question about Debian
Hi,
at the risk of starting yet another uncontrollable thread...
On 5 Jun 2002 at 8:37, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Debian will never make it to perfect 6 month release cycles. To
> use Debian you must acclimate to apt-get and the "we release
> every day" credo. Although we call it "unstable" what we really
> mean is "changing". If you choose to not update then you have a
> fairly stable box.
Oh boy, I learned that lesson. I had the box running for several weeks, when, late at
night, it struck my fancy to install another package. Like ncftp or sumsuch.
That package was no longer available, I was advised to run 'apt-get update' first... and
then found myself downloading a new version of about every package I had installed, just
to get that 200kb-piece I actually wanted.
Now, I developed the habit of updating at least once a week, and admittedly never even
wondered why, until I saw Sean's lines above...
Why is Debian a 'changing' distribution? Don't get me wrong: I got used to it, it's
alright for me, but: why?
While I'm about it, there's more I'd like to know. Like, what is wrong with 2.4 kernels?
Still running 2.2 and don't know what I'm missing, either, but I'm wondering. The 2.2 /
2.4 issue seems to be a popular topic, but I never got the point.
And, finally, since my fist encounter a few months ago, woody has been stable enough for
me. Will the 'testing' distribution always be reasonably stable, and does 'stable'
actually mean 'rock solid'? Or was it just my luck that I arrived at a time when woody was
already mature enough to be usable?
cu,
Schnobs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: