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

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

Adam Scriven <scriven@lore.com> writes:

> >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.

A name is just a name ... (or, as Gertrude Stein puts it: a rose is a
rose is a rose) -- that is: STABLE in other distributions often seems
less stable as UNSTABLE in Debian. It merely is a label which someone
has set upon a bunch of programs.

> 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 

Well, one of the things he should learn is that Debian FROZEN indeed
seems more stable as other distributions which call themselves STABLE.

"Stephan Hachinger" <Stephan.Hachinger@gmx.de> writes:

> hamm (see the above issue). Some months later, I helped a friend who had
> problems with a SUSE setup. When I wanted to configure something, YAST
> crashed, and after this I was absolutely convinced of using debian and not
> SUSE because debian tools work reliably. SUSE has not even a tool like
> modconf!!!

You see the point? There you are with a version called STABLE which in
reality is *UNSTABLE*! (When had you such an experience with FROZEN

Regarding the kernel version I can here (with the so called UNSTABLE
woody) issue the command:

    $ apt-cache search kernel-image

and receive:

    kernel-image-2.2.17 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.2.17.
    kernel-image-2.2.17-compact - Linux kernel binary image.
    kernel-image-2.2.17-idepci - Linux kernel binary image.
    kernel-image-2.2.17-ide - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.2.17.
    kernel-image-2.4.0-test5 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.4.0-test5

(running the latter just now.)


Reply to: