Re: backports vs. testing
i largely agree with this, though if the type of stablility you're
looking for is "i don't want to have to download 100MB of updates every
week to keep current", the backports approach may work better- depends
on how many and exactly which backports you need.
freegeek has been using a stable woody based release (the "Freekbox 2")
geared to inexperienced users since summer of 2002. with a backport of
openoffice 1.0.x, the only non-security related update in 2 years was
when the backport moved from 1.0.1 to 1.0.3, and it's still a quite
useable system (though is showing signs of aging).
I think there are some pretty huge problems involved with giving old
software to linux beginners, for a few reasons.
1)
The problem that I was trying to get at initially was that there are
many ways in which Desktop linux is straight-up *unsatisfactory* for
beginners:
-cut and paste functionality is spotty (esp. for images, formatted text)
-drag and drop is spotty, or doesn't work
-hourglass doesn't always work
Generally, newer versions address these problems better than do older
versions. And more importantly, as soon as these Desktop environments
finally start offering cut and paste functionality that isn't spotty
(for example) beginners *need* to be getting those newer versions.
Again, the linux Desktop in certain respects is unsatisfactory,
sub-par. When a new version comes out that is satisfactory, people
need to get it. A problem with using Debian stable is that it could be
2 years before people see those newer versions.
I realize there are certain advantages to linux that counterbalance
these negatives: i.e. no adware, no viruses. But people are always
more comfortable with the devil they know than the devil they don't.
2)
Newer versions of applications can make a huge difference.
-We had an old version of Mozilla in our lab and some webpages didn't
load right. You don't want to have to explain to people why some
webpages don't load.
-The new version of openoffice makes less mistakes handling Word
documents. That matters.
-The new version of openoffice has widgets that are prettier, easier to
understand, and more welcoming. This inspires confidence.
In some cases it's absolutely necessary to have the newest versions of
things. For example: everybody wants to be able to use their IM name.
And GAIM is in a constant arms race with Yahoo and MSN. We're running
Deb stable at our lab and I asked somebody to help me keep up to date
with the latest version of GAIM. His response was, "mmm, might as well
just make them all AIM accounts." That's not cool.
3)
Finally, while some beginners are starting on a linux box and will
never use anything else in their lives, most have used or will soon use
other operating systems. So it's important that what we're offering to
people look and behave more or less like a modern operating system.
Even if it might be a bit less convenient or kosher to stay on the
cutting edge, it really seems like it's worth it when putting together
stuff for people who don't have much experience with linux.
Holmes
i largely agree with this, though if the type of stablility you're
looking for is "i don't want to have to download 100MB of updates every
week to keep current", the backports approach may work better- depends
on how many and exactly which backports you need.
freegeek has been using a stable woody based release (the "Freekbox 2")
geared to inexperienced users since summer of 2002. with a backport of
openoffice 1.0.x, the only non-security related update in 2 years was
when the backport moved from 1.0.1 to 1.0.3, and it's still a quite
useable system (though is showing signs of aging).
live well,
vagrant
Reply to: