Re: oh no something is definitly wrong adieu debian.
On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 13:30 +0200, berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
>
> Le 27.08.2013 13:12, Ralf Mardorf a écrit :
> > Some of those distros are much older than Debian is.
>
> Well, sorry to go inside your discussion ( which is more fun than
> anything else, for me ), but that point surprised me. I am not a linux
> distro expert, and only really used Debian ( tried Ubuntu, backtrack,
> archlinux and gentoo... only few hours, because I did not liked the 2
> first's packaging political - and gnome, which is the default for them -
> , for arch it was just broken even before a usable installation - xorg
> had broken dependency... arch was installed, but not *usable* for me. -
> and I never successfully compiled a gentoo system which just work when
> you start the computer... so, really fast tries, and only for gentoo I
> intend to try distro anew, to give it another chance. ) but IIRC, from
> stuff I had read here and there, the only older distro is slackware, am
> I wrong?
>
> I do not mean that age is a criteria of quality ( this would mean our
> 100 aged grandmothers are smarter and stronger than anyone else... I
> sincerely doubt it ;) ) but just wanted to know which other distro is so
> old.
Yes it's fun for me too.
"In mid-1992, Peter MacDonald founded SLS, which offered the first
distribution to contain elements such as X and TCP/IP.[citation needed]
The company was sending a set of 40 floppy disks containing Slackware to
people who wanted to get Linux.
Slackware (maintained by Patrick Volkerding) was initially based largely
on SLS, and the SUSE Linux distribution was originally a German
translation of Slackware. In 1994 Patrick Volkerding's scripts were
translated, accompanying the original S.u.S.E Linux 1.0 distribution,
which was a German version of Slackware, developed in close
collaboration with Volkerding. The floppies turned into CDs." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux_distributions#History
"The Debian Project grew slowly at first and released the first 0.9x
versions in 1994 and 1995. During this time it was sponsored by the Free
Software Foundation's GNU Project.[118] The first ports to other,
non-i386 architectures began in 1995, and the first 1.x version of
Debian was released in 1996." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#1993.E2.80.931998
Slackware and Suse came before Debian. Ok, you can consider a
"translation" as the same distro, but IMO it already was important work
to make Linux available for a huger userbase. You can consider those few
years as being not much earlier, but IMO even a few month are important
regarding to computer evolution. I'm not pro version hunting, but for
development at least current stable releases from upstream should be
available. Debian doesn't provide this. This doesn't make Debian less
good, but it makes it less good for development of some important Linux
userspace software.
The OP has got an issue with GNOME, go and report this issue to upstream
and they will reply that bugs are likely fixed for up-to-date stable
releases of GNOME. So regarding to this thread the things I mentioned
aren't just for fun, just the discussion is ridiculous, since the OP
already had proven that Debian has got an disadvantage.
Reply to: