Re: Which OS? Was "I do consider Ubuntu to be Debian" , Ian Murdock

["Michael M." <mcubed@slashmail.org>]

On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 19:39 +0200, Joe Hart wrote:

> The problem with Ubuntu is that while it is based on Debian, several key
> items are different (restricted modules, sudo/root, etc.) to make it not
> appealing to many Debian purists.  Sidux on the other hand offers 100%
> compatibility with Debian, and some really smart people helping smooth
> any bumps one might experience with it.  Sidux is Sid, with a custom
> kernel and a few really good scripts.
> 
> For Debian people who might be afraid of running Sid, Sidux might be
> just the answer that they were looking for.  However, I would have to
> admit that it might be dangerous, and Etch is the safe bet.  It might
> not have the latest packages, but it will work as promised.


What would be the differences between running Sidux and Sid?  The [1]
"Why Should I Use Sidux?" page seems to stress security & package
timeliness over stability, so I'm wondering whether Sidux is any more
stable than Sid.  It kind of sounds like the main purpose of Sidux is to
provide a shortcut to Sid, without having to install Debian stable or
testing and upgrading.  Am I missing something?

"100% compatibility with Debian" is a good -- actually, a great --
thing, in my book.  I used the late, lamented Libranet for a time,
before using Debian proper, and I thought the compatibility factor was
very important in making it an excellent distro.  Most distros forked
off Debian don't aim for that.

But it looks like Sidux uses KDE.  Would it work just as well with
Gnome, or are some Sidux alterations so KDE-oriented that there'd be no
point to using the distro if you weren't a KDE user?  (I'm not.)

[1] http://sidux.com/index.php?module=pnWikka&tag=whysidux


-- 
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions
of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to
dream." --S. Jackson