On 28 Apr 1999, Helge Hafting wrote: > > > As I see it, releasing new versions can take place more than twice a > > year. While ppl are waiting for the next official release, they keep > > gradually upgrading their systems from the ftp server, so by the time > > the new release is official, they already have their systems greatly > > upgraded but they still "re-upgrade" ... and with some packages they > > downgrade since they already installed from the version after next. Is > > it all that necessary? > > > Usually not! > Many people simply like to have the latest and greatest. Maintaining > the system is an interesting hobby. Unlike some other os there is little > need for "reinstalling" and problem-solving, so the time is spent > on incremental upgrades. This is usually not *necessary*, as the old > systems still work well. > > Of course there are > times when upgrading is a good move too. The newer version > may have a bugfix, a security fix, better performance or new functionality. > This goes for kernels as well as distributions. >
I'm no programmer, but I keep up with the stable releases of the kernel. I find that the 2.2 series seems to be faster when collecting email and also has some unexpected goodies, e.g. you can now have a non-blinking block cursor in colour and I can use my Iomega Zip and lp simultaneously, without the need for modules. I wouldn't have known these things if I hadn't actually compiled the kernels and tried them out. Anthony -- Anthony Campbell - running Linux Debian 2.1 (Windows-free zone) Book Reviews: www.achc.demon.co.uk/bookreviews/ "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on..." - Edward Fitzgerald (Rubaiat of Omar Khayyam)
