On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:03:57PM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote: > Also, as you mentioned, kernel 2.4 is out now, however many "known > problems" it has, it is out. 2.2 has "known problems" as well, it just has > less of them.
However, 2.2 in some incarnations has proven useful and stable. The evidence thus far indicates that 2.4 is only useful for a desktop which may crash (and in your case, this may be a point for you). > Which means that Debian, for all it's good things (and I am using it, and I > will continue to use it, because I like it), is SLOW in it's release > schedule, and this IS a deterrent for some intelligent people, who are > LEARNING Linux. Why is this a deterrent? At least the existing behavior is well documented. Quick releases don't equal quality releases. Hang out on the devel list for a while if you doubt the competence of the people who are actually *engineering* Debian ... > I don't find the argument of a slow distribution schedule silly in the > least, and to be perfectly honest, I find the attitude rather condescending. Ah, but that's not what I said! If you had read what I wrote, I said it's silly to make decisions regarding a distribution depending on which *kernel* is included, which is what *you* said. > Linux is a wonderful tool. We all know it. But it IS just that, a > tool. If a distribution, no matter how good it's intentions, can't keep > up, then it will be relegated to the footers of history, and the world will > turn around it. Hmm, Debian has been receiving more press, not less. Perhaps technical excellence actually is more important that bleeding edge releases? > I don't want to see this happen with Debian. It won't. > I apologize for the rant, and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much, but > this attitude is one of the things that's personally stopping me from > learning more about Linux. Which attitude is that? The current "frozen" release is extremely usable and well supported via written documentation and the mailing lists. The "unstable" distribution is also well supported; it's just known to be, well, unstable (since it undergoes active development). This is true in any software project; some just choose to release before complete testing (RedHat). > Some of us learn slower, or just differently. Seeing all the pluses of > Debian, including the philosophy behind it (which I happen to agree with), > I get frustrated having to tell people, who are less than comfortable with > Linux, to use an (IMHO) inferior distribution, merely to get the options > that they need. Someone else already posted why Debian should be the *first* distribution that a Linux newcomer tries, so I won't go into that here. I will say that Debian's technical excellence makes it the superior distribution, so I don't know which inferior distribution you're talking about. If you think Debian is inferior because it doesn't always have the latest and greatest, then I suggest you learn how to grab the source and compile. If you're unwilling to do that, perhaps Debian (and Linux) isn't for you. I apologize if *that* sounds elitist, but, well, it is. Being elitist is the point of using Linux; otherwise you can stick with the huddled masses using Microsoft. Welcome to Linux! I hope you enjoy your stay. -- Nathan Norman "Eschew Obfuscation" Network Engineer GPG Key ID 1024D/51F98BB7 http://home.midco.net/~nnorman/ Key fingerprint = C5F4 A147 416C E0BF AB73 8BEF F0C8 255C 51F9 8BB7
pgpRchkbxoWm9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
