[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re (4): Dying Iceweasel.



On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:17:02 -0800, peasthope wrote:

(...)

>> People who is interested in the Enterprise based version will know
> 
> What about the other 90 or 99% who just want a working browser?

That they stick to the default browser (e.g., Epiphany)?

>> I was referring to the latest version of the stable branch, of course
>> (release).
> 
> Sorry, I read "latest" in the mathematical sense.

Well, maths are not usually confronted with common sense: if you see 
several versions available and you don't know what they are, you can ask 
before blindly installing one of them :-)

>> Also, compare this output with the one provided by apt-get.
> 
> root@dalton:/etc/apt# apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> root@dalton:/etc/apt#

Uh? Nothing? What a surprise :-?
 
> So until the next system upgrade, use apt-get rather than aptitude.

Well, I would be also interested in deciphering aptitude logic but to be 
sincere, I'm not an aptitude user, I always go with apt-get, I find it to 
be more clear and comprensible...
 
> http://wiki.debian.org/Iceweasel#How_to_install_Iceweasel_.28Firefox.29
> instructed to install the Debian release.  I've modified the text to
> suggest the backport.  The page might bear further improvements, if
> anyone is interested.

Nice. 

But I still prefer to get the packages directly from Mozilla site, 
they're always up-to-date and easy to install (but don't put this in the 
wiki or you'll be prosecuted -just joking :-P-).

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


Reply to: