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

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

At 20:53 2000/07/30 -0500, you wrote:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 10:42:29AM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> I'm still very much getting used to Debian, however, and the long time
> between releases is stopping my Dad from switching, since he wants to
> switch to the most updated release possible if he switches, but even
> Potato's just 2.2.16/17.

As opposed to what? An unstable 2.3.x release? A 2.4.x with known problems? That's a silly argument to not use a distribution (and always has been).

Kernel sources are *always* available at www.kernel.org.

They are, but he's not advanced enough yet to compile his own kernel.
He's a very bright guy, and he'll figure it out eventually, but it's a very minor hobby for him right now, and he just hasn't gotten there yet.

But, because of the slow updates, and because it is now 2 releases behind, it's difficult to argue the change from RedHat to Debian. The only stable Debian release is Slink, which is 2.0.36. He has that already with RedHat 5.2 (I think that's what he's got, it's definitely 2.0.36). If he were to upgrade to RedHat 6, which has been out for quite a long time, he'd get (I believe) 2.2. The 2.2 kernel has made some great leaps from the 2.0 series of kernels that he'd like to use (diald upgrades, to mention just one), but the upgrade from 2.0 to 2.2 for RedHat is, AFAIK, rather strange, and unadvised by RedHat themselves (last I checked).

So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he needs to reinstall. He has no problem with this, and I've recommend Debian, but no matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS STILL frozen, and not the officially released version, so he's not comfortable switching to it.
So that leaves him with RedHat, since he understands it.

Also, as you mentioned, kernel 2.4 is out now, however many "known problems" it has, it is out. 2.2 has "known problems" as well, it just has less of them. Which means that Debian, for all it's good things (and I am using it, and I will continue to use it, because I like it), is SLOW in it's release schedule, and this IS a deterrent for some intelligent people, who are LEARNING Linux.

I don't find the argument of a slow distribution schedule silly in the least, and to be perfectly honest, I find the attitude rather condescending.

Linux is a wonderful tool. We all know it. But it IS just that, a tool. If a distribution, no matter how good it's intentions, can't keep up, then it will be relegated to the footers of history, and the world will turn around it.

I don't want to see this happen with Debian.

I apologize for the rant, and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much, but this attitude is one of the things that's personally stopping me from learning more about Linux. Some of us learn slower, or just differently. Seeing all the pluses of Debian, including the philosophy behind it (which I happen to agree with), I get frustrated having to tell people, who are less than comfortable with Linux, to use an (IMHO) inferior distribution, merely to get the options that they need.

Thanks for the read.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Reply to: