SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(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.