

Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support, and has had a longer
time to mature. It was just recently accepted into the mainline Linux
kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen also supports full
virtualization and paravirtualization.

IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very current,
stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's virtualization
technology".

--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 21:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
>>> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
>>> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
>>> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
>>> required).
>> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's virtualisation
>> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt, virt-manager…
> How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology? It's fully supported by
> Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the basis of their xVM
> solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of theirs as well (both
> of whom were purchased by Oracle).
>
> Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM. After being a RHEL and
> Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with both the commercial
> RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and virt-manager(1), I think I agree. I've
> had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with KVM that I haven't seen
> with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I just wish it had a bit
> more stability.
>
> Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support, and has had a longer
> time to mature. It was just recently accepted into the mainline Linux
> kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen also supports full
> virtualization and paravirtualization.
>
> IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very current,
> stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's virtualization
> technology".
>
> --
> . o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
> . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
> o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o

Dear Aaron,

I agree with you.

Anyway, I have never used Linux KVM before. I have always supported Xen,
since 3 years ago.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[Kostas Psilopoulos]

Just proposing my opinion in this topic.

I'm in favor of XEN especially in use with debian. Most reasons have already been discused
but i'd like to add that xen is type 1 hypervisor. The very nature of Xen is completely different than
KVM. It supports the widest variety of operating systems (not that KVM does not support them,
but just comparing their performance...). One thing that might be slight better in favor of
KVM is sometimes when the guest OS uses the same kernel with the host. this happens because the host
does not generate everything from scratch (or sth like that). Anyway the difference in performance i think is
minor. Everyone should experiment with both virtualization types because both Xen and KVM are at least well supported.
The specific needs of the usecase should lead you to the choice to be made!

Best regards!


> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:31 +0800
> From: ***@gmail.com
> To: ***@gmail.com; debian-***@lists.debian.org; ***@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Xen vs KVM
>
> On 27/03/2012 21:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> >>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> >>> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> >>> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> >>> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> >>> required).
> >> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's virtualisation
> >> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt, virt-manager…
> > How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology? It's fully supported by
> > Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the basis of their xVM
> > solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of theirs as well (both
> > of whom were purchased by Oracle).
> >
> > Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM. After being a RHEL and
> > Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with both the commercial
> > RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and virt-manager(1), I think I agree. I've
> > had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with KVM that I haven't seen
> > with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I just wish it had a bit
> > more stability.
> >
> > Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support, and has had a longer
> > time to mature. It was just recently accepted into the mainline Linux
> > kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen also supports full
> > virtualization and paravirtualization.
> >
> > IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very current,
> > stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's virtualization
> > technology".
> >
> > --
> > . o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
> > . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
> > o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
>
> Dear Aaron,
>
> I agree with you.
>
> Anyway, I have never used Linux KVM before. I have always supported Xen,
> since 3 years ago.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> Singapore
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com
>

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

I am also in favor of Xen.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


On 28/03/2012 02:51, Kostas Psilopoulos wrote:
> Just proposing my opinion in this topic.
>
> I'm in favor of XEN especially in use with debian. Most reasons have
> already been discused
> but i'd like to add that xen is type 1 hypervisor. The very nature of
> Xen is completely different than
> KVM. It supports the widest variety of operating systems (not that KVM
> does not support them,
> but just comparing their performance...). One thing that might be
> slight better in favor of
> KVM is sometimes when the guest OS uses the same kernel with the host.
> this happens because the host
> does not generate everything from scratch (or sth like that). Anyway
> the difference in performance i think is
> minor. Everyone should experiment with both virtualization types
> because both Xen and KVM are at least well supported.
> The specific needs of the usecase should lead you to the choice to be
> made!
>
> Best regards!
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:31 +0800
> > From: ***@gmail.com
> > To: ***@gmail.com; debian-***@lists.debian.org;
> ***@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: Xen vs KVM
> >
> > On 27/03/2012 21:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang
> Enming) wrote:
> > >>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> > >>> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> > >>> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> > >>> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> > >>> required).
> > >> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's
> virtualisation
> > >> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt,
> virt-manager…
> > > How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology? It's fully
> supported by
> > > Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the basis of their xVM
> > > solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of theirs as
> well (both
> > > of whom were purchased by Oracle).
> > >
> > > Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM. After being a RHEL and
> > > Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with both the
> commercial
> > > RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and virt-manager(1), I think I
> agree. I've
> > > had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with KVM that I
> haven't seen
> > > with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I just wish it
> had a bit
> > > more stability.
> > >
> > > Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support, and has had a
> longer
> > > time to mature. It was just recently accepted into the mainline Linux
> > > kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen also supports
> full
> > > virtualization and paravirtualization.
> > >
> > > IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very
> current,
> > > stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's virtualization
> > > technology".
> > >
> > > --
> > > . o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
> > > . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
> > > o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
> >
> > Dear Aaron,
> >
> > I agree with you.
> >
> > Anyway, I have never used Linux KVM before. I have always supported
> Xen,
> > since 3 years ago.
> >
> > --
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> > Singapore
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> ***@lists.debian.org
> > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com
> >

[Jon Dowland]

On 28/03/12 01:32, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> I am also in favor of Xen.

You have just said, not two messages ago, that you've never even tried
KVM. I always prefer to base my opinions on evidence, personally.

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 16:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On 28/03/12 01:32, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> I am also in favor of Xen.
>
> You have just said, not two messages ago, that you've never even tried
> KVM. I always prefer to base my opinions on evidence, personally.
>
>

Yes, I have never tried Linux KVM. But I have tried VirtualBox and VMware.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[wlan]

On my job we using KVM+Proxmox, This is pretty.

2012/3/30 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) <***@gmail.com>

> On 28/03/2012 16:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/12 01:32, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>
>>> I am also in favor of Xen.
>>>
>>
>> You have just said, not two messages ago, that you've never even tried
>> KVM. I always prefer to base my opinions on evidence, personally.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, I have never tried Linux KVM. But I have tried VirtualBox and VMware.
>
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> Singapore
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.**debian.org<debian-user-***@lists.debian.org>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> ***@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/*****@gmail.com<http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com>
>
>

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 30/03/2012 13:34, wlan wrote:
> On my job we using KVM+Proxmox, This is pretty.
>
> 2012/3/30 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) <***@gmail.com
> <mailto:***@gmail.com>>
>
> On 28/03/2012 16:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
>
> On 28/03/12 01:32, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>
> I am also in favor of Xen.
>
>
> You have just said, not two messages ago, that you've never
> even tried KVM. I always prefer to base my opinions on
> evidence, personally.
>
>
>
> Yes, I have never tried Linux KVM. But I have tried VirtualBox and
> VMware.
>
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> Singapore
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
> <mailto:debian-user-***@lists.debian.org> with a subject of
> "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
> <mailto:***@lists.debian.org>
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com
>
>

May I know what is Proxmox?

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 30 mar 12, 17:24:55, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:

[snipped 38 lines]

> May I know what is Proxmox?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=proxmox

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

[Jon Dowland]

On 27/03/12 14:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very
> current, stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's
> virtualization technology".

For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
the bottom of the pile.

Paravirtualisation had a brief moment of popularity before VT hardware
became so prevelant to make it unnecessary any more. PV was basically
the USP of Xen back in the day.

I sympethize that you have faced problems with KVM that you hadn't seen
with Xen. I've had the opposite experience myself.

In general I think the management tools are much more important than the
base VM tech.


--
Jon Dowland

[Aaron Toponce]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
> the bottom of the pile.

Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.

--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o

[Hilco Wijbenga]

On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
>> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
>> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
>> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
>> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
>> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
>> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
>> the bottom of the pile.
>
> Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
> hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
> virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
> uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.

You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of
[1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it
was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm
not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security.

[1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html

[francis picabia]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Hilco Wijbenga
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>>> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
>>> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
>>> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
>>> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
>>> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
>>> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
>>> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
>>> the bottom of the pile.
>>
>> Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
>> hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
>> virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
>> uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.
>
> You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of
> [1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it
> was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm
> not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security.
>
> [1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html
>

Xen requires a patched kernel. It is unstable. It crashed on
me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
The system which experienced this returned to a standard
Debian kernel and never had a problem again.

KVM is native part of kernel. It is stable. I've been running on several
systems for over a year and no crash.

Both share the same qemu devices and drivers land.

You can read what IBM has to say about key benefits and security
features of kvm...

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LXW03004-USEN-00.pdf

A big clue is Redhat is dropping xen virtualization going forward.

Kvm will get more development support than xen.

I see no reason to even consider xen.

[Tom H]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, francis picabia <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Xen requires a patched kernel.  It is unstable.  It crashed on
> me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
> The system which experienced this returned to a standard
> Debian kernel and never had a problem again.
>
> KVM is native part of kernel.  It is stable.  I've been running on several
> systems for over a year and no crash.
>
> Both share the same qemu devices and drivers land.
>
> You can read what IBM has to say about key benefits and security
> features of kvm...
>
> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LXW03004-USEN-00.pdf
>
> A big clue is Redhat is dropping xen virtualization going forward.
>
> Kvm will get more development support than xen.
>
> I see no reason to even consider xen.

It's something of a stretch to go from "it's unstable for me" to "it's
unstable for all"... Since RHEL6 was published in November 2010, the
level of kvm use might have reached or surpassed the level of xen use
by now but xen's still in heavy use by many...

Unless there's a fedora-devel thread where this was discussed, there's
probably no way to know why RHEL6 switched to kvm except to assume
that kvm's in-kernel and xen isn't. This has changed in the latest
kernels so xen support might very well be re-added, and possibly
favored, in RHEL7.

[Hilco Wijbenga]

On 29 March 2012 22:59, Tom H <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, francis picabia <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Xen requires a patched kernel.  It is unstable.  It crashed on
>> me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
>> The system which experienced this returned to a standard
>> Debian kernel and never had a problem again.
>>
>> KVM is native part of kernel.  It is stable.  I've been running on several
>> systems for over a year and no crash.
>>
>> Both share the same qemu devices and drivers land.
>>
>> You can read what IBM has to say about key benefits and security
>> features of kvm...
>>
>> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LXW03004-USEN-00.pdf
>>
>> A big clue is Redhat is dropping xen virtualization going forward.
>>
>> Kvm will get more development support than xen.
>>
>> I see no reason to even consider xen.
>
> It's something of a stretch to go from "it's unstable for me" to "it's
> unstable for all"... Since RHEL6 was published in November 2010, the
> level of kvm use might have reached or surpassed the level of xen use
> by now but xen's still in heavy use by many...
>
> Unless there's a fedora-devel thread where this was discussed, there's
> probably no way to know why RHEL6 switched to kvm except to assume
> that kvm's in-kernel and xen isn't. This has changed in the latest
> kernels so xen support might very well be re-added, and possibly
> favored, in RHEL7.

RH employs some of the KVM devs. RH apparently has not contributed to
Xen for several years and has now decided to only support a single
code base: KVM. It does not appear to have anything to do with Xen or
its quality/performance/features.

[Tom H]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Hilco Wijbenga
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 22:59, Tom H <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, francis picabia <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Xen requires a patched kernel.  It is unstable.  It crashed on
>>> me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
>>> The system which experienced this returned to a standard
>>> Debian kernel and never had a problem again.
>>>
>>> KVM is native part of kernel.  It is stable.  I've been running on several
>>> systems for over a year and no crash.
>>>
>>> Both share the same qemu devices and drivers land.
>>>
>>> You can read what IBM has to say about key benefits and security
>>> features of kvm...
>>>
>>> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LXW03004-USEN-00.pdf
>>>
>>> A big clue is Redhat is dropping xen virtualization going forward.
>>>
>>> Kvm will get more development support than xen.
>>>
>>> I see no reason to even consider xen.
>>
>> It's something of a stretch to go from "it's unstable for me" to "it's
>> unstable for all"... Since RHEL6 was published in November 2010, the
>> level of kvm use might have reached or surpassed the level of xen use
>> by now but xen's still in heavy use by many...
>>
>> Unless there's a fedora-devel thread where this was discussed, there's
>> probably no way to know why RHEL6 switched to kvm except to assume
>> that kvm's in-kernel and xen isn't. This has changed in the latest
>> kernels so xen support might very well be re-added, and possibly
>> favored, in RHEL7.
>
> RH employs some of the KVM devs. RH apparently has not contributed to
> Xen for several years and has now decided to only support a single
> code base: KVM. It does not appear to have anything to do with Xen or
> its quality/performance/features.

Thanks for the info.

We'll see if they stick to that decision. Fedora added Xen QA tests
this release cycle (I don't know whether these tests include dom0).

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:13:40 -0700, Hilco wrote in message
<CAE1pOi2xCrw=GR+***@mail.gmail.com>:

> RH employs some of the KVM devs. RH apparently has not contributed to
> Xen for several years and has now decided to only support a single
> code base: KVM. It does not appear to have anything to do with Xen or
> its quality/performance/features.

..doing this, they help prevent bit rot in xen et al by providing
a viable competitor to benchmark against and preferably beat. ;o)

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 30/03/2012 13:59, Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, francis picabia<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Xen requires a patched kernel. It is unstable. It crashed on
>> me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
>> The system which experienced this returned to a standard
>> Debian kernel and never had a problem again.
>>
>> KVM is native part of kernel. It is stable. I've been running on several
>> systems for over a year and no crash.
>>
>> Both share the same qemu devices and drivers land.
>>
>> You can read what IBM has to say about key benefits and security
>> features of kvm...
>>
>> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LXW03004-USEN-00.pdf
>>
>> A big clue is Redhat is dropping xen virtualization going forward.
>>
>> Kvm will get more development support than xen.
>>
>> I see no reason to even consider xen.
> It's something of a stretch to go from "it's unstable for me" to "it's
> unstable for all"... Since RHEL6 was published in November 2010, the
> level of kvm use might have reached or surpassed the level of xen use
> by now but xen's still in heavy use by many...
>
> Unless there's a fedora-devel thread where this was discussed, there's
> probably no way to know why RHEL6 switched to kvm except to assume
> that kvm's in-kernel and xen isn't. This has changed in the latest
> kernels so xen support might very well be re-added, and possibly
> favored, in RHEL7.
>
>
Do you know when RHEL 7 might be released?

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Jon Dowland]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:27:14PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> Do you know when RHEL 7 might be released?

Take a look at when RHEL 6 came out (very recently) and how long the gap
between RHEL releases is on average (large) and extrapolate (not for years).

[Tom H]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Jon Dowland <***@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:27:14PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>
>> Do you know when RHEL 7 might be released?
>
> Take a look at when RHEL 6 came out (very recently) and how long the gap
> between RHEL releases is on average (large) and extrapolate (not for years).

RHEL5 was published more or less at the same time as Fedora 7 and was
based on F6.

RHEL6 was published more or less at the same time as F14 and was based on F13.

Feel free to extrapolate...

[Patrick Bartek]

> Do you know when RHEL 7 might be released?

If you had asked that a couple of months ago, I would have said late 2013 since, in the past, a new release came just before support ended on the version two versions prior to it.  In this case, RHEL 5, whose support ends in early 2014.  But Red Hat has just extended support on 5 and 6, and I assume, all future releases, from 7 to 10 years.  So all bets are off.

Best guess now by the "experts" is for 7 to be released sometime between 2014 and 2016.  My guess is earlier rather than later depending on demand and new technology.

B

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 30/03/2012 00:32, francis picabia wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Hilco Wijbenga
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>>>> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
>>>> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
>>>> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
>>>> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
>>>> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
>>>> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
>>>> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
>>>> the bottom of the pile.
>>> Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
>>> hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
>>> virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
>>> uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.
>> You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of
>> [1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it
>> was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm
>> not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security.
>>
>> [1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html
>>
> Xen requires a patched kernel. It is unstable. It crashed on
> me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
> The system which experienced this returned to a standard
> Debian kernel and never had a problem again.
>
> KVM is native part of kernel. It is stable. I've been running on several
> systems for over a year and no crash.
>
> Both share the same qemu devices and drivers land.
>
> You can read what IBM has to say about key benefits and security
> features of kvm...
>
> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LXW03004-USEN-00.pdf
>
> A big clue is Redhat is dropping xen virtualization going forward.
>
> Kvm will get more development support than xen.
>
> I see no reason to even consider xen.
>
>
My Xen kernels (3.x) did not crash on me.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2012 schrieb francis picabia:
> Xen requires a patched kernel. It is unstable. It crashed on
> me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
> The system which experienced this returned to a standard
> Debian kernel and never had a problem again.

Not any longer as far as I know. AFAIR at least with 3.2 there is
everything necessary upstream.

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 29/03/2012 00:44, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>>> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
>>> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
>>> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
>>> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
>>> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
>>> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
>>> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
>>> the bottom of the pile.
>> Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
>> hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
>> virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
>> uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.
> You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of
> [1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it
> was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm
> not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security.
>
> [1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html
>
>

So Xen has better security than Linux KVM?

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 16:35, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On 27/03/12 14:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>> IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very
>> current, stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's
>> virtualization technology".
>
> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
> the bottom of the pile.
>
> Paravirtualisation had a brief moment of popularity before VT hardware
> became so prevelant to make it unnecessary any more. PV was basically
> the USP of Xen back in the day.
>
> I sympethize that you have faced problems with KVM that you hadn't seen
> with Xen. I've had the opposite experience myself.
>
> In general I think the management tools are much more important than the
> base VM tech.
>
>
Dear Jon Dowland,

I beg to differ. Xen virtualization offers superior performance. Oracle
VirtualBox and Virtual Iron and also Microsoft's Hyper-V is based on Xen
code I think.

Thank you very much.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Jon Dowland]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:27:34PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> I beg to differ. Xen virtualization offers superior performance.

I say one thing, you say another. Neither of us are providing any evidence
to the discussion (thus far) apart from my anecdotal evidence, where I get
more than 100 KVM-powered VMs onto one of my hosts, and I couldn't get more
than ~20 Xen-powered VMs onto a similarly-specced host, a year or so prior.
The limitation was tool-based, I think, that is bugs in Xen's management
tools. This isn't really sufficient to further the discussion.

> Oracle VirtualBox and Virtual Iron and also Microsoft's Hyper-V is
> based on Xen code I think.

This has no bearing on the relative performance merits of Xen vs. KVM.

(FWIW, I think you're wrong re VirtualBox, but Oracle do develop a branded
product based on Xen called Oracle VM, formerly Sun xVM. I'm fairly sure
that Hyper-V was developed independently from Xen, but it certainly supports
some kind-of interoperation with Xen interfaces for guests.)


--
Jon Dowland

[Mika Suomalainen]

Hi,

I just got interested about virtualization and noticed that this
thread is still going on.

As far as I can see, most people are currently recommending Xen.

Are there any GUIs or WebUIs for Xen or KVM and how do they work?

- --
Mika Suomalainen
> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
> 4DB53CFE82A46728 Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65
> 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!

[Jon Dowland]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 02:36:32PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> I just got interested about virtualization and noticed that this
> thread is still going on.
>
> As far as I can see, most people are currently recommending Xen.

The sample size of thread participants is too small to extrapolate
anything meaningful here :-)

> Are there any GUIs or WebUIs for Xen or KVM and how do they work?

Proxmox VE, Ganeti are just two that have been mentioned already in
this thread.

[Mika Suomalainen]

Proxmox VE seems to be it's own distribution and I don't understand
which should be run first with Ganeti :).

On 30.03.2012 15:42, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 02:36:32PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
>> I just got interested about virtualization and noticed that this
>> thread is still going on.
>>
>> As far as I can see, most people are currently recommending Xen.
>
> The sample size of thread participants is too small to extrapolate
> anything meaningful here :-)
>
>> Are there any GUIs or WebUIs for Xen or KVM and how do they
>> work?
>
> Proxmox VE, Ganeti are just two that have been mentioned already
> in this thread.
>
>

- --
Mika Suomalainen
> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
> 4DB53CFE82A46728 Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65
> 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 30/03/12 12:54, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:27:34PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> I beg to differ. Xen virtualization offers superior performance.
>
> I say one thing, you say another. Neither of us are providing any evidence
> to the discussion (thus far) apart from my anecdotal evidence, where I get
> more than 100 KVM-powered VMs onto one of my hosts, and I couldn't get more
> than ~20 Xen-powered VMs onto a similarly-specced host, a year or so prior.
> The limitation was tool-based, I think, that is bugs in Xen's management
> tools. This isn't really sufficient to further the discussion.
>
>> Oracle VirtualBox and Virtual Iron and also Microsoft's Hyper-V is
>> based on Xen code I think.
>
> This has no bearing on the relative performance merits of Xen vs. KVM.
>
> (FWIW, I think you're wrong re VirtualBox, but Oracle do develop a branded
> product based on Xen called Oracle VM, formerly Sun xVM. I'm fairly sure
> that Hyper-V was developed independently from Xen, but it certainly supports
> some kind-of interoperation with Xen interfaces for guests.)
>
>
For heaven's sake, it is perfectly evident that this guy (Zhang Enming)
is setting up as a troll. Admittedly, he's doing it quite well, but
let's stop responding to his ranting, and he'll get bored.

Just IMHO!

--
Tony van der Hoff | mailto:***@vanderhoff.org
Ariège, France |


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@vanderhoff.org

[Lisi]

On Friday 30 March 2012 18:09:44 Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> For heaven's sake, it is perfectly evident that this guy (Zhang Enming)
> is setting up as a troll. Admittedly, he's doing it quite well, but
> let's stop responding to his ranting, and he'll get bored.

I came to that same conclusion, but it is I who have got bored. He seems to
have the hide of a rhinocerus and the stamina of a camel!

Lisi

[Joe]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:04:57 +0800
"Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As
> we all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>
> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already have
> the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because
> I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
>
> Debian developers, please speed up! I love Ubuntu and Debian Linux!!!
> I am already using Debian wheezy with my Samsung Intel Atom N455 1.6
> GHz netbook, with Shorewall Firewall configuration.
>

So why do you care when wheezy is officially declared released? Nothing
dramatic will happen to it on that day.

You may not be aware that the released version of Debian is called
Stable. The reason for that is that the software does not change for
any reason other than to fix security bugs (well, nearly).

So once wheezy is frozen, that's it. No new software. And it will be
released when, in the opinion of the developers, it is ready for
production use in arbitrarily large organisations and public-facing
Internet servers. Debian isn't a toy, and it isn't Windows. It won't be
released while any serious bugs are known to remain unfixed.

If you would like to help speed up release, then you can help get rid
of the last thousand or so bugs, as documented here:

http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/

After the freeze, that green line has to go down fairly close to zero.
It will rise before it falls, as less well-tested software will be
pushed from Unstable into wheezy just ahead of the freeze.

Now, if it's 'play' you want, the latest and buggiest software, then
Debian Stable is not for you. You want Unstable, permanently known as
sid. It breaks badly occasionally, and at any time a few minor parts are
always broken, but that's the price of using the newest software. You
can also help here with the next release, by reporting the bits that
break when you try to use them, speeding up their transition into the
current Testing distribution.

--
Joe

[steef]

hi,
what is the point? the so-called old 2.6. kernel does not differ much from the
new 3.0 ones. so: be patient. wheezy-completed comes when ready.

reg.,

steef




Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) schreef:
> Hi,
>
> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As we all
> know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>
> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x release seems
> very slow when all the other Linux distros already have the latest Linux
> Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play around with
> Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
>
> Debian developers, please speed up! I love Ubuntu and Debian Linux!!! I am
> already using Debian wheezy with my Samsung Intel Atom N455 1.6 GHz netbook,
> with Shorewall Firewall configuration.
>
> Thank you very much.
>

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 19:44, steef wrote:
>
> hi,
> what is the point? the so-called old 2.6. kernel does not differ much
> from the new 3.0 ones. so: be patient. wheezy-completed comes when ready.
>
> reg.,
>
> steef
>
>
>
>
> Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) schreef:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As
>> we all
>> know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>>
>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
>> release seems
>> very slow when all the other Linux distros already have the latest Linux
>> Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play
>> around with
>> Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
>>
>> Debian developers, please speed up! I love Ubuntu and Debian Linux!!!
>> I am
>> already using Debian wheezy with my Samsung Intel Atom N455 1.6 GHz
>> netbook,
>> with Shorewall Firewall configuration.
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>
>
Dear steef,

There is a difference. Old Linux kernel 2.6 does not support Xen
virtualization dom0 unless specially patched. Linux 3.0 comes with both
Xen dom0 and domU support out-of-the-box.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:04:57 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:

> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As we
> all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.

Kernel 3.x is just a naming marketing strategy, indeed it's 2.6.40.
Anyway, there's a kernel 3.2 available in the backports.

> When will Debian 7.0 be released?

AFAIK, it will be frozen in ~June, released... nobody knows, that's a
feature.

> Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x release seems very slow when all the other
> Linux distros already have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want
> Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization
> (dom0 required).

You can go to "www.kernel.org", download the greatest and latest 3.3
(still in devel branch) and compile by yourself using your current kernel
".config" file.

> Debian developers, please speed up!

Please don't, keep things stable and take your time :-)

> I love Ubuntu and Debian Linux!!!

(...)

>From your last posts to the list, nobody would have said it...

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jksi0e$di0$***@dough.gmane.org

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 27/03/2012 22:14, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:04:57 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>
>> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As we
>> all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
> Kernel 3.x is just a naming marketing strategy, indeed it's 2.6.40.
> Anyway, there's a kernel 3.2 available in the backports.

I already have Linux kernel 3.3.0.

>
>> When will Debian 7.0 be released?
> AFAIK, it will be frozen in ~June, released... nobody knows, that's a
> feature.

Frozen in June 2012?

>> Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x release seems very slow when all the other
>> Linux distros already have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want
>> Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization
>> (dom0 required).
> You can go to "www.kernel.org", download the greatest and latest 3.3
> (still in devel branch) and compile by yourself using your current kernel
> ".config" file.

I always go to kernel.org to get my latest Linux kernels. I have already
compiled and installed 3.2.11, 3.2.12, 3.2.13, 3.3.0-rc7, and 3.3.0 myself.
>
>> Debian developers, please speed up!
> Please don't, keep things stable and take your time :-)

I want it fast!


>
>> I love Ubuntu and Debian Linux!!!
> (...)
>
> > From your last posts to the list, nobody would have said it...
>
> Greetings,
>


--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[Camaleón]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:00:18 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:

> On 27/03/2012 22:14, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:04:57 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>
>>> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As
>>> we all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>> Kernel 3.x is just a naming marketing strategy, indeed it's 2.6.40.
>> Anyway, there's a kernel 3.2 available in the backports.
>
> I already have Linux kernel 3.3.0.

So then, what? :-)

Anyway, IIRC it was mentioned by Debian kernel devels that wheezy will be
released with kernel 3.2.x.

>>> When will Debian 7.0 be released?
>> AFAIK, it will be frozen in ~June, released... nobody knows, that's a
>> feature.
>
> Frozen in June 2012?

Yes, that's how it is (at least to my knowledge).

>>> Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x release seems very slow when all the
>>> other Linux distros already have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I
>>> want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play around with Xen
>>> virtualization (dom0 required).
>> You can go to "www.kernel.org", download the greatest and latest 3.3
>> (still in devel branch) and compile by yourself using your current
>> kernel ".config" file.
>
> I always go to kernel.org to get my latest Linux kernels. I have already
> compiled and installed 3.2.11, 3.2.12, 3.2.13, 3.3.0-rc7, and 3.3.0
> myself.

So then, what? :-)

>>> Debian developers, please speed up!
>> Please don't, keep things stable and take your time :-)
>
> I want it fast!

"Fast" does not match with stability and well-tested software, two magic
words that usually go along with Debian stable releases. If you want
"fast" things you can keep a perpetual testing or use sid.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jkv7i7$hqr$***@dough.gmane.org

[Mika Suomalainen]

Hi,

If someone wants Linux Kernel 3.X to quickly, it seems that it can be
found in Debian Backports http://backports-master.debian.org/ .

If someone wants to get the new kernel quickly, they probably want to
get everything else quickly too.

