61–70 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have mentioned: $ sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade In this particular case, from 7.1 to 7.3, "dist-upgrade" is not needed (you aren't upgrading from one distribution to another (e.g. from 6 to 7)).
This is not Ubuntu. Better use 'aptitude': sudo aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade
I've been using debian for years and always just used apt-get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not Ubuntu. Better use 'aptitude': sudo aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade
Why is it better to use aptitude on debian? I've been using debian for years and always just used apt-get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not Ubuntu. Better use 'aptitude': sudo aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade
Why is it better to use aptitude on debian? I've been using debian for years and always just used apt-get.
Furthermore:
http://superuser.com/questions/93437/aptitude-vs-apt-get-whi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have mentioned: $ sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade In this particular case, from 7.1 to 7.3, "dist-upgrade" is not needed (you aren't upgrading from one distribution to another (e.g. from 6 to 7)).
This is not Ubuntu. Better use 'aptitude': sudo aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it better to use aptitude on debian? I've been using debian for years and always just used apt-get.
For a start, aptitudes command line options are less confusing and more powerful. Furthermore: http://superuser.com/questions/93437/aptitude-vs-apt-get-whi...
I can see the search being useful though.
Seeing as my muscle memory is set at apt-get, i'll stick with it for the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need that upgrade. The only difference between upgrade and dist-upgrade is that dist-upgrade can add and remove packages, while upgrade will decline to make any upgrades that would require this. As such, dist-upgrade is almost always the one you meant.
In my experience, there's value in doing a standard upgrade before a dist-upgrade. It seems to help to fully update the system doing "upgrade" before "doing the upgrade" (dist-upgrade) that will uninstall things... That said, it can obviously be a bit of a waste to upgrade everything like gnome just to uninstall it immediately... As such, I typically manually uninstall large tasks then upgrade then dist-upgrade and m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try it on a VM like VirtualBox (free, OS X supported). Among the advantages, you get vastly superior hardware support, particularly with the trackpad. Source: Running Debian Wheezy on a 2011 Air. edit to add: Here's a quick list what running Debian on a VM gives you: * Seamless full-screen linux with full hardware access (e.g. GPU) * Advantage of native OS X drivers (particularly the amazing trackpad -- linux drivers…
However, performance is shite. I ended up going for a native install and you can appreciate the difference. That is, if you run Gnome 3 (which is a pile of shite as well). When on other DMs, if you can call xmonad a dm, virtual box was just awesome, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
I recently gave Debian a try and one thing that surprised me, coming from Arch, is that the tool to install software, apt-get, can't list what software has already been installed. You have to use dkpg to get that information. Even funnier, I found the answer for that on the Arch Wiki page on Pacmac Rosetta: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Rosetta
Can anyone point me to a step by step for how to get debian running on a macbook air? I've googled it and tried at least 4 different approaches, to no avail. I'm talking about a macbookair3,1 (late 2010 11").
I'd recommend using Debian testing instead of stable for that. (testing is preferred in most personal use cases if you don't run in a corporate environment/server or similar) http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ I am not sure, but you may need the additional firmware files listed on that page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what is surprising or funny about that. It's pure Unix philosophy, different commands within a coherent management system. The opposite would be the surprising thing, this is not Windows. There are managers that do the whole thing in one single executable that calls others, even with GUIs etc, for dumb people.
No it's not, it's just how things turned out. The different commands have a whole bunch of separate options, and the fact that they turned out to be split upon certain lines isn't a reflection of some "philosophy". (Also, I'm glad you find it so easy to find ways to convince yourself you're not a dumb person.)
Debian is pretty much the only "major" distro that does sensible package management and history shows it just beats the rest at what it does. Other than Debian, I value Slackware because its approach works for what it does. These two make Gentoo and Arch pointless. Ubuntu and Mint work differently and with different goals. I can also rescue Puppy, SLAX, and Stalix. Rest I've tried are basically a waste of time and a result of not knowing what's out there combined with "Not Invented Here" syndrome.