Jacob Meuser wrote: >>>now if debian would just get off that constant six month old (or >>>however long) software model... >>> > > "Debain GNU/Linux 2.2 (a.k.a. Potato) was released on 14 August, 2000."
how about 2.2r4 (the one i'm always trying to install)? >>>not to mention that 2.2 kernel! >>> > > The 2.2 kernels are *still* more stable than the latest 2.4 kernel on the > only Linux box at work (which is running Woody BTW). so what? does it support the hardware i just bought? i'm into hardware. that means that old kernels are just that. old. not useful any more. obs0l33+. it's not like i need something to be up and running for years. i need something that is more stable than winders (linux) and that supports the hardware i use (2.4). fer christ's (or whoever else you give props to...) sake man, i run a desktop, not a server... >>I would very much like to see a Debian branch, say "wobbly," that had a >>full release complement of "boot floppies," etc. that were as fresh and >>bug free as possible (remember too that nothing even makes it into the >>testing branch unless it builds for _all_ supported Debian >>architectures). no wonder they're so far behind. still doesn't make me like it anymore... > IMO, this is only bacause Debian focuses on packages, instead of the > base OS. Can I do a "make build" or "make world" and completely > rebuild Debian's base? NO! I have to build a bunch of packages. > And, of course, I have to build the package building and managing > packages (talk about chicken and egg) and hope they are stable and > bug free. not to mention that the base system you install is almost *always* held back during an "apt-get upgrade" matter of fact, i've never seen the base system upgrade. > Well, *if* i were policy that there was a release every six months > or whatever, it could be done, that's just not Debain's policy. Cut your > losses, you'll be happier in the long run. Mozilla and other packages > are simply *not* important to the base OS, period. uh huh. there is a reason i'm making my own linux. i'm a hobbyist and an enthusiast. not an IT manager looking for ungawdly stability or ease of maintenance. >>I'm going on a bit long, but, as you found, it's best (aside from >>philosophical reasons) to choose Debian because you want a Distro that >>is relatively easy to maintain, not because you want to be leading edge. relatively easy to maintain? sure, once you get the damn thing installed. EVERY time i install debian SOMETHING goes wrong. > ^^^^^^^^ > relative to what? probably redhat, mandrake, any others i can't think of. "apt-get upgrade" rocks. the problem is that it upgrades your year old system by six months and no further. this is the computer industry. things happen by days, not months.
