Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use Debian testing for the desktop. Desktop users don't use stable, or at least use it with backports. And what's so unbearable for the server? As others pointed out, RHEL ships even an earlier version of the kernel.
My mum is quite happy with Debian stable on her desktop, and I don’t plan to switch from Wheezy to Jessie on my laptop for a while either. What’s wrong with stable on desktops?
Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
71–80 of 132 posts
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
My mum is quite happy with Debian stable on her desktop, and I don’t plan to switch from Wheezy to Jessie on my laptop for a while either. What’s wrong with stable on desktops?
Software is updated too slowly, which is not the best option.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use Debian testing for the desktop. Desktop users don't use stable, or at least use it with backports. And what's so unbearable for the server? As others pointed out, RHEL ships even an earlier version of the kernel.
My mum is quite happy with Debian stable on her desktop, and I don’t plan to switch from Wheezy to Jessie on my laptop for a while either. What’s wrong with stable on desktops?
I've been using CentOS 5.9 on a desktop quite happily, I just compiled R from source to get a more recent version. Worth mentioning that Iceweasel (aka Firefox) was on the ESR channel so getting updates fairly regularly.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, maybe, but only maybe, there might be software that is not split up into lib, bin, doc directories and that doesn't log into /var/log?! There actually is quite some software like that and sometimes it even has a technical reason. Especially some commercial and proprietary software that runs on Windows, HP-UX, SCO, AIX, Solaris and Linux tends to go the "easy way" of packaging and just put stuff in one place…
And how does your point lead to the conclusion that installing such third-party software to /usr/local/whatever is a bad idea? I can just run 'ls /usr/local' to see a list of non-conforming software.
This is merely a convention, not set into the 2.3 standard apart from the naming 'tertiary hierarchy' otherwise implying this, but it's nonetheless a widespread enough convention — notably in use by every single configure/make/make install (and more) source distribution out there, whose default PREFIX is /usr/local — that we can expect it to be standard behavior.
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
and with upstart &co
I'm unable to determine if you mean upstart to be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing, or anything in between. To me, switching back from Ubuntu to Debian was a blessing. And I simply cannot understand this need to decrease boottimes. My laptop boots into Debian under 12 seconds. That is pretty fast. Under Ubuntu, I timed it at 10 seconds. 2 seconds boottime? Is that what this upstart/systemd hastle is all about? I just do…
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#76Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#77My sources.list has the word "testing" all this while. Should I change it to "wheezy" now? I'm asking because I guess new packages (in large numbers!) will start trickling down to testing/jessie and the possibility of breakage is high. What is a reasonable time to expect this "rush" to slowdown or come back to the pace of "normal" testing? I can probably live with my existing "testing" for say 1-2 months, after which…
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says the original developers stopped supporting it? Head on over to http://www.kernel.org and you'll see that 3.2 has longterm support (ie the kernel developers backport relevant fixes and patches). There are more details at https://www.kernel.org/releases.html including end of life dates. Given the time span between Debian releases, 3.2 is an excellent choice, if not the only one.
Right, this may be true for the kernel, but it can't be and it is not true for all of Debian's packages. Case in point Django: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/internals/security/ Since the release of Django 1.4, version 1.2 stopped receiving security fixes by the Django development team. What that means is that a Debian maintainer (which probably is not a Django developer) would have to hack any new security fi…
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#79My sources.list has the word "testing" all this while. Should I change it to "wheezy" now? I'm asking because I guess new packages (in large numbers!) will start trickling down to testing/jessie and the possibility of breakage is high. What is a reasonable time to expect this "rush" to slowdown or come back to the pace of "normal" testing? I can probably live with my existing "testing" for say 1-2 months, after which…
FWIW, I've been running Debian "testing" on my machine since 2001-ish and I've never done anything special near releases. Except maybe rejoice at all the old packages finally getting upgraded. :-)
Re: Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" released
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I've been running Debian "testing" on my machine since 2001-ish and I've never done anything special near releases. Except maybe rejoice at all the old packages finally getting upgraded. :-)
Didn't you run into any breakage of packages? I mean there's this mad rush into testing right after a new release. I'm thinking of running wheezy for a couple of months until the storm calms down.