Re: Choosing a distribution (was: Just a simple query)
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Joe
<joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
'Stability' and 'getting new software frequently' are incompatible.
Debian has three distributions running. The only one advertised and
called just 'Debian' is the Stable version. It receives quick fixes for
security bugs, but on the whole, no new software. The software version
which exists when it is released (roughly every two years) is the one
it keeps until the distribution is no longer supported. Stable is used
mostly for servers, which need exactly this behaviour, but it's also
the most suitable for new users, as like server administrators, they
don't like surprises.
Debian Testing is the testbed for Stable, and is probably roughly equal
to Fedora and openSUSE in this respect. It is frozen, probably six to
twelve months before a new Stable release, and after that does not
change dramatically, though software versions may be upgraded. It mostly
works almost fully, and is a good choice for a desktop once you are
able to use the upgrade system easily and can therefore fix simple
problems. The current Testing is not yet frozen.
Debian Unstable is the testbed for Testing, where new software is first
integrated into a Debian system, and hence is likely to cause trouble
for users fairly often. It will have the latest software, but at any
time there are often things which don't work, or work badly. They are
generally repaired quickly, within a day or two, but Unstable is only
recommended for people with the experience to fix things, and with
at least one more Internet-connected computer.
Okay,
what I meant is that Debain is for Testing for the self stability only
(not commercialized like Fedora for RHEL...). Of course, it should be
the testbed for Testing before integrating into the stable version, but
that it does (...I am sure) for only the free use of operating system,
worldwide, of course. Unstable is good only for tech-wizards, but for
me, who are new in Linux and who really get less time to work on it, I
guess, instability matters a lot, since as you (also) say that new users
don't expect surprises out of the box but only a rock solid system with
no viruses attacking the machine and for that Debain definitely
provides the solution, as all (and you) say.
There are also many systems based on Debian, which usually aim to make
some aspects easier for beginners. The best-known one today is Ubuntu,
which is almost a dirty word here, because some of its publisher's
policies are apparently aimed at improving popularity at the expense of
flexibility and power, and possibly stability.
For
Ubuntu, I guess only LTS version (I read on the website) provide this.
All others are for again tech-wizards (according to me).
Ubuntu does, however, install easily on new hardware, and sometimes
Debian Stable has problems there.
I didn't
know this and that's why asked. Thanks for this information. However, my
hardware is not that old but is not shining too. I guess (not sure)
Debian could work....Ubuntu LTS works (live CD).
Knoppix is generally felt to be best
of all in this respect, but Knoppix really is just a live-CD
distribution, and is not suitable for installation as it cannot be
upgraded.
If it cannot be upgraded, it would be stable version with no possible changes (for what I know, may be I am wrong).
It is extremely useful for finding out what software is
necessary for difficult hardware, and Debian users usually keep it
available for this reason. Both Knoppix and Ubuntu are real Debian
underneath, using the same software installation system, and mostly the
same system file locations, but they draw heavily on Sid rather than
the more stable variants, so they can be a bit unreliable.
But
for what I heard, Debian is a rock solid distribution (like openSUSE),
so it must be very good, excellent. If some hardware issues come with
Debian (as you say), are these with only the old PCs or with newer ones
also? However, I have a PC which is neither old nor new.
Thx.
Reply to: