On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:24:41PM +0200, Ivan Savcic wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Andrew Sackville-West > <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote: > > Might as well draw some attention with a good subject line ;-P > > > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:02AM +0200, Ivan Savcic wrote: > > > > > > While we're on the topic, can anyone sum it up, what do people > > > generally think is "bad" with Debian? > > > > The only thing I think is bad about debian is the perception of it > > being crusty and outdated. It comes from a basic misunderstanding > > of how the various debian branches work. More than once I've spoken to > > people who had that feeling about debian until they actually tried it > > and learned how it worked. > > But mixing branches (stable, testing and unstable) is a no-no, because > they depend on different versions of libraries. ?? who said anything about mixing branches? (though I do it quite often to maintain build-deps...) I merely suggest that people who think debian is old and crusty just don't understand what "stable" means in a debian context. > > On the other hand, Backports aside, the list of unofficial APT > repositories at apt-get.org is either outdated or the repositories > listed there are, because few of them have etch supported. Any other > source? not a clue. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature