Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)
Adam Scriven wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I think your point is well taken. I would argue:
1) The switch from RedHat to Debian is a reinstall. Going from RedHat
5.2 to 6 is a reinstall. One's not a whole lot harder than the other,
as far as I know.
2) If he were *already* a Debian user, the switch to 2.2 would have been
*extremely* easy, without having to upgrade much else besides the kernel
(I know; I've done it). My recollection is that I just had to grab the
kernel source package from unstable and didn't have to change *anything*
else.
3) Point 2 implies that that will be the situation for future kernels,
so he won't run into this hassle (complete reinstallation) again if he
goes to Debian. You're really not in the world of OS versions anymore:
you can really mix and match in a way that the Debian package system
with its dependencies makes very safe.
You've probably already told him all this, but thought I'd mention it.
Reply to: