On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:16:09PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: | On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:09:16PM -0200, Leandro GuimarÃes Faria Corcete Dutra wrote: | > Em Ter, 2004-01-06 Ãs 08:18, Michael B Allen escreveu:
| > > What surprises can a RH user expect?
| > the fact that stable is
| > obsolete, so one is almost forced to upgrade to testing.
|
| I don't think this last is as true as people keep saying. Stable's quite
| usable.
Stable is quite usable, unless you are used to (and dependent on) new
features in new versions of software that isn't in stable. Coming
from Red Hat 7.3 this might not be such a major factor because RH7.3
is older than Woody is.
When I first switched, from RH 6.1 to 7.0 and then to potato, I found
I was missing a lot of things. OTOH, my RH6.1 system was newer in
several ways than the 7.0 installation was because I was following
upstream development on a number of things (including gnome). I
couldn't even run gnome on potato, because my panel config files
utilzed features from the newer panel that wasn't in potato. (which
is my own fault, for keeping my config files :-)) Once I became
familiar with potato, though, I upgraded to sid because (IIRC) there
was no "testing" at the time.
I think it comes down to personal expectations. If you expect the
"latest and greatest" then you trade off tried-and-true stability for
it. I fall in this category. However, I agree that there is nothing
inherently wrong with debian stable, apart from the agonizingly long
release cycles. (but we won't go there in this thread or on this list
:-))
-D
--
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to
look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from
being polluted by the world.
James 1:27
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
