Absolutely.
It's called vim.
On 10 Oct 2014 08:58, "Gordon Scott" wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 20:31 +0100, Keith Edmunds wrote:
> > I kept out of the systemd debates at the time, but once the decision was
> > made, I got myself a quick intro to it from one of my tech guys. I was
> > very fav
Thanks for all the info. I think I will go with Debian stable, but stick
with Arch on my laptop.
Leo
--
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
-
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 20:31 +0100, Keith Edmunds wrote:
> I kept out of the systemd debates at the time, but once the decision was
> made, I got myself a quick intro to it from one of my tech guys. I was
> very favourably impressed. I don't want to start a war about it, but it
> isn't the demon (he
I kept out of the systemd debates at the time, but once the decision was
made, I got myself a quick intro to it from one of my tech guys. I was
very favourably impressed. I don't want to start a war about it, but it
isn't the demon (hehe) it's been made out to be by some.
--
Linux for Web Devloper
On 9 October 2014 03:55, Dr Adam John Trickett
wrote:
> Both are probably best managed by running aptitude updates daily, and safe-
> upgades fairly regularly (e.g. weekly) but you need to watch what is being
> upgraded as sometime bits of it stops working. On the Wheezy cycle I lost X
> for a wee
On Wednesday 08 Oct 2014 10:24:59 Leo wrote:
> I use Arch on my laptop and it takes some maintenance when I upgrade
> (e.g. merging configs, fixing package clashes), and I was wondering how
> it compared to Debian Unstable? Has anyone used both; does Debian
> Unstable require more/less/similar amou
On 08/10/14 22:38, Lisi wrote:
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 20:20:39 Keith Edmunds wrote:
Stable plus backports is, arguably, even better, as then you
have security updates as well.
This is what I go for and would recommend highly - but then I like an easy
life with my desktop. ;-)
Personall
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 20:20:39 Keith Edmunds wrote:
> Stable plus backports is, arguably, even better, as then you
> have security updates as well.
This is what I go for and would recommend highly - but then I like an easy
life with my desktop. ;-)
Lisi
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mail
Unstable doesn't receive security updates other than those the maintainer
might upload (ie, the security team don't get involved with unstable).
Testing is a good compromise between stability and the latest versions of
applications. Stable plus backports is, arguably, even better, as then you
have
OK, although I thought I'd read that it can take longer for things to be
fixed in testing because of the process that the updates have to go
through. And that it can take longer to receive security updates than
either stable or unstable.
Leo
On 08/10/14 16:52, Alex Dicks wrote:
On 08/10/14 1
On 08/10/14 16:33, Leo wrote:
I want to run something with newer software (I currently use Xubuntu as
well as Arch) than Debian stable.
You're better off trying "testing" (currently "jessie") than "unstable"
(nicknamed "sid").
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Web Interface: ht
I'm just using the standard repos of core, extra and community. As for
the upgrade I'm just doing -Syy and -Su.
Leo
On 08/10/14 17:00, Michael Daffin wrote:
How are you upgrading arch, what repos do you have enabled? I have never
had any real problem updating archlinux, in fact overall I have
Errm, I didn't have anything specific in mind. I guess I just thought
that all the software I currently use in Xubuntu and Arch would be a few
versions further on that in Debian stable. And that Debian unstable
would be more in line with them (given I thought that was what Ubuntu
was based off)
How are you upgrading arch, what repos do you have enabled? I have never
had any real problem updating archlinux, in fact overall I have had less
problems with pacman then with either apt-get or yum.
On 8 Oct 2014 10:25, "Leo" wrote:
> I use Arch on my laptop and it takes some maintenance when I
On 8 October 2014 16:33, Leo wrote:
> I want to run something with newer software (I currently use Xubuntu as well
> as Arch) than Debian stable.
I guess I was after what newer software you mean: if it's major apps
like web browsers then it's pretty simple to run the latest Chrome and
Firefox on
I want to run something with newer software (I currently use Xubuntu as
well as Arch) than Debian stable.
Leo
On 08/10/14 16:29, Imran Chaudhry wrote:
Hi Leo,
Why do you want to run Debian unstable instead of Debian stable?
I've never run "sid" (the Debian Unstable codename) but I know peopl
On 8 October 2014 10:24, Leo wrote:
> I use Arch on my laptop and it takes some maintenance when I upgrade (e.g.
> merging configs, fixing package clashes), and I was wondering how it
> compared to Debian Unstable? Has anyone used both; does Debian Unstable
> require more/less/similar amount of ma
I use Arch on my laptop and it takes some maintenance when I upgrade
(e.g. merging configs, fixing package clashes), and I was wondering how
it compared to Debian Unstable? Has anyone used both; does Debian
Unstable require more/less/similar amount of maintenance to Arch?
Thanks,
Leo
--
Pleas
18 matches
Mail list logo