1. Add these two lines to /etc/apt/sources.list :
deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
deb-src http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports
main

2. Add these lines to /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports (or
/etc/apt/preferences) :

Package: *
Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
Pin-Priority: 500

WARNING TO STEP TWO: This will make all packages from backports have
same priority as packages from main repositories, so ALL packages will
be installed from backports if they are newer than the ones at main
repositories. If you are using Squeeze for stability, you might not
want this.

PS. I am using Sid ;)

- --
Mika Suomalainen
> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
> 4DB53CFE82A46728 Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65
> 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 28 mar 12, 18:29:19, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
>
> 2. Add these lines to /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports (or
> /etc/apt/preferences) :
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
> Pin-Priority: 500
>
> WARNING TO STEP TWO: This will make all packages from backports have
> same priority as packages from main repositories, so ALL packages will
> be installed from backports if they are newer than the ones at main
> repositories. If you are using Squeeze for stability, you might not
> want this.

I'm quite convinced it's safer to run testing instead. Backports is not
(and never was) intended to be used like this. For example some packages
in backports may not work well together (or at all) even if they do so
in testing.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 29/03/2012 00:38, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 28 mar 12, 18:29:19, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
>> 2. Add these lines to /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports (or
>> /etc/apt/preferences) :
>>
>> Package: *
>> Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
>> Pin-Priority: 500
>>
>> WARNING TO STEP TWO: This will make all packages from backports have
>> same priority as packages from main repositories, so ALL packages will
>> be installed from backports if they are newer than the ones at main
>> repositories. If you are using Squeeze for stability, you might not
>> want this.
> I'm quite convinced it's safer to run testing instead. Backports is not
> (and never was) intended to be used like this. For example some packages
> in backports may not work well together (or at all) even if they do so
> in testing.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei

Noted.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 23:29, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> If someone wants Linux Kernel 3.X to quickly, it seems that it can be
> found in Debian Backports http://backports-master.debian.org/ .
>
> If someone wants to get the new kernel quickly, they probably want to
> get everything else quickly too.
>
> 1. Add these two lines to /etc/apt/sources.list :
> deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
> deb-src http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports
> main
>
> 2. Add these lines to /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports (or
> /etc/apt/preferences) :
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
> Pin-Priority: 500
>
> WARNING TO STEP TWO: This will make all packages from backports have
> same priority as packages from main repositories, so ALL packages will
> be installed from backports if they are newer than the ones at main
> repositories. If you are using Squeeze for stability, you might not
> want this.
>
> PS. I am using Sid ;)
>
> - --
> Mika Suomalainen
>> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
>> 4DB53CFE82A46728 Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65
>> 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPcy47AAoJEE21PP6CpGcopMsP/1WIBqCzO5SNB3rVftRI8oav
> g0dKoa66422Jr3qJ61km4qrK6DxaPVAAKx3m2AqZYsL25ALnngwCYlO6WpuWuD38
> LUyPbcZlvoYeNekK9eiNBAnryjh91vIetmoB1BewAteMjh+T8hsQ5p7T/jANe859
> z5ba5HTJW6uaNxXHnkEB7angvOUXY3/7o6YH0KJfTCXESnKg0MZb3Q6MW7TQqVN6
> N0h2f/LwjFqFoDMnvjy3o5ifOdapOyh+Tk1wIj9bpvNu/b26nARhf4iZ1PZvmxeU
> V9IwOTQDaLp8tLWXs8m2ClSRySHhKXWf70xjQD6+czl9S7n+XzAO90l7Vsv/dYRI
> f0DOTIE5iEMbZOW88dqn2GNHhHq4h2reVGjL4B7lBFj9vdEImrqJfHME9ug1VnCQ
> 493/vn1MW2yDuzNVJwBfid6QLoByoG4w7nksYluGGIkjI7o1/7KKDPeD8kpTYXtA
> fvuOx1oymbzQ7kg1SBIvME5U/J5x2WwqdN4Amjvmw7IwUUSX4pZcyObPfHXo448h
> 69q32Cf2oSw+ranDHMRIVO84sb1pJtJj1nuG8Y9DeXmjrC5hq9w26SWprTwDpIhg
> 2wV7I8g8q+LXVuFMngyf10f15dxlhYO9biLB9tshq/HxXmF34Tx2hyIsoujoTDdk
> ejK6a/DaLWkEN1DD8fg/
> =4cN0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Thank you for your information.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 06:29:19PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> 2. Add these lines to /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports (or
> /etc/apt/preferences) :
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
> Pin-Priority: 500
>
> WARNING TO STEP TWO: This will make all packages from backports have
> same priority as packages from main repositories, so ALL packages will
> be installed from backports if they are newer than the ones at main
> repositories. If you are using Squeeze for stability, you might not
> want this.

Ummm, well, obviously if you have backports in your sources list you are
no longer running stable.

--
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

[Lisi]

On Friday 06 April 2012 17:02:05 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 06:29:19PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> > 2. Add these lines to /etc/apt/preferences.d/backports (or
> > /etc/apt/preferences) :
> >
> > Package: *
> > Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
> > Pin-Priority: 500
> >
> > WARNING TO STEP TWO: This will make all packages from backports have
> > same priority as packages from main repositories, so ALL packages will
> > be installed from backports if they are newer than the ones at main
> > repositories. If you are using Squeeze for stability, you might not
> > want this.
>
> Ummm, well, obviously if you have backports in your sources list you are
> no longer running stable.

It depends on the pinning. I have it in my sources.list, but I have to ask
for it expressly for a particular package. I don't feel that one or two
backported packages immediately means that the system is not stable/Stable.
What about the multimedia repository? Opera? etc. Obviously anything that
comes out of any repository other than main is not true-blue-pucka Stable.
But in the real world one sometimes has to compromise, and I would still feel
able to claim that my Stable box is just that, Stable.

Lisi

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:21:01PM +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2012 17:02:05 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Ummm, well, obviously if you have backports in your sources list you are
> > no longer running stable.
>
> It depends on the pinning. I have it in my sources.list, but I have to ask
> for it expressly for a particular package. I don't feel that one or two
> backported packages immediately means that the system is not stable/Stable.
> What about the multimedia repository? Opera? etc. Obviously anything that
> comes out of any repository other than main is not true-blue-pucka Stable.
> But in the real world one sometimes has to compromise, and I would still feel
> able to claim that my Stable box is just that, Stable.

You seem to be confusing the meaning of stable in the distribution
sense. It doesn't mean "free of bugs" or "unlikely to crash", it means
unchanging/not moving. So by having backports you are changing that.

Likewise, unstable doesn't mean "buggy" or "likely to crash", it means
"constantly changing".

Perhaps better names would have been unpredictable/testing/predictable?

--
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

[Bob Proulx]

Chris Bannister wrote:
> Perhaps better names would have been unpredictable/testing/predictable?

Volatile, Staging, Repeatable?

Bob

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 22:34, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:00:18 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>
>> On 27/03/2012 22:14, Camaleón wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:04:57 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As
>>>> we all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>>> Kernel 3.x is just a naming marketing strategy, indeed it's 2.6.40.
>>> Anyway, there's a kernel 3.2 available in the backports.
>> I already have Linux kernel 3.3.0.
> So then, what? :-)
>
> Anyway, IIRC it was mentioned by Debian kernel devels that wheezy will be
> released with kernel 3.2.x.
>
>>>> When will Debian 7.0 be released?
>>> AFAIK, it will be frozen in ~June, released... nobody knows, that's a
>>> feature.
>> Frozen in June 2012?
> Yes, that's how it is (at least to my knowledge).
>
>>>> Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x release seems very slow when all the
>>>> other Linux distros already have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I
>>>> want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play around with Xen
>>>> virtualization (dom0 required).
>>> You can go to "www.kernel.org", download the greatest and latest 3.3
>>> (still in devel branch) and compile by yourself using your current
>>> kernel ".config" file.
>> I always go to kernel.org to get my latest Linux kernels. I have already
>> compiled and installed 3.2.11, 3.2.12, 3.2.13, 3.3.0-rc7, and 3.3.0
>> myself.
> So then, what? :-)
>
>>>> Debian developers, please speed up!
>>> Please don't, keep things stable and take your time :-)
>> I want it fast!
> "Fast" does not match with stability and well-tested software, two magic
> words that usually go along with Debian stable releases. If you want
> "fast" things you can keep a perpetual testing or use sid.
>
> Greetings,
>
I just like to download and compile the latest Linux kernels!!!

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[Camaleón]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:06:24 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:

> On 28/03/2012 22:34, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

>>>>> Debian developers, please speed up!
>>>> Please don't, keep things stable and take your time :-)
>>> I want it fast!
>> "Fast" does not match with stability and well-tested software, two
>> magic words that usually go along with Debian stable releases. If you
>> want "fast" things you can keep a perpetual testing or use sid.
>>
>>
> I just like to download and compile the latest Linux kernels!!!

And nobody impedes you from doing it.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jl4g3q$8pu$***@dough.gmane.org

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> I want it fast!

Then use Ubuntu.

Lisi

[Mika Suomalainen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Why not Sid?

Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> I want it fast!
>
>Then use Ubuntu.
>
>Lisi
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>***@lists.debian.org
>Archive:
>http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

Mika Suomalainen
> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 4DB53CFE82A46728
> Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.0.8
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=lZtZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/fc1ad829-a727-45bd-8b5f-***@email.android.com

[Mika Suomalainen]

It seems that you sent this email directly to me and not to the list.
I presume that this happened by accident.

I have used both Ubuntu and Debian Sid and according to my experience,
Sid is usually more stable than Ubuntu. The only expection in
stabiliness was that "Problematic upgrade" (name of thread on this
list) of libpcsomething3.

On 29.03.2012 10:42, Lisi wrote:
> On Thursday 29 March 2012 06:51:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote:
>> Why not Sid?
>>
>> Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
>>> wrote:
>>>> I want it fast!
>>>
>>> Then use Ubuntu.
>
> I thought it possible that Ubuntu was nearer to the stability also
> required. Since I have only tried and not used both Sid and Ubuntu
> I would not take a stand on that. But I did consider it.
>
> Lisi

- --
Mika Suomalainen
> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
> 4DB53CFE82A46728 Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65
> 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Jo, 29 mar 12, 12:34:10, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
>
> I have used both Ubuntu and Debian Sid and according to my experience,
> Sid is usually more stable than Ubuntu. The only expection in
> stabiliness was that "Problematic upgrade" (name of thread on this
> list) of libpcsomething3.

It seems you mean application stability (as in not crashing). The OP
might also be interested in version stability, at least over some period
of time, while sid has a constant stream of updates. The only thing in
Debian that would be comparable are the snapshots proposed as
alternative to CUT.

Of course, one could just not upgrade for a while, but this means more
security bugs and the upgrade may become more and more difficult over
time[1], without having the benefit of the testing and documentation of
a stable release upgrade.

[1] probably nothing an experienced sid user can't handle, but I still
wouldn't recommend it to someone new to Debian

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

[Lisi]

On Thursday 29 March 2012 06:51:30 Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> >> I want it fast!
> >
> >Then use Ubuntu.
>
> Why not Sid?

I thought it possible that Ubuntu was nearer to the stability also required.
Since I have only tried and not used both Sid and Ubuntu I would not take a
stand on that. But I did consider it.

Lisi

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 29/03/2012 13:51, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Why not Sid?
>
> Lisi<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>> I want it fast!
>> Then use Ubuntu.
>>
>> Lisi
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>> ***@lists.debian.org
>> Archive:
>> http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com
> Mika Suomalainen
>> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 4DB53CFE82A46728
>> Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: APG v1.0.8
>
> iQIuBAEBCAAYBQJPc/hfERxNaWthIFN1b21hbGFpbmVuAAoJEE21PP6CpGcoxbcP
> /AkDe57+eq097fjUu6KA1PJ8HsDS60Ngk+s/pckUr5xdauouJ6dhzdtxG9AVxRaS
> cHVq1v6sPjExRjS9Lrxu03DXt4j7sDCSAazfmHjBmR24RtTBfCjGSNzReuPYMdst
> GfmFkXFUQ2uc6WZx3pre9y4F5kVly7f5mMhQwiyeBby9djgXg3U/nAxtMeUK0gHB
> q/mF3EBK2boRXjQnJ8tnSNSrxdxCbSAtAgQwA9CnFIUgLY7d0/zqcCazPSn4ZnTT
> eHMdZNfjwTW5/CMv3y7E0keZESCZ1QSTTQU4gxUTRqamfGLTP9aJ5tEDoHcv5KGw
> soKy/Ulnt1UW4z7lTz6/tzLzF0Kbt0ZXxySXsg2n1G0I6KEmtafbk45NoWBXTSSn
> dSctBU6b50tsC1AeW5oqdmcAnMn6CcYThyUNNOrFIFru2rMssW387HeUBs0xMGdw
> TjfSJrQx0Ga3QWa8nEcqWgSh2sFSPlxrQEIqf5sB4JQwKzxYFpUJaHQtYNmAVH7y
> O+pe+yHeuLR9uiahiGwKAQznK4bPs4O0XVjBLYQDFx5ruftu6qEZR1FdipSe/W+V
> 2TaWZ/TXsJpdxbEhTFnYi/VBX7t74cFaJ00O4P4+QTuJHXNZGC2PtVvyk2UvQmpO
> ycAPMQKKS5dSti470EBEi2YqBx4HlvFIQlBrQlhpKxwt
> =lZtZ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
I am using Debian Testing amd64 for my Samsung Intel Atom Netbook.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Tom H]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>
>> I want it fast!
>
> Then use Ubuntu.

You must mean "use non-LTS."

[Lisi]

On Thursday 29 March 2012 17:21:48 Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> >> I want it fast!
> >
> > Then use Ubuntu.
>
> You must mean "use non-LTS."

That's up to him, but Debian is patently not what he wants. He is doing his
best to change it.

Lisi

[Tom H]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 29 March 2012 17:21:48 Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> >> I want it fast!
>> >
>> > Then use Ubuntu.
>>
>> You must mean "use non-LTS."
>
> That's up to him, but Debian is patently not what he wants.  He is doing his
> best to change it.

Using testing or unstable would be the same as using non-LTS Ubuntu.

[Lisi]

On Friday 30 March 2012 07:45:24 Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 March 2012 17:21:48 Tom H wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Lisi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> >> >> I want it fast!
> >> >
> >> > Then use Ubuntu.
> >>
> >> You must mean "use non-LTS."
> >
> > That's up to him, but Debian is patently not what he wants.  He is doing
> > his best to change it.
>
> Using testing or unstable would be the same as using non-LTS Ubuntu.

I realise that. It is not I who am complaining. I like Debian as it is!

Lisi

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 29/03/2012 05:03, Lisi wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> I want it fast!
> Then use Ubuntu.
>
> Lisi
>
>

I am already using Ubuntu 11.10.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Keith McKenzie]

On 30/03/12 10:15, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> On 29/03/2012 05:03, Lisi wrote:
>> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 19:00:18 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>> I want it fast!
>> Then use Ubuntu.
>>
>> Lisi
>>
>>
>
> I am already using Ubuntu 11.10.
>
Why not 12.04.
I thought you liked cutting edge....

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

Too slow!

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

On 28/03/2012 01:31, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
> Sorry about my geographical bias. Freeze around June or july, release perhaps between december and april.
>
> / Johan
>
> "Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)"<***@gmail.com> skrev:
>
>> On 27/03/2012 14:38, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
>>> 2012-03-27 07:04, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) skrev:
>>>> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As we
>>>> all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>>>>
>>>> Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I want to play
>>>> around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
>>>>
>>>> Debian developers, please speed up!
>>> I would recommend debian testing, wheezy (to become debian 7), even
>>> before it is formally released. I use debian testing (currently
>>> wheezy) as my primary os, and in my experience it is more reliable
>>> than (non-LTS) releases of ubuntu.
>>>
>>> It might require more knowledge, but if your aim is defined as
>>> "playing around", I do not think that should be a hindrance.
>>>
>>> Advice will vary a lot, and the above is only my personal opinion.
>>>
>>> Debian 7 is expected to be frozen this summer, and I think people
>>> expect a release sometime in late autumn or winter, perhaps early next
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Johan
>>>
>>>
>> Dear Johan,
>>
>> I am living in Singapore, where it is summer all year round. I do not
>> know when it is summer, autumn or winter. Are you saying Debian 7 will
>> only be released early next year? So slow!
>>
>> Btw I am already using Debian testing/wheezy on my Samsung Intel Atom
>> netbook.
>>
>> --
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
>> Singapore
>>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/***@gmail.com

[Kelly Clowers]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:05, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Too slow!

Not at all.
You should probably follow your email address to Ubuntu if that kind
of speed fits you better.


Cheers,
Kelly Clowers

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 27 March 2012 20:13:57 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:05, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
>
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Too slow!
>
> Not at all.
> You should probably follow your email address to Ubuntu if that kind
> of speed fits you better.

+1

Some of us prize reliability above the cutting edge. And as Kelly points out,
you can always use Ubuntu.

Lisi

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 04:48, Lisi wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 20:13:57 Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:05, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
>>
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Too slow!
>> Not at all.
>> You should probably follow your email address to Ubuntu if that kind
>> of speed fits you better.
> +1
>
> Some of us prize reliability above the cutting edge. And as Kelly points out,
> you can always use Ubuntu.
>
> Lisi
>
>
I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
course I still want stability and reliability.

I love both Ubuntu and Debian. I was using Fedora 11 x86-64 previously.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Keith McKenzie]

On 28/03/12 01:37, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>
> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
> course I still want stability and reliability.
The two are incompatible!

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 16:04, Keith McKenzie wrote:
> On 28/03/12 01:37, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>>
>> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
>> course I still want stability and reliability.
> The two are incompatible!
>
>
Who says so.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 30 mar 12, 13:17:16, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> On 28/03/2012 16:04, Keith McKenzie wrote:
> >On 28/03/12 01:37, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> >>>
> >>I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
> >>course I still want stability and reliability.
> >The two are incompatible!
> >
> Who says so.

Experience :)

Bleeding edge technology is not stable and reliable because humans don't
design stuff that works perfectly the first time and by the time they
have found the bugs the technology is not bleeding edge anymore.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 30/03/2012 16:11, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 30 mar 12, 13:17:16, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 16:04, Keith McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 28/03/12 01:37, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>>> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
>>>> course I still want stability and reliability.
>>> The two are incompatible!
>>>
>> Who says so.
> Experience :)
>
> Bleeding edge technology is not stable and reliable because humans don't
> design stuff that works perfectly the first time and by the time they
> have found the bugs the technology is not bleeding edge anymore.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
Nothing in the world is perfect.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[PMA]

amen

Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 30 mar 12, 13:17:16, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 16:04, Keith McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 28/03/12 01:37, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
>>>> course I still want stability and reliability.
>>> The two are incompatible!
>>>
>> Who says so.
>
> Experience :)
>
> Bleeding edge technology is not stable and reliable because humans don't
> design stuff that works perfectly the first time and by the time they
> have found the bugs the technology is not bleeding edge anymore.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei

[Lisi]

On Wednesday 28 March 2012 01:37:48 you wrote:
> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
> course I still want stability and reliability.

You can't have both, they are self-contradictory. If you prize bleeding edge
technology above stability and reliability then you clearly need Ubuntu.
Stop trying to pressure Debian into becoming Ubuntu. Many of us like it how
it is and do not want to use an Ubuntu clone.

Moreover, Wheezy is available now. You do not need to wait until it is
released, by when it will no longer be cutting edge, that is, if it even is
now.

Lisi

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 16:41, Lisi wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 March 2012 01:37:48 you wrote:
>> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
>> course I still want stability and reliability.
> You can't have both, they are self-contradictory. If you prize bleeding edge
> technology above stability and reliability then you clearly need Ubuntu.
> Stop trying to pressure Debian into becoming Ubuntu. Many of us like it how
> it is and do not want to use an Ubuntu clone.
>
> Moreover, Wheezy is available now. You do not need to wait until it is
> released, by when it will no longer be cutting edge, that is, if it even is
> now.
>
> Lisi
>
>

They are not self contradictory. I can have both.

And I am not pressurizing Debian into becoming Ubuntu. I use both Debian
and Ubuntu.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Lisi]

On Friday 30 March 2012 06:31:53 you wrote:
> On 28/03/2012 16:41, Lisi wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 March 2012 01:37:48 you wrote:
> >> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
> >> course I still want stability and reliability.
> >
> > You can't have both, they are self-contradictory. If you prize bleeding
> > edge technology above stability and reliability then you clearly need
> > Ubuntu. Stop trying to pressure Debian into becoming Ubuntu. Many of us
> > like it how it is and do not want to use an Ubuntu clone.
> >
> > Moreover, Wheezy is available now. You do not need to wait until it is
> > released, by when it will no longer be cutting edge, that is, if it even
> > is now.
> >
> > Lisi
>
> They are not self contradictory. I can have both.
>
> And I am not pressurizing Debian into becoming Ubuntu. I use both Debian
> and Ubuntu.

I neither know nor care how many angels can dance on a pinhead. You may use
Debian, but you are making it abundantly clear, whatever you say, that you
don't like it and would like it to be a poor clone of Ubuntu.

This is descending into farce. I disagree profoundly with you, but there is
no point in saying the same thing over and over again, and I shall not do so
in future.

So _please_ _stop_ sending your replies to my private address. I read the
list.

Lisi

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 30/03/2012 16:35, Lisi wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2012 06:31:53 you wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 16:41, Lisi wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 28 March 2012 01:37:48 you wrote:
>>>> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
>>>> course I still want stability and reliability.
>>> You can't have both, they are self-contradictory. If you prize bleeding
>>> edge technology above stability and reliability then you clearly need
>>> Ubuntu. Stop trying to pressure Debian into becoming Ubuntu. Many of us
>>> like it how it is and do not want to use an Ubuntu clone.
>>>
>>> Moreover, Wheezy is available now. You do not need to wait until it is
>>> released, by when it will no longer be cutting edge, that is, if it even
>>> is now.
>>>
>>> Lisi
>> They are not self contradictory. I can have both.
>>
>> And I am not pressurizing Debian into becoming Ubuntu. I use both Debian
>> and Ubuntu.
> I neither know nor care how many angels can dance on a pinhead. You may use
> Debian, but you are making it abundantly clear, whatever you say, that you
> don't like it and would like it to be a poor clone of Ubuntu.
>
> This is descending into farce. I disagree profoundly with you, but there is
> no point in saying the same thing over and over again, and I shall not do so
> in future.
>
> So _please_ _stop_ sending your replies to my private address. I read the
> list.
>
> Lisi
>
>
>

That is your own interpretation.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 30/03/2012 14:59, Lisi wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2012 06:31:53 you wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 16:41, Lisi wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 28 March 2012 01:37:48 you wrote:
>>>> I prize bleeding edge technology above stability and reliability. But of
>>>> course I still want stability and reliability.
>>> You can't have both, they are self-contradictory. If you prize bleeding
>>> edge technology above stability and reliability then you clearly need
>>> Ubuntu. Stop trying to pressure Debian into becoming Ubuntu. Many of us
>>> like it how it is and do not want to use an Ubuntu clone.
>>>
>>> Moreover, Wheezy is available now. You do not need to wait until it is
>>> released, by when it will no longer be cutting edge, that is, if it even
>>> is now.
>>>
>>> Lisi
>> They are not self contradictory. I can have both.
> No. You can't. And yes, you are. Stability and reliability take time to
> achieve. Time != cutting edge.
>
>> And I am not pressurizing Debian into becoming Ubuntu. I use both Debian
>> and Ubuntu.
> Then stop doing so. The Debian policy is not to release stable while any
> major bugs remain. There is always Sid for cutting edge. That is at the
> heart of what Debian is.
>
> If you don't like that, use Ubuntu and stop putting pressure on Debian to
> change.
>
> Lisi
>
I am not putting pressure on Debian to change.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Robert Holtzman]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:31:53PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> On 28/03/2012 16:41, Lisi wrote:

.........snip........
> >
> >Moreover, Wheezy is available now. You do not need to wait until it is
> >released, by when it will no longer be cutting edge, that is, if it even is
> >now.
> >
> >Lisi
> >
> >
>
> They are not self contradictory. I can have both.
>
> And I am not pressurizing Debian into becoming Ubuntu. I use both
> Debian and Ubuntu.

You sound as though you have never worked in any kind of manufacturing
industry. There the motto is "You can have it fast, cheap, or right.
Pick any two".

--
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279

[Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)]

On 28/03/2012 03:13, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:05, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Too slow!
> Not at all.
> You should probably follow your email address to Ubuntu if that kind
> of speed fits you better.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kelly Clowers
>
>
I am right now installing Debian Squeeze amd64 via netboot Xen
installation on my Ubuntu 11.10 amd64 host. It takes a long time to
download packages from the cdn.debian.net mirror though. It is a
paravirtualized (PV) Debian squeeze guest installation.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:34:46 +0800, Teo wrote in message
<***@gmail.com>:

> On 28/03/2012 03:13, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:05, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Too slow!
> > Not at all.
> > You should probably follow your email address to Ubuntu if that kind
> > of speed fits you better.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kelly Clowers
> >
> >
> I am right now installing Debian Squeeze amd64 via netboot Xen
> installation on my Ubuntu 11.10 amd64 host. It takes a long time to
> download packages from the cdn.debian.net mirror though.

..so speed it up, set up your own lan mirror:
***@epc9:~# du -sch /var/www/debian/*
134M /var/www/debian/dists
1000K /var/www/debian/doc
194G /var/www/debian/pool
16K /var/www/debian/project
4.0K /var/www/debian/README
4.0K /var/www/debian/README.CD-manufacture
4.0K /var/www/debian/README.html
172K /var/www/debian/README.mirrors.html
92K /var/www/debian/README.mirrors.txt
2.4M /var/www/debian/tools
194G total
***@epc9:~#

..me, I forgot all about Experimental, so I've only got Sid,
testing and stable for amd64, i386, source and hurd-i386.

..anyone with a 'du -sch /var/www/debian/*' that includes
Experimental?

> It is a
> paravirtualized (PV) Debian squeeze guest installation.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

[Simon Brandmair]

On 27/3/2012 07:10 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:

> When will Debian 7.0 be released?

When it's done.

SCNR.
Simon

[Alan Chandler]

On 27/03/12 06:04, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x. As
> we all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel 2.6.
>
> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x release
> seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already have the
> latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x? Because I
> want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0 required).
>
> Debian developers, please speed up! I love Ubuntu and Debian Linux!!!
> I am already using Debian wheezy with my Samsung Intel Atom N455 1.6
> GHz netbook, with Shorewall Firewall configuration.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
You could use SID.

I have it on a desktop I use every day and 99% of the time it works
well. Every so often (like a few days ago with libpcre) some crucial
package gets messed up and my computer does too - but normally there is
a pretty quick away around it, or a fix will be forthcoming within a day
or so.

I use squeeze on my servers - here stability is more important than
bleeding edge and that seems to work just fine. The only additional
software packages (other than those in the standard repositor) that I
generally install on the servers are web packages like (for instance)
drupal or wordpress. But they just use the underlying LAMP stack.

If these extra packages don't work with Squeeze, I just regard that as
one more criteria with which to judge them as unsuitable.

--
Alan Chandler
http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk

[Wolodja Wentland]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 13:04 +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> I am actually looking forward to Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x.
> As we all know, Debian 6.0.x is still using the old Linux Kernel
> 2.6.
>
> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> required).

You do not have to wait for wheezy's release (which will be released when it is
ready) if all you want from it is a new kernel. Recent kernels can be installed
quite easily from backports:

1. Follow http://backports-master.debian.org/Instructions/
(you might want "main contrib non-free" if you need firmware)

2. Run: apt-get -t squeeze-backports install linux-image-$(uname -r|sed 's,[^-]*-[^-]*-,,')

That will install a suitable metapackage for your system from backports and
would pull in linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 at the moment.
--
Wolodja <***@babilen5.org>

4096R/CAF14EFC
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC