Re: Backports is better than Ubuntu because it fixes the right problem
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
* Ben Vinger wrote:
But Ubuntu is not solving the real problem directly, which is the
developers abandoning a distro on its release day (apart from
I think Ubuntu never wanted to solve _this_ problem, so the comparison
is not really fair.
That is why I appreciated Backports so much - you are fixing the
For me, backports.org is still a workaround. Not for the problem you
mentioned, but for Debians long release cycles.
I like long release cycles, because they give me stability to the
machines i have under my administration. The maning is that i don't have
to make that big upgrades and version changes, configuration changes,
lots of time resolving package manager's problems. Instead, i have
stable systems that work and have productivity, and that is all taht
For instance, having to change to every new version of ubuntu, is
crayziness, but, there are a few bugs in every version, that makes you
to move into the next. Stability goes away. That's why i prefer debian
sarge and "after sarge".
And i think the volatile repository could substitute backports.org, but
it is much understimated.
By the way... backports for Ubuntu exists, and I'd say those are a bit
more official than the packages from backports.org.
Ubuntu has the capability to go after the users. Their feedback is
great. In that, debian is some miles behind, because there is not that
great feedback between users and developpers, and not that great
commitment by developpers.
So, the appearence of backports is something normal.
well ... this comment is not ended until i say thanks to norbert, for
all of this backports.org