Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 20th Oct 2002 17:14 UTC
Debian and its clones "This is a critical review of Debian 3.0, but I want to say right from the start that I'm not trying to bait anyone. However I feel that reviewers often root for Debian as the open-source underdog, and give it marks which it doesn't deserve. If RedHat 8.0 came out with installation software like Debian 3.0 it would be savaged. I think it's time for an honest review, to spur the Debian developers into making the best possible distribution. I really want Debian to succeed. I want to use it daily, and recommend it to my friends. But I can't do that right now and I think it's important people understand why." Read the review and its (already long) discussion at DebianPlanet.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Richard Fillion on Mon 21st Oct 2002 03:43 UTC

Here's a feature i thought of. I remember Eugenia saying that she didnt like it when RedHat (i think it was RedHat) put in software that did not work properly with their system. Afterall, it is RedHat's job. Well, i have yet to find a piece of software in Debian Stable that does not work as it should.

People dont seem to understand the whole Stable/Testing/Unstable thing. Its not like running a beta really. Cause we all know the "base" of debian doesnt change _much_, so all thats changing is the packages. Its basically like choosing how new you want your packages to be. Want the absolute latest? Run Debian Unstable, want to be a bit more conservative? Run Debian Testing (which usually has packages as new as the other distros). Want to have a system that wont crash? Run Debian Stable. I run Stable, and is the software that old? No, Mozilla 1.0 is fine for me. But if you _want_ the newest stuff, you CAN get it, and it should install just fine too.

The whole "debian is outdated" is an attitude that needs to go away. It's really not true.