Le Mercredi, 5 Janvier 2011 13:30:06 +0100, Raffaele Morelli <raffaele.morelli@xxxxxxxxx> a Ãcrit : > +1 and it is usually called "Debian stable" :-) Debian is used at work and in practice it seems that clinging to Debian stable only is not done. sources.list files has many other repositories such as Debian testing and Debian unstable and there's always a good compelling reason of some sort to do so. Then it becomes a guru type of thing to be able to fix an upgrade on such a system, especially when some of the Debian work tools are seemingly (unless the source is studied) black boxes as far as reporting the nature of errors. Hence the guru type of thing. Not to mention the abusive use of "-e" in all bash install scripts which simply says: there's an error, I don't care about it, I exit w/o telling anything else even though I'm at the best place to know what to report to aid troubleshooting. Way to go. Although not as behind as for instance RHEL 5, a Debian purely stable will certainly not have any of the upstream changes made last year. Some CVEs are backported, although features are not. Having always heard in respectable terms about Debian, if not religious terms :-), seeing it applied on products and workstations in a practical day-to-day production setting with all the complications it also has, simply made me see it as another distro. Perhaps a bit better than others regarding upgrades if you only move from stable to stable w/o mixed sources.list, but really not by that much. Any other distro following a same 2-years between releases model could afford stable upgrades from one stable to another stable I presume. Ah well. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
