On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:06 +0000, Tony Whitmore wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:53:53 +0100, Dr Adam J Trickett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 at 10:22:15AM +0100, Phillip Chandler wrote: > >> So I was wondering if you lads / Ladies had any suggestions. Im wanting > >> to get back to Debian as I prefer the rolling release & long term > >> support, rather than the Ubuntu 6 month release cycle. Ubuntu has been > >> great as a step into the Linux world, and has taught me many wonderfull > >> things, but now Im eager to move on. > > > > Which is why I run Debian. > > Each to their own, and choice is a wonderful thing etc. but I think it's > worth pointing out that Ubuntu makes Long Term Support (LTS) releases, > which guarantee bug and security fixes for three years on the desktop and > five years on the server. That's pretty long term, IMHO. > > I'm not too sure what Phillip means by "rolling release" though. Both > Debian and Ubuntu have allow for in-place upgrades and running development > versions. > > Tony >
I could be corrected here. But if you have your debian sources list set to testing (I think) you can basically keep your system (and software) up-to-date with the latest versions, without having to reinstall when a new version is release. PCLos does this (I think). This rolling release is sort of the same as windows. In businesses, they have a 4-5 yr life cycle of their PC's and Laptops, and they all mainly have XP installed on them. In fact the machines can be older than the 5 yrs. I dont think the Ubuntu Desktop is as long as 5 yrs, Im sure the 5 yrs is the server version. But a point here is that even if companies install an LTS, are they going to then have to upgrade all machines after 3 yrs, which is (i believe) the length of the desktop LTS. I read that with the latest Ubuntu LTS, they decided to put in firefox 3 beta, so that they could support that version for the x years that the LTS goes for. But if they had gone for the stable version of 2.0.016/17 then Ubuntu would have had to support ver 2.x for five years, even though firefox had stopped supporting it in favour of ver 3.x. Hence why (in my mind) Ubuntu took the risky road of including beta software. A post I read stated that once a version is in the final release, Ubuntu doesnt have another release of that software untill the next distro release. Which means if you install Firefox 2.0.0.17 in 7.10, after ff stops supporting it, your then forced to not only upgrade your distro to ver 8.04, but if you wanted to upgrade firefox to ver 3 you would have to install from outside the repo's. Which as we all know, is frowned upon. If you install from outside the repos, and you stuff your machine, then your politely told not to post to the user forums. -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------
