0xdeadbeef wrote: > The Ubuntu ones. > >> the time, they are the same, but Debian is all about stability and >> long term support, whereas Ubuntu is about a new version every six months
> It wouldn't have changed anything, would it? Still the new binary > package would not run on an "ancient" Debian. I expect it would as the Debian folks don't consider a couple of years ago to be ancient history. Its the Ubuntu folks who keep running forward. >> Your 5.10 is ancient, specifically four and a half years old. > Well, "ancient" is a relative term. If I would have decided to install > XP when I setup my MP3 server, I wouldn't have been forced to reinstall > a new OS to update an application. Perhaps, but in Ubuntu land, even a year is too old to expect support. I had problems with upgrading a 7.10 to 8.04, and so held off until 8.10 was out and patched. Then I found that you can/could not upgrade from 7.10 to 8.10, you had to do the incremental steps. Made me really grumble. >> When I was doing serious Windows development, I would schedule time to >> do a format c: and reinstall from the CD every six months or so. > I only reinstalled XP twice since I bought it several years ago and > both times it was because of a complete hardware change. Users don't have to reinstall as often as developers do, but even for casual use, the Registry and DLL hell drive me to trash it every few years. I don't do professional development on Windows anymore, so my frequency of format c: & reinstall is a lot lower. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
