On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 05:41:45AM -0700, Michael M. wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 16:42 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote: > > > If Debian worried about sticking to a schedule rather than worrying > > about the stability of the product, you'd hear about a few more > > missing astronauts and a couple of billion dollars gone from (I'm > > going on a limb here) some bank data centers. Obviously this is all > > worst case scenario, but it's what Debian is primarily made for. > > Which begs the question, "Is Debian made for me?" > <rant mode="pedantic">Begging the question is a logical fallacy. What you are talking about is "raising the question."</rant> To answer your question, however, you must examine what it is that you want. If you want a toolbox with which to build, then yes Debian is for you (Gentoo or LFS likely would be as well). If you want ready-made then you need FC, Ubuntu, Mandriva or something like that. > > You don't have to defend Debian, at least not to me. Just don't try to > pretend that it is the perfect solution for everyone. The things you > are suggesting are routinely and actively discouraged on this list -- > apt-pinning, mixing branches. Yes you *can* do it, but be prepared to > face the chorus of "you should be sticking to stable" when you ask for > help with something that's not working. Likewise, you could make Debian The reason for that is becuase people who don't know what they are doing *should not* be doing those things. Such statements are meant to give pause, to make people consider "should I *really* do this?" It's sort of like the old "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it." Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature