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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/js271v$5le$1...@dough.gmane.org
