Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
> Lan Barnes wrote:
>
> >Is it entirely fair to blame "Linux" because one distro has a poor
> >install and you choose to turn up your nose at the others? I'm sure you
> >could find plenty of Debian support if you want.
>
> I can find plenty of Ubuntu support. I don't want support. I want
> functional.
>
> People, it's called *TESTING*.
Debian does that. It is called Debian Testing.
http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/
There is also Debian Unstable, which is before the Testing.
http://www.debian.org/releases/unstable/
> It's done *before* shipping. It is not foisted on your users.
Some projects have a far wider beta release, open to anyone that wants
it. Debian calls this Debian Testing. They also offer the alpha release,
called Debian Unstable.
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
> The reason I don't just flag Ubuntu is that every other Linux is the
> same. None of them test.
False. As was pointed out. Debian has a Testing phase. A rather long
one, too.
It was actually this statement of yours that inspired me to post.
I will also say this: It is impossible to test all scenarios and all
hardware and all uses and all combinations and permutations. Impossible.
So no matter how long and how intensively something is tested, it is
going to break for someone somewhere for some reason. This person may
very likely think that no testing is done, because, well, it broke.
Also, considering the length of time that Debian keeps a distribution in
the Testing phase, and all of its staged freeze, I'm surprised there is
anyone that is familiar with the Major (GNU/)Linux Distributions that is
not acutely aware of this. This is also a large part of the confusion
over the Debian code names: Which one is stable? testing? unstable?
oldstable?
> They all break on something when I install or use them. Perfectly
> working hardware breaks on update. Perfectly working software breaks
> on update. Perfectly average software refuses to install.
I cannot nor willnot speak for Ubuntu. I cannot nor willnot speak for
Ubuntu Live.
I suspect a major portion of the problems is that the Ubuntu sources
listed did not have gcc package available. That is a guess.
> So, now, I have to ask myself, is this worth the pain or should I go get
> an x86 mac (endianness issues--one of the things I wanted to test and
> fix) and completely ignore Linux?
Up to you. I do know those that have practically given up on GNU/Linux
for the desktop, and are using Mac OS just so they can Get Things Done.
Whatever works for them. That would drive me entirely buggy.
> That Powerbook Duo is looking mighty tempting.
Something seems inherently wrong with a dual cpu system in a laptop. Oh,
and don't use it on your lap. You will get a burn. Read the instruction
manual, it is printed in there.
-john
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
