SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Debian 8 "Jessie" was released on 25 Apr. A link to the Debian release page shows the changes and you can follow the release in 'real-time' should you desire to do so.
This release will be supported for 5 years and includes "improvements" to the UEFI software (both 32- and 64-bit) introduced in the previous version, "Wheezy". It also is the first release to use systemd as default init system replacing the earlier sysvinit, which is still available in the repos should you wish to revert the change. What effects such a change might have on the remainder of the system is not clear. Improvements to the support of Debian software include the ability to browse and search all source code distributed in the latest release.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Follow the Debian 8 "Jessie" Release Activity in Realtime
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 140 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday April 26 2015, @09:31PM
As I'm the editor who did 'the hatchet job' I am more than happy to explain why.
Your submission sounded very much like a 'slashvertisement' - something that the community often complains about and that editors try to avoid publishing:
You may be excited but you really cannot claim to speak for everyone else. The majority of the comments here are far from positive about the latest release and it seems as though not many share your excitement and enthusiasm for Jessie. You are free, of course to 'test and love' the 'latest and greatest' of all Debian releases, but others may choose not to do so or might even disagree with your views.
You have posted your submission anonymously but you have adopted a username, (Aroused For Debian 8 "Jessie"), which you are quite free to do. However, from my point of view the adopted username suggests that this is a less than balanced story and your summary gives it the appearance of being a press release or blatant advertisement. However, as neither are supplied as a quoted source, it looks rather suspicious. I also disagree that 'keeping up to date with the latest Debian 8 "Jessie" release news is just so critical' . Many here don't use Debian or an OS derived from it - it is certainly not critical for them and I would argue that it probably isn't actually critical for anyone outside the Debian release team, and particularly not in 'Reattime' as your submission suggested.
If you compare your story with the earlier story regarding the release of Ubuntu 15.04 [soylentnews.org], you can see a significant difference. The correct place for your personal view is in the comments, not as the basis of your submission. You say that you wouldn't expect such treatment from SlashDot but that is the very reason many of us left that site over a year ago. They openly push 'slashvertisements' - hence the very name of them - and we try to avoid that and we aim to put out an unbiased summary.
I am genuinely sorry that you feel aggrieved but few submissions reach the front page without some editing and more than a few require a complete rewrite - as was the case here, in my honest opinion. We do welcome submissions and if you look at earlier stories you might be able to pick up a few ideas on how better to present them.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 26 2015, @09:39PM
I think it's pretty clear that the anon was sharing heavy sarcasm rather than a "slashvertisement".
That may be enough reason not to run it or run it as is, but the anon's beef might be legitimate. With the changes to the sarcasm heavy summary, it looks like the anon could actually be supporting Debian (although the name still gives it away).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday April 27 2015, @05:56PM
From the snippet the anon posted of their original submission I didn't get any hint of sarcasm. It reads like a press release or an advertisement. Maybe the byline gives it away a bit, but I can't be the only one who generally ignores those.
And if it WAS intended to be sarcastic, that only makes the editing *more* necessary. This isn't The Onion and it's not April 1st. Too much opinion in a summary is bad enough, but sarcasm is just plain toxic.
(Score: 2) by NoMaster on Sunday April 26 2015, @11:28PM
Perhaps then, in those cases where you've heavily edited or re-written the original submission to substantially change its approach, it would be better to make it clear in the summary that the article was 'inspired by ...'?
Perhaps something like "xxxxxxx brought to our attention" or "as suggested by xxxxxxx", rather than claiming "xxxxxxx reports"?
(And to be honest, if the original submission posted above is correct, I don't see that you've gained anything by changing it - it was always going to be the usual pointless shitstorm of anti-SystemD comments anyway...)
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @12:07AM
Odd... now that I've read the editor's position on this it seems like a good call: the article is terse while retaining some information without giving away any personal biases on the systemd debacle. Also, not all our sarcasm meters are calibrated similarly (even I thought the original summary was an advert).
The article was modified heavily, yes, but the source should still be cited or else we'll have people who go "waah I submitted that story but didn't get any credit for it" (give credit to where it's due).
The source should've been worded in a different way, or at least the original submission quoted and the editor's summary posted as an Editorial note.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @07:41AM
this is not the original submitter, but as a fellow soylentil who has experienced similar, i think the main problem is attributing the submission to the original poster after it has been heavily edited. if you are going to edit a submission beyond mere spelling and grammar fixes, it might be worth either mentioning that the submission has been edited or not attributing the submission to the original poster. just my take anyways
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday April 27 2015, @09:51AM
OK, I can accept that points that you are making.
Every story is edited. If it hits the front page it should have been seen by at least 2 editors independently of each other. Everyone should simply accept that as a given fact.
We try to give submitters the credit for the effort that they have taken. Some provide only a link and a short 1-line comment, leaving much of the work for someone else to do. If we, as editors, have to write a complete submission based on a single URL it seems that some would expect to be given the credit (and the karma) for a few seconds work, while others want their name removing because what hits the front page is not exactly what they have written. However, I will look at other ways of phrasing the intro to reflect the extent of their contribution but, as this part of the process is also automated to make sure that karma is given to the appropriate person, it is not necessarily just a simple edit. My own personal viewpoint is that, in order to encourage all submissions, we give every submission used the recognition that earns the submitter both karma and future credibility.
However, it is the responsibility of the editorial team to try to publish accurate and unbiased summaries wherever possible. You may have interpreted the original as containing heavy sarcasm where I felt it was being written either as a bait story, or by somebody who genuinely wanted to see his name in print and thought that an 'impromptu' press release type of story was the most acceptable way of achieving that. I did not think that the submitter was worried about attribution - he went to great lengths to remain anonymous yet provide a 'username'. What does it matter that it doesn't mirror his exact submission? There is no karma to be earned by ACs and no future credibility issues either. Our site supports the "sarc" or "sarcasm" tags - this would have been an ideal way of using them to indicate his true opinions on the subject. Furthermore, what might appear as sarcasm to one group of people might have an entirely different interpretation elsewhere in the world.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday April 27 2015, @11:44AM
My editorial 2 cents:
I saw the original submission in the queue, and noted in our editors notes that it was full of sarcasm, and would never have put it out as submitted (so it would have been really late. So, the only way it would have actually been published is if was rewritten. Most submitters don't submit a story that is trying to sarcastically slam others, so still would like credit even with a heavy re-write. In this case, obviously, the story's intent was changed, and it may have been better to have changed that "reports" to "inspired" or something along those lines. Note that this happened during a very low spot in the submissions queue on a weekend when our volunteer editors have real lives to lead. Also, I don't think it's our intent to beat /. to stories at all. I don't look at that site, let alone think, "Wow, they've just published a story similar to ours, I must rush it out right now!" I don't know, but I bet that we run many stories that they run later, or not at all. If that is the case, then we would be just as much in the "lead" as they...
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday April 27 2015, @05:58PM
Thank you for the good work editing, and thanks a hell of a lot more for bothering to come explain it in the comments. This stuff is what keeps me coming back! :)
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday April 27 2015, @06:27PM