Re: Customized Debian - Was: What are some common problems when using Debian GNU / LINUX?
Le Lun 21 janvier 2013 10:46, Ralf Mardorf a écrit :
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:01 +0100, Anthony Campbell
> <ac@acampbell.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Jan 2013, berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> If you uncheck them all, as I usually do, you start with a system
>>> with almost nothing. Even "less" is not present in such an installation
>>> :D
>>>
>>>
>> I keep a list of all the packages I normally use and then get the same
>> ones when I install on a new computer. (Obviously this doesn't work for
>> your very first install.)
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>> For a normal usage, testing is better, even if the project claims it
>>> is not for production environment. More recent kernels and drivers
>>> which means more supported hardware, and updated web browsers are some
>>> obvious interesting points here. They are simply the most obvious.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> I'd say you are generally better off using Sid. The name "Unstable"
>> unfortunately gives the impression that it is unsafe, but this is
>> misleading. A quick search for "debian unstable vs testing" will
>> produce plenty of discussion, mostly favouring Sid. See for example
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html and
>> http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/12/20/5-reasons-why-debian-unstable-does-
>> not-deserve-its-name/
>>
>> Quotes from the second of these:
>>
>>
>> "High impact security vulnerabilities will usually be quickly fixed in
>> Stable and Unstable. The stable upload is done by the security team
>> while the unstable one is made by the maintainer. Testing will usually
>> get the fix through the package uploaded to Unstable, so testing users
>> get security updates with a delay."
>>
>> "For less serious vulnerabilities, itâ??s entirely possible that stable
>> does not get any update at all. In that case, unstable/testing users
>> are better served since they will get the fix with the next upstream
>> version anyway."
>>
>> I've been using Sid on all my computers for many years, except for one
>> which I use for lectures and cannot risk falling over just before it's
>> needed. It's been a long time since I encountered a show-stopper after
>> an upgrade.
>>
>> "In most cases, you can save yourself by downgrading to the version
>> available in Testing. Or by finding a work-around in the bug tracking
>> system. Or by not upgrading because you have apt-listbugs installed and
>> you have been warned about the problem."
>>
>> This is what I do too.
>>
I did not known about apt-listbugs, but I have to admit that using
unstable is not as "dangerous" as officially claimed, and my computers
actually runs fine with it.
Well, except one which is using stable, because it is very old.
The point between being very old (more than 10 years) and up-to-date stuff
is that I have noticed more than one softwares becoming more and more
bloated for nothing in time.
Since I am not using DE since some moment in 2012 (can't remember the
month) but a simple window manager and a collection of tools, I guess I
could not move it to more recent stuff, but since it works perfectly (it
is a simple jukebox/file server - well... a file server of 80GB :D ) , is
my last computer able to read PATA disks and to use old joysticks, so it
can also be used for very old games, eventually), I can see no reason to
do so.
About various advantages of sid against testing... well... I never thought
about them.
But I'm a newcomer in linux world, I'm using Debian as my first distro,
and as my main computer OS since less than 3 years, I still have many
tricks to learn. This is why the mailing list is very instructive for me.
Reply to: