On Friday 28 December 2001 07:49, justin bengtson wrote: > 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)?
2.2r4 was released on November 5th, 2.2r5 will be out in January. All Debian 2.2 (potato) releases have the same base. > >>>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... Ongoing Kernel 2.4 packages have been available since a few days after the initial release of 2.4 last year. Prior to that, even 2.3 packages could be had directly from the Debian kernel maintainer's ftp site. Kernel 2.4.17 for intel/amd is in unstable now and two weeks after the kernel builds for all architectures, it will be in the testing branch. http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=kernel-image-2.4&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all > >>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... Fine. > > 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. You may be right. We're all free to use and help with what we like. BTW, I think "make world" rocks. But, sadly, not all I want is part of the *BSD world (so far as I know it anyway). > 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. You've probably never moved to testing. If you ever do, be sure to update apt-get first (apt-get install apt-get) (that is, after doing the "apt-get update" to testing, but before doing either an "apt-get dist-upgrade" or using dselect to upgrade -- confusing or what?). > > 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. Guess someday I'll just have to take off my rose colored glasses. > 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. You're following the right path for what you want to do. I never meant to suggest otherwise. I was only making a feeble attempt to present a picture of what Debian wants to be, as opposed to what some think it is. > >>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. Definitely a problem. But, are you saying that things usually go right with everything else you've tired (computer wise)? OS installs, in general, can be a major pain. > > ^^^^^^^^ > > 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. Yes, I was speaking relative to maintaining other Linux distros against security / bug fix updates, etc. I was not addressing the worlds of *BSD, WinXX, OS/2, BeOS, The Hurd, etc. It's strange. You both seem to agree with what I was saying about Debian. We can agree that I like it and you don't. I really have no problem with that. But, you both seem to be really hostile towards Debian. What's up with that?
