[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

I don't understand Debian

I have two questions that really concerned me.

- Why it's Debian that fixes bugs and security holes? Why it isn't upstream developers? How can you be sure that all security holes will be found or revealed? (for instance an old software in stable can have a security issue which is not in the recent version, so upstream can't find it) Why upstream developers of important softwares do not sometimes provide stable versions of their programs (eg linux kernel, libc, xorg), instead of let Debian do the job for them? I mean, with Windows® (sorry), things are sometimes more logical: the kernel, "xserver, xclient", etc. (important apps) are stable for years, but you can have the last firefox without update them (like a mix stable/unstable, except that stable softwares are maintained by uptream, not by a distribution).

- Why Debian isn't KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) compliant? I mean, I never need to change my conf files. If I have a problem, I solve with apt-get or dpkg-reconfigure. I don't understand how things works and I'm too dependent on Debian. Futhermore, .deb are really complicated compare with other package tools. I like for instance Frugalware philosophy: "We try to ship fresh and stable software, as close to the original source as possible, because in our opinion most software is the best as is, and doesn't need patching."

Well, I don't like what is Linux today. Software developers don't care about stability, are not responsible, whereas each Linux distributions re-do the same jobs without cooperate. Linus should do something. It's too easy to create a kernel and then let it go alone.

Sorry for my English that is very bad compare to the real Ignatius Reilly's English.


Reply to: