Re: Install Debian for desktop
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 02:33:21PM +0200, Robert Ian Smit wrote:
> With some of the major applications reaching 1.x, I believe now is the
> time to give Linux another shot. Besides I don't want to upgrade to
> WinXP.
Heh ...
> I do have a few questions about package-management.
>
> Once Woody becomes stable, do the packages (even if unchanged) require
> upgrading?
There are security updates, but (with the very, very occasional
exception) no other changes.
> Where do I go for packages that are not yet part of one of the dists?
Third-party packagers often put their packages in a repository that apt
can understand, so you can add the line they give to
/etc/apt/sources.list and have those packages upgraded automatically.
> If I install software in /usr/local, as I understand it, I bypass Debian
> package management.
That's right.
> If I want to run current software (as in Redhat or Mandrake current)
> will I need to install a lot of software in usr/local?
>
> Basically I want to know if it's possible to have a system that respects
> the Debian guidelines, but is more up to date in regards to
> desktop/application software?
If you run stable, yes. I prefer running testing or unstable on desktop
systems, for a couple of reasons:
* The sorts of things that get fixed in testing/unstable but that take
a long time to propagate to stable are often usability improvements
and up-to-date versions of applications; these usually don't matter
much on a server but make desktop life much more pleasant.
* I'm comfortable with the system and know how to recover if anything
goes wrong in the middle of an upgrade, and this is easier anyway
when you have physical access compared to when you're working on a
server.
Testing and unstable aren't for everyone, of course. If you prefer to
stay with stable, it's certainly possible to run more up-to-date
software by careful use of /usr/local (hint: while the packages in
unstable will generally say they depend on newer versions of libc6 and
so on, that doesn't mean you can't recompile them to get something that
runs on a stable system), but it takes a bit more work.
> I want to avoid format disks and install again every three months, but
> rather have a stable, open-ended system that I can adapt to my needs.
By stable I take it you mean "working" rather than necessarily the
Debian meaning of stable, which certainly ought to include "working" but
starts out as something more like "static".
As for reformatting and reinstalling, that shouldn't ever be necessary.
One of the reasons that's often quoted for Debian's installation being
less slick than much of the rest of the system is that nobody ever needs
to install more than once. There are Debian systems around that have
been upgraded smoothly for six or seven years.
> I hope I have made clear what I want to do and would like to know about
> experiences from other people. Please tell me if I am wrong in choosing
> Debian for my needs. I want to and have time to learn, but would like to
> have an indication whether my goals are reachable.
Your goals are certainly reachable, most especially if you have the time
and inclination to learn.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: