←back to thread

766 points bertman | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jcmfernandes ◴[] No.43485833[source]
Insane effort. This sounded like a pipe dream just a couple of years ago. Congrats to everyone involved, especially to those who drove the effort.
replies(1): >>43487674 #
Joel_Mckay ◴[] No.43487674[source]
The Debian group is admirable, and have positively changed the standards for OS design several times. Reminds me I should donate to their coffee fund around tax time =3
replies(2): >>43489910 #>>43497816 #
alfiedotwtf ◴[] No.43489910[source]
Exactly!

I’ve said it many times and I’ll repeat it here - Debian will be one of the few Linux distros we have right now, that will still exist 100 years from now.

Yea, it’s not as modern in terms of versioning and risk compared to the likes of Arch, but that’s also a feature!

replies(3): >>43490181 #>>43490648 #>>43491565 #
roenxi ◴[] No.43490181[source]
> Debian will be one of the few Linux distros we have right now, that will still exist 100 years from now.

It'd certainly be nice, but if you've ever seen an organisation unravel it can happen with startling speed. I think the naive estimate is if you pick something at random it is half-way through its lifespan; so there isn't much call yet to say Debian will make it to 100.

replies(2): >>43490322 #>>43491935 #
Y_Y ◴[] No.43491935[source]
> I think the naive estimate is if you pick something at random it is half-way through its lifespan; so there isn't much call yet to say Debian will make it to 100.

This doesn't strike me as a strong argument. That naive estimate (in whatever form[0]) is typically based on not knowing anything else about the process you're looking at. We have lots of information about Debian and similar projects, and you can update your estimate (in a Bayesian fashion) when you know this. Given that Ian Murdock started Debian 31 years ago I think more than 100 years is a very reasonable guess.

[0] see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

replies(2): >>43492067 #>>43493183 #
1. Joel_Mckay ◴[] No.43492067[source]
Arguably, there is already the continuous package deprecation process that often leads to unpopular projects getting culled in the next upgrade.

In a way, Flatpak/Snap/Docker was mitigations to support old programs on new systems, and old systems with updated software no longer compatible with the OS. Not an ideal solution, but a necessary one if folks also wanted to address the win/exe dominant long-term supported program versions.

If working with unpopular oddball stuff one notices the packages cycle out of the repositories rather regularly. =3